Tiny Pineapple

My brother-in-law, Sam, shared the following insight last night:

“PEZ is the Steven Seagal of candies…”

Oddly enough, I found myself nodding in agreement.

• 

  Leigh

  January 27, 2007 3:42 PM

  Have you seen a picture of Stevie Boy lately? He’s turned into a tub! And he’s singing in a band? Who woulda’ thunk it. lol

• 

  Kate

  January 27, 2007 5:35 PM

  I’m afraid that Mentos® are the Air Supply of candies. Or MAYBE the Men at Work.

• 

  Kate

  January 27, 2007 5:44 PM

  That infers that Mike and Ike®’s are the Mickey Rooney of candies.

  VASTLY IMPORTANT FACTOID: Mike and Ike®’s are made by the very same company that makes Peeps®! They are the Dame Judi Dench of candies.

• 

  jenny

  January 28, 2007 11:43 PM

  CONTEXT OF SAM’S COMMENT (though the quote’s probably funnier without the context):

  I was chewing a strawberry Pez that Sam had just thrown at my head. I grimaced and mentioned that, if you breathed through your mouth while eating the strawberry Pez, there was a definite hint of fishiness. Grettir chewed a Pez, sniffed, wafted the scent/flavor both towards and away from his nose, rinsed his mouth with the spit-and-granules mixture, and told me that I was crazy.

  Sam, on the other hand, ate one and instantly agreed. “Yeah, that wasn’t the best. But Pez is the Steven Seagal of candies: you know exactly what you’re going to get when you start, so your expectations are automatically low.”

  And Peeps are not the Dame Judy Dench of candies. They’re more the “Jeeves and Wooster” Hugh Laurie of candies. The Judy Dench of candies would be, oh, Tangy Taffy: addictive, both sweet and zesty, predictably and consistently delicious. Peeps are more flapper-era P.G. Wodehouse: fluffy, sugary goodness.

  I’m finding this line of reasoning fascinating. Any other actor-to-candy parallels?

• 

  HoB1KenOB

  January 29, 2007 7:00 PM

  I believe that black licorice is the John Malkovich of candies: distinct, unique, bold; if you are an appreciator of the flavor, you can’t get enough, if you don’t like it, you don’t understand those who do; and it’s always showing up in unexpected mixes (i.e., Eragon?)

• 

  Kimball

  January 30, 2007 12:01 PM

  Actually, peeps can’t be included in the “candy” category at all. I’d place them a furlong below Drano (liquid or crystals) on the food pyramid. I’d also suggest replacing the e’s between the p’s with o’s to render a name that more appropriately captures their essence. Peeps are—and ever have been—an apocalyptic plague upon humanity.

• 

  Kate

  January 31, 2007 3:13 AM

  OHHHHH the Peeps® retorting and harrumphing I’d do if I could recall what clever things I’d already written… I wrote a semi-voluble comment about Peeps® and Hugh Laurie and Dame Judi Dench, but it had about 3,000 links in it and so it had to be “approved by the blogmaster” (is it “blogmaster?” - I suppose it could be “Blog King” or “Blog Ruler of the Blog Fiefdom - I cannot be expected to remember the new-fangled titles that kids make up these days).

  Therefore, my pithy hilarity (I say this betting that there’s at least a 75% chance that the thing will never surface, anyway, so no one will ever be the wiser) will have to languish in poor Grettir’s inbox while he continues his valiant fight against the Evil Hacking Scourge and Pestilence That Plague his Daily Existenceâ?¢.

  Either that, or his saintly editorial patience with my vociferousness has finally and inevitably run thin.

  I can drive people MAD - MAD I say!

• 

  chronicler

  January 31, 2007 9:06 AM

  Oh no, Abba-Zabbas are the ABBAs of candy! Everyone knows that! And yes, Mentos are the Air Supply.

• 

  jenny

  January 31, 2007 9:17 AM

  I’m telling mom you said “poops.”

• 

  HoB1KenOB

  January 31, 2007 4:33 PM

  You see, Kate, I too am a victim of said Blogmaster Inbox Backlog… I had written a brilliant comparison of Black Liquorice and John Malkovich which diasappeared into the oblivion, and in my post-dentist-visit state cannot possibly hope to reconstruct the brilliance. Tick. And, for the record, Peeps are manna. But only when months-old and hard as a rock.

• 

  Kate

  January 31, 2007 11:44 PM

  Hobie knows the truth; she comprehends the wonderment of the Peeps®. She’s MY Peep. And, Hobie, YOUR comment surfaced, you’ll notice (and a brilliant analogy it is), but mine did not. All is as it should be (in comment land, anyway).

  I do have a theory. There’s a mutated gene in Grettir’s family that causes a strong aversion* to the fluffy and delicious Peep®. It is very sad. Then again, so are “Monson arms” and “Lee legs.” Don’t get me started.

  
  

  *See “furlong below Drano (liquid or crystals) on the food pyramid.” Isn’t that sad?

• 

  jenny

  February 1, 2007 7:28 AM

  “Monson arms?” “Lee legs?” Bah. How about the unofficial Lynn family curse, spoken by Grettir himself in a moment of all-surpassing omniscient comprehension?: “The Lynns’ innate ability to succeed is surpassed only by their complete reluctance to do so.”

  In light of this sizeable genetic impediment, an irrational dislike of Peeps seems a minor flaw…

• 

  Rhapsidiomite

  February 4, 2007 10:45 PM

  Seagal post: Genius.