The Neko wrote:So yeah, don't write someone off right away for registering an opinion about a comic.
Yeah, wait until they post some artwork first and then tear them to shreds. I find this all incredibly ironic.
The Neko wrote:So yeah, don't write someone off right away for registering an opinion about a comic.
Kisai wrote:But generally I didn't care about the animals-eat-animals aspect because that is what animals do.
Kisai wrote:Just because an author draws a comic featuring children, does not make them a pedophile.
Kisai wrote:Just because you visualize someone being blown to bits a bloody mess, and the next person's imagination did a cut away instead, does not make you a sick freak.
stinkywigfiddle wrote:And I don't think Centurion was necessarily being a troll, but it was very opinionated for a first (was it a first?) post and it escalated quickly.
I'd like to tell everyone to just calm down, but then I might be attacked for that.
The Mortician wrote:but at the same time, Cent13 should realize even bad publicity is still publicity.
Centurion13 wrote:Kisai wrote:But generally I didn't care about the animals-eat-animals aspect because that is what animals do.
But humans don't eat humans, and when they do it's revolting, even if they have to do so to survive (why does the Donner Party fascinate after all these years?). And all of Holbrook's critters are rational creatures, indistinguishable from humans in their behavior and ethical choices.
Centurion13 wrote:Kisai wrote:Just because an author draws a comic featuring children, does not make them a pedophile.
But if you catch an author with pictures of naked children in suggestive poses, he is reviled by the community, sent to prison, and rightly so. It isn't the fact that they're furries - it's that they lay claim to being rational just like us and with the same concerns as regular humans (gay characters, global this and that). And yet, when it comes to violating the basic taboos humans have, they suddenly get a pass because 'they're cartoons, silly'?
I cry foul. And I'm not alone, as I've seen.
Centurion13 wrote:Kisai wrote:Just because you visualize someone being blown to bits a bloody mess, and the next person's imagination did a cut away instead, does not make you a sick freak.
I'm not suggesting it makes you a sick freak. I'm stating that revealing it on the Internet indicates you are obsessed with violent, messy death, and that most folks who discover this about you would avoid you like they would... well, a sick freak.
Cent13
Kisai wrote:Personally, I find that if you can't separate reality from fiction, stop reading fiction. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Furries aren't real, despite the countless people who buy fursuits and goto conventions together.
ataraxia wrote:Here's an idea to illustrate the above: Suppose you had a Peanuts/Family Circus style strip about childhood and family life. The one difference is, in this strip a ferocious mountain squid lives in the sewer in front of the family's house. Once every couple of months the squid grabs one of the children, kills it, and leaves its body parts strewn across the front lawn. The family cleans up the mess, orders a new child from a developing country, and continues to go about their happy life apparently without being too affected by the presence of the squid. This must be accomplished without the slightest hint of irony. Would such a strip work? I have no idea, but now that I've written all that I kind of want to draw it.
Noise Monkey wrote:What I find the most disturbing is that the strip in question isn't even well done. I mean, it asks that you make too many leaps to get to the punchline, which is really poor storytelling. I'm guessing that he was trying to avoid some of the more unfortunate aspects of the comic (such as making the conclusion C13 came to obvious to everyone), but if you can't do a comic right because you don't want to destroy the tone of the rest of the series, then it doesn't belong in the first place. He could've gone and done the strip right and suffered the fallout, but doing it the way it was done is just weak and probably shouldn't have been done in the first place.
jekkal wrote:The question isn't that the comic isn't well done; I'd dare say, with newspaper syndication, books, and everything else Bill's got invested in the series, even if the work itself is a little shoddy he has at least 'done well' for himself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests