This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"It may be you could wrest some information from that dread machine."
11978 members | you are not logged in | 17 December 2018


December 26 2011

The New Yorker praises Jane Espenson's 'Husbands'. Emily Nussbaum says the web series is "totes adorbs."

Not sure that "Totes adorbs" is the best soundbite for a show. It puts me off it, to be honest. Quick someone say something about Husbands in the Queens English so I can feel ok about watching it.
You should feel ok about watching it simply because it is fucking hysterical. American slang really shouldn't put you off.
Well, if someone is put off by "totes adorbs", they're probably going to hate the show. So it's pretty much actually the perfect soundbite to tell people if they want in or not.
If someone would have led with some of the slang used in Buffy S1 when trying to sell it to me, I would have passed. Context is important.
"totes adorbs."

That's the way Cheek's character speaks. I approve of the sound bite and the series :)
Ummm, "American" slang might be too widely encompassing a word for it . . . .

Given the limitations of my web access, I don't think it's practical for me to try watching this, even if it sounded like my speed which, well . . . .
Ummm, for people who (I'm assuming) watched Buffy, Angel, Firefly and read Fray, I'm shocked at the level of condescension here. The English language is and always has been constantly changing. I don't care if Husbands isn't your thing but to be repulsed by playful slang and to be judgmental about it just seems off to me.
@Ivalaine Something in the Queens English to convince you?

Nathan Fillion is in episode 3. Any good? Works for me 'cos I think he's "totes adorbs", but I understand if not, he's an acquired taste.
One might more rationally expect the Spanish Inquisition than to expect anyone writing in The New Yorker to call anything "totes adorbs" and indeed this does not happen. Read the article (it's 2 pp.) and find out.
If "totes adorbs" is a turn off, maybe a webseries where a dude talks that way and finds a document in his pants is just not your thing. I don't think any quote selection would really change that.
Husbands is DEFINITELY worth taking the 30 or so minutes out of your day to watch. Especially if you're a Jane Espenson fan. And if you're not, how are you honestly on Whedonesque?

And yes, Nathan Fillion makes a cameo in one of the earlier episodes.
Personally, I just really, really, REALLY want a Season 2. Like yesterday.
Here's a link to a scan of the print version- it just showed up in my mailbox.

I'm with The One True b!X - if you're put off by "totes adorb" you're prolly not going to like most of "Husbands" - but then, you'll be missing a wonderful web series for no apparent reason.

(Refresher on Buffy slang: "Joan Collins 'tude", "5 by 5", "riding the mellow", "dump-o-gram", "Guiltapalooza", "otherwhere", "sparkage", "Break and enterish" - and for further slanguage, go to Buffy Slanguage" on
I agree with QuoterGal, out of context a lot of Buffy sounds weird, especially the name(!) To say nothing of Firefly for the non watcher.

Yeah "totes adorbs" sounds completely ridiculous, but the series knows that and context and delivery are everything. See also "if we were a straight couple this would be a hackneyed premise" there's a lot of irony about.

It's certainly not for everyone and there's bits that I do cringe at, but overall I find it both sweet and funny and I think it succeeds in making its point.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home