Anyway, what's with those pinups?

[Xmung]

I whipped a little something up to explain it.

It's here.

cute!

Not as unexpected as this!

WEDGIE!

no one expects the wedgie!

"our chief weapon is fear...!"

[RPin]

I was just trying to sketch out a random picture to put on my dead comic's front page, but THIS THREAD kept echoing in my brain! I can't even do some random fanservice without realizing how dumb it is, thanks to you, McDuffies!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo

Look what you've done, Srdjan. Thanks a bunch.

[TheLoserHero]

Dun let 'im get to you, Soap. You draw your little 14-year-old as dirty as you want! She's her own woman!

[HeDanny]

no one expects the wedgie!

NO One expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!!

[Luprand]

"Our chief weapon is surprise, surprise and fear. Er ...

Our two chief weapons are surprise and fear and an almost impeccable sense of ... er ..."

--Sij

[McDuffies]

For example, if I took one of the pictures of you (McDuffies, to clarify, since MH managed to finish her post before I finished mine) that you've got running around the forums here and I used it for reference to draw a picture of you sitting on an umbrella, eating pistachio ice cream, and shooting an old granny lady in the head with a 9mm pistol, that doesn't mean that you'd actually ever do any of those things, neh? You may never sit on an umbrella for fear of breaking it, hate pistachio ice cream with a passion, and never shoot an old granny lady because you fear that her ghost may come back to haunt you.

or to take the analogy one step further, did McDuffies really appear in the alternate reality of Digital War and get whalloped in the nuts with a cannonball?

Not neccesarily. As you know, what I do in forums is quite a different thing than reality. For instance, in reality I haven't received kick in the nuts for the last twelve years, and even then, it was in a football game.
Thus it's not neccesarily false that I, on forums, wouldn't do those things.
Besides, if you drew a picture, it would probably be reffering to something that did happen on forums. For instance, if you did draw that picture - before this thread, that is - it wouldn't make any sence, would it? However, if you drew me receiving a kick in the nuts of stalking someone, it would make sence since it's something that could likely happen in forum universe.
Likewise War's comic. It is very likely that something like that would happen to me in forum universe, or in comic universe. In reality, though, not.

How did something like this become so deep and involved?

I don't know. To clarify, I don't take this matter very seriously myself. I'm sure the answer to most of my questions is "people just do it, without thinking of it much" but I just like to find hidden logic behind things.

I know there have got to be some nerds in here who get that reference.

Sorry, I didnt.

I was just trying to sketch out a random picture to put on my dead comic's front page, but THIS THREAD kept echoing in my brain! I can't even do some random fanservice without realizing how dumb it is, thanks to you, McDuffies!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo
Look what you've done, Srdjan. Thanks a bunch.

MWAHAHAHA. But Soap, why is it so hard to draw a pin-up that is in context of comic?

Anyway, McDuff, yes, these drawings ARE just actors playing a role. The character is in the writing, or better yet, in the mind of the creator. They don't exist outside of that mind. So the actor is the physical manifestation of that character, an avatar, if you will, to help the audience understand the character in a visual way. Just like a drawing for a comic character. Neither Kevin Murphy or a gumball machine are Tom Servo. He exists only in the mind of Joel Hodgson, Trace Belieau, Mike T Nelson, et al. But the avatar, whether strictly in character or not, will still evoke the character and the world the character comes from. So an image of
Tom Servo storming the palace and rescuing Kamala from the Sultan wouldn't really be the traditional Servo, but most people familiar with the character will be able to still connect the image with Servo without any acknowledgement that he'd ever do anything like that.

I thought something along those lines too.

[Jim North]

Not neccesarily. As you know, what I do in forums is quite a different thing than reality. For instance, in reality I haven't received kick in the nuts for the last twelve years, and even then, it was in a football game.
Thus it's not neccesarily false that I, on forums, wouldn't do those things.
Besides, if you drew a picture, it would probably be reffering to something that did happen on forums. For instance, if you did draw that picture - before this thread, that is - it wouldn't make any sence, would it? However, if you drew me receiving a kick in the nuts of stalking someone, it would make sence since it's something that could likely happen in forum universe.
Likewise War's comic. It is very likely that something like that would happen to me in forum universe, or in comic universe. In reality, though, not.

That's my point, though. The stuff drawn in the pinup could or couldn't happen, might or might not happen, may be a representation of the reality of the universe it's drawn from or may not have anything to do with it other than the fact that it's your image stuck in the middle. The pinup exists on a completely different level than the comic, or the forums, or the whatever else.

Just because I make a drawing of a tree, that doesn't mean the drawing is the tree itself. And it's not like a photograph, so it's not a direct visual capture of the tree. Likewise (and I repeat), a pinup is a drawing of the character, not the character itself. It doesn't have to make sense, because it's not the real deal.

[McDuffies]

That's my point, though. The stuff drawn in the pinup could or couldn't happen, might or might not happen, may be a representation of the reality of the universe it's drawn from or may not have anything to do with it other than the fact that it's your image stuck in the middle. The pinup exists on a completely different level than the comic, or the forums, or the whatever else.

That's what I was saying, it's not comic's universe. I was pondering what universe it is, and the most likely I got is the parralelle with movie actors who shoot their pictures with no relation to the comic. If I say that I was a character of War's comic, it wouldn't be exactly true: my forum alterego war.
I just think artists don't think about this often enough.

Just because I make a drawing of a tree, that doesn't mean the drawing is the tree itself. And it's not like a photograph, so it's not a direct visual capture of the tree. Likewise (and I repeat), a pinup is a drawing of the character, not the character itself. It doesn't have to make sense, because it's not the real deal.

But you're forgetting that character doesn't exist out of drawing. Drawing is it's only material reality, thus it has to be objective one. If I draw a tree out of my head, I made what you could call a tree version of a comic character - it exists in it's own universe in which some rules are applied. If it has rubber ducks instead of leaves, it actually does make sence because it can be in that universe, it's possible. But if I drew the same tree applying to some rules that and explicitely not applied in that universe, it wouldn't make sence.

Every fictional character ever created (and non-fictional characters too, probably, now that I think about it) has been the subject of some kind of erotic fan-fiction. And if not, they will be.

Yes, but.
If someone draws a lesbian picture of two female characters of some comic, the idea behind that is that they're actually lesbians but it's not shown in the part of a comic that readers see for whatever reason. But in privacy far away from eyes of the beholder, they are. At least, this is an assumption behind that image. The fact is, it's random artist changing the premise of the original comic author, and that's why unlisenced porn of cartoon characters isn't very fair.
But all in all, with random porn artist, context of the universe characters are in, is essential. Without it, visualisation of characters doesn't make sence to him. It's two particular characters of the comic he's interested in, not the actors that play them, not the coincidental lookalikes.
I think that's actually an example that works for my side the best. If you search for Alice in Wonderland porn or google, you'll likely be happy only if you find porn of some version of Alice that you've seen before - Disney's, for instance. To repeat, that porn is supposed to be in the universe of the film, the fact that it's ruining that universe is just due to rudeness of the one who made the porn.

[K-Dawg]

Dun let 'im get to you, Soap. You draw your little 14-year-old as dirty as you want! She's her own woman!

Don't remind me, I felt like such a pedophile for lusting over the fanservice in DP.

[Stinkywigfiddle]

Are there any comic artists who won't do a pinup because it would be out of character?

Now I'm wondering what character of mine I could draw a pinup of.

[Nyke]

You're probably also wondering how they eat and breathe, and other science facts. Then repeat to yourself it's just a webcomic, I should really just relax

I am wondering how they breath if they float in vacuum, that yes. Otherwise, assumption that space around them is filled with air and that they're breathing it in and out goes without asking.

I know there have got to be some nerds in here who get that reference.

*glomps McBean*

[Jim North]

I just think artists don't think about this often enough.

People don't constantly have to think about gravity, yet it still keeps them rooted to the planet's surface. It's an important force, sure, and understanding it will lead to new inventions and such, but as far as effecting our day to day walking around business? Eh, we could go our whole lives without worrying about it and no one would be worse off. Same with this.

Thinking about something like this is a fun mental exercise, but it's just not important in a practical sense.

But you're forgetting that character doesn't exist out of drawing. Drawing is it's only material reality, thus it has to be objective one. If I draw a tree out of my head, I made what you could call a tree version of a comic character - it exists in it's own universe in which some rules are applied. If it has rubber ducks instead of leaves, it actually does make sence because it can be in that universe, it's possible. But if I drew the same tree applying to some rules that and explicitely not applied in that universe, it wouldn't make sence.

But you're forgetting that my point is that you're not always drawing the same universe every single time. Even if I draw a tree with rubber ducks instead of leaves and then make another drawing of a tree with rubber ducks for leaves that looks exactly like the first one, that doesn't mean that they are the exact same tree in the exact same drawn universe. Extending that further, if I drew the same tree ascribing to rules that were not in the original universe, then it's really in a seperate universe in which those new rules do make sense, regardless of whether it was the original tree or not.

If someone draws a lesbian picture of two female characters of some comic, the idea behind that is that they're actually lesbians but it's not shown in the part of a comic that readers see for whatever reason. But in privacy far away from eyes of the beholder, they are. At least, this is an assumption behind that image.

That's a very big assumption for one to make, since one would be assuming they know the porn's creator's mind. I draw fan art of all kinds all the time for Sonic the Hedgehog, but I in no way assume that what I've drawn is happening in some behind the scenes part of the officially sanctioned Sonic-verses. I often consider it to be something that's happening in my version of those universes, however. It just so happens that they have good many similarities . . . but there are still many choice differences.

[TheLoserHero]

(Has a strange feeling that this thread is hitting closer to home than he originally thought)

[Protectmyballs]

Are there any comic artists who won't do a pinup because it would be out of character?

Now I'm wondering what character of mine I could draw a pinup of.

One of my characters is a giant anthropomorphic wang. I don't know if that counts as constantly being a pin up or if it's something far far darker in nature...

On the otherhand, although nudity is no stranger to my work, I usually don't draw posed girls unless its for guest art.

[Okie]

Successful writers lose control of their fictional characters. If you want to avoid this, avoid success.

Whether it's Snoopy endorsing an Insurance company... or Winnie the Pooh Sunshades for your car... or Dorothy of Kansas wearing Ruby Slippers (SHE WORE SILVER SHOES IN THE BOOK AND I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THIS) When hearing the word Frankenstein, people don't think of a book. They don't think of a mad scientist. They think of a hulking greenish-hued brute with bolts in his neck. That's actually Frankenstein's monster, but no one cares. The Garfield comic is created by a staff, not by the original creator. Many old strips are being kept alive on life-support in this way. You can see Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) on car decals, usually urinating on something. Watterson really hated this kind of commercialism. I don't remember Calvin ever peeing on things in the comic...

Grimm's fairy tales had sex and violence in them. The Disney versions took that stuff out. Now, "adult" versions take visual cues from the Disney versions, but with the sex and violence stuck back in. The LOTR films made changes from the books. More people will see the films over the next 50 years than will read the book. Maybe everyone will accept the films and forget the books. It happened with the Wizard of Oz. It will happen with other things.

But, the most disturbing thing i've seen related to all this is: Inspector Gadget porn. A guy with gadgets hidden in his fingers, a young blonde girl, and a dog. Is there any situation more pervertable?

Don't you dare google that.

[McDuffies]

I just think artists don't think about this often enough.

People don't constantly have to think about gravity, yet it still keeps them rooted to the planet's surface. It's an important force, sure, and understanding it will lead to new inventions and such, but as far as effecting our day to day walking around business? Eh, we could go our whole lives without worrying about it and no one would be worse off. Same with this.

Thinking about something like this is a fun mental exercise, but it's just not important in a practical sense.

I think what I said to Bean applies. You're talking about something that isn't said, so it frees space to reader to assume that it is there, while I'm talking about something that is said, or more precisely shown, so readers either have to pretend it's not there or to put it somewhere. Now if we were said that gravity doesn't, but we're still standing on earth without floating away, that would be something we couldn't just put at the back of our heads, assuming that gravity exists. We'd have to either ignore what's said and go on with out lifes with that thing unexplained or try to explain it.

But you're forgetting that character doesn't exist out of drawing. Drawing is it's only material reality, thus it has to be objective one. If I draw a tree out of my head, I made what you could call a tree version of a comic character - it exists in it's own universe in which some rules are applied. If it has rubber ducks instead of leaves, it actually does make sence because it can be in that universe, it's possible. But if I drew the same tree applying to some rules that and explicitely not applied in that universe, it wouldn't make sence.

But you're forgetting that my point is that you're not always drawing the same universe every single time. Even if I draw a tree with rubber ducks instead of leaves and then make another drawing of a tree with rubber ducks for leaves that looks exactly like the first one, that doesn't mean that they are the exact same tree in the exact same drawn universe. Extending that further, if I drew the same tree ascribing to rules that were not in the original universe, then it's really in a seperate universe in which those new rules do make sense, regardless of whether it was the original tree or not.

If someone draws a lesbian picture of two female characters of some comic, the idea behind that is that they're actually lesbians but it's not shown in the part of a comic that readers see for whatever reason. But in privacy far away from eyes of the beholder, they are. At least, this is an assumption behind that image.

That's a very big assumption for one to make, since one would be assuming they know the porn's creator's mind. I draw fan art of all kinds all the time for Sonic the Hedgehog, but I in no way assume that what I've drawn is happening in some behind the scenes part of the officially sanctioned Sonic-verses. I often consider it to be something that's happening in my version of those universes, however. It just so happens that they have good many similarities . . . but there are still many choice differences.

I think, Jim, you're closing to what I think: It has to be some sort of alternate universe.

The problem is said comic context. You said:

That's a very big assumption for one to make, since one would be assuming they know the porn's creator's mind.

I think it's actually pretty safe to assume that. Let's go to Alice in Wonderland example once again. Let's say hypothetically, that I'm looking at Alice in Wonderland porn. Why am I doing that? I could be searching for any porn and it is fairly easier to find. I could be looking for any cartoon character for that matter, but I'm looking for Alice in Wonderland. It is possible that I simply like that character visually in which case assumption of some Alice in Wonderland lookalike is possible. But I believe that there is something more than that. That I'm attracted to the entire cartoon character, not only it's visual side. Alice in Wonderland is not a very attractive character, she's, what, 12y old girl. But there is porn of her out there. There is porn of Jetson, Flinstones, Simpsons character, neither of them are visually attractive. Attraction by the context of the cartoon, not only by it's visual side, would explain why people are searching for that or any particular character porn, not only porn that is drawn in the style of those cartoons.
I mean, why do you draw Sonic the Hedgehog adventures? Why don't you use different character design? Why not use completely different worlds? In other words, why bother about it at all? Because you like those worlds, you like their rules. You're attracted by it's context. You keep the similarity and only the scientifical side of your person - the kind of thoughts with which I started this thread - stops you from putting them in the original universe.

One of my characters is a giant anthropomorphic wang. I don't know if that counts as constantly being a pin up or if it's something far far darker in nature...

Depends, it might be a pin-down on occasions.

[Jim North]

I think what I said to Bean applies. You're talking about something that isn't said, so it frees space to reader to assume that it is there, while I'm talking about something that is said, or more precisely shown, so readers either have to pretend it's not there or to put it somewhere. Now if we were said that gravity doesn't, but we're still standing on earth without floating away, that would be something we couldn't just put at the back of our heads, assuming that gravity exists.

But people put that sort of thing on the back burner of their minds all the time. Do you really consciously try to ignore the fact that gravity is what's holding you on the planet; or, on the flip side, think about it and turn the concept over in your head constantly? If you do, then you're one of very very very few people on this planet that do so. The vast majority simply go "Eh, it's gravity" and then move on with their lives, never really giving it a second thought.

It's the same thing with pinups. There is only an exceedingly small number of people who consciously think about the fact that they might be actively interfering with a character's personality by drawing them in certain ways. Most of the people who do this are the artists themselves . . . the number of readers who seriously give a damn is likely much, much smaller. The only time that they really give it any serious thought is when the subject is brought up in conversation . . . for example, look at how you've ruined poor, poor Soap's pinup drawing abilities by creating this thread!

But long after this thread is dead and gone, you and a handful of others at most will be the only ones still thinking over this, or actively trying not to, I'm sure. I know that I, personally, will be setting the problem right back in the dusty corner of my mind from whence it stumbled out of, to be quite easily forgotten. These are assumptions that I gladly make without thinking about it because, as I said before, there's really no practical reason to give them serious thought.

I think, Jim, you're closing to what I think: It has to be some sort of alternate universe.

As far as it matters, yes. And it's what I've been saying the whole time (except at the beginning when I was mostly joking, mind), so I have to wonder how I'm closing in on what I already believed.

But I believe that there is something more than that. That I'm attracted to the entire cartoon character, not only it's visual side. Alice in Wonderland is not a very attractive character, she's, what, 12y old girl. But there is porn of her out there. There is porn of Jetson, Flinstones, Simpsons character, neither of them are visually attractive. Attraction by the context of the cartoon, not only by it's visual side, would explain why people are searching for that or any particular character porn, not only porn that is drawn in the style of those cartoons.

But in this case, you're really taking it out of the creator's hands for the most part, because they can only present certain aspects of the character at once. Even when writing a story, you can't present every single thing about the character that a reader would find attractive . . . so necessarily, a picture would leave the context even further behind, since it's purely visual by nature. Therefore, it's the viewer that's projecting context onto the picture . . . this in no way alters the actual context/universe/character personality matrix/what have you of the picture itself, as that was set by the creator. They could have drawn an alternate version of Alice who never really visited Wonderland, and spends all her time at home pleasing herself, or whatever. Yet when the viewer looks at the picture and doesn't see anything directly on hand to contradict his or her own ideals on the character, they fill in the gaps for themselves . . . not for the reality of the picture itself.

I mean, why do you draw Sonic the Hedgehog adventures? Why don't you use different character design? Why not use completely different worlds? In other words, why bother about it at all? Because you like those worlds, you like their rules. You're attracted by it's context. You keep the similarity and only the scientifical side of your person - the kind of thoughts with which I started this thread - stops you from putting them in the original universe.

See, here's where I have point out that you're being very presumptuous with your assumptions of a person's motivations and thoughts. I like aspects of the Sonic universes, not the whole echidna- er, enchillada. When I draw fanart or write fanfics for Sonic, I pull the elements that I like out of the official stuff, sprinkle liberally with my own ideas, and then garnish with a side of altering certain parts to better suit my own tastes. I have certain character designs that I use that don't precisely jibe with everything in the comics or cartoons or games. I like their rules, sure, but not all of them . . . many of them, I bend or sometimes break entirely.

I don't have to think about whether I'm going to put this stuff in the original or an alternative universe . . . it's so blatantly obvious that conscious thought on the matter is a total waste of time. Really, even if I didn't make massive changes, it still wouldn't be necessary . . . it's automatic to assume that since it was not officially sanctioned, there's no reason to think that my works should be considered a part of those works that are.

Same with anything I make for Role of the Die. There are things that I draw that are canon and part of the whole big universe known as RotD, and there are things that I draw that are just silly, frivilous things that are RotD-based, but not actually happening within the RotD-verse. 99% of the time, the destinction between the two is made instincually, without any sort of thought at all. The only time I actually wondered about it was when I did the Sawdust/RotD cross over with Sir Sloan, and even then I hardly put any thought into it . . . my final decision was simply "Ah, what the hell, sure, it's canon. Now on to more important things!"

As I was saying before, like gravity, the distinction may help hold things together . . . but thinking about it doesn't make it work any worse or better than when you're not thinking about it.

[Okie]

I could be looking for any cartoon character for that matter, but I'm looking for Alice in Wonderland. It is possible that I simply like that character visually in which case assumption of some Alice in Wonderland lookalike is possible. But I believe that there is something more than that. That I'm attracted to the entire cartoon character, not only it's visual side.

The visual representation that you know as "Alice in Wonderland" and the fact that you called this character a cartoon just proves my point about the complete disintegration of the original Alice character that was created by Lewis Carroll. Actually, Lewis Carrol was just the pseudonym of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a shy, stuttering, professor of mathematics at Oxford.

"Dodgson was a deacon in his church, an inventor, and a noted children's photographer. Wonderland, and thus the seeds of his unanticipated success as a writer, appeared quite casually one day as he spun an impromptu tale to amuse the daughters of a colleague during a picnic. One of these girls was Alice Liddell, who insisted that he write the story down for her, and who served as the model for the heroine."

Let's say hypothetically, that I'm looking at Alice in Wonderland porn.

Hypothetically Apologize to <a href="http://pup.princeton.edu/carroll/Alice.html">Alice Liddell</a>. Do it now.

[Jim North]

If it helps settle your mind any, I always think of the books when I hear "Alice in Wonderland". Well, the first book, anyway. Though I usually still think of Alice Through the Looking Glass, too, since they're related and all.

[Maritza]

Dreams

Maritza
CRFH.net