CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74 
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 26, 2014 2:02:51 GMT
Sorry I'm just not much of a serious person. Quite frankly I stink at being serious in reality. As a matter of fact, my Geometry teacher lectured me the other day after class, for quite a bit. And for me, keeping a straight face throughout the entire ordeal was about as difficult as trying to keep a firm grip on a desperately wobbling cat in front of a turned on sprinkler. :l
But okay, I suppose I shall use different terminology to address you as a fellow companion of the internet, if you like!
It's true, I should understand that a lot of what you're saying is not exactly bashing but more or less nit picking over personal unpleasantries (Look I leaned a new word from you!), that you feel aren't as concise and consistent as in previous chapters, and far too common in other mediums. I guess it's just that often when you're really trying to make a point about something small you find indecent in a series, in order to get it across more effectively, you have to sort of go into excessively detailed bashing to fully express how it bothers you. And through common misinterpretation, it comes across as overly resentful. I also feel this ties in well with intelligence's misunderstanding of argumentative discussion. I'm not entirely sure why, but it seems for some unknown reason anytime a strong well crafted, opinionated counter point to an argument is expressed, it has to be misinterpreted as "trolling". But I think this is kind of something of a common trait for people like us, who express our opinions in very long and smarty conversations like this. I wouldn't call it "trolling" but more along the lines of offering counter points that are also very much acceptable and more prevalent in the story.
I really appreciate that, thanks. I find your opinion considerably valid too.
I think the fact is I seem to have a very difficult time finding a way to fully express why I feel these chapters are still wonderful pieces. The simple fact is that our tastes differ substantially, and as someone who doesn't respect literature on the level that you do (as I've been exposed to many forms of simple story telling and don't look into these flaws quite nearly as deeply), I find a certain amount of difficulty finding excuses as to why they are still great. But clearly this is a clash of mere opinions, and it seems there are flaws to these chapters that have made their way under my nose. Well Korba, it seems I cannot quite seem to tip you're plate of piled flaws over these chapters towards my perspective, where I'm willing to overlook these flaws. And as such, I only hope the series eventually finds it's way back to you, in the same beautiful way it has so many times for me.
Now then, I think I've grown somewhat weary of this discussion. Can we perhaps converse over something that appeals to me a little more pleasantly? Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed finding ways to attempt to express my points to you, but I originally made this thread to talk about all the great things about Gunnerkrigg Court. Discussing all of it's flaws is not something I find a whole lot of enjoyment out of. This post was originally intended to reach out to other members and hear why the series came across to them so passionately. (Despite hearing about your distaste to current chapters, I did get a good idea of why you liked the older ones, as you mentioned it.)
So yeah, I think I kinda would prefer to spend my time writing bibles of text over something along the lines of that. And while we're at it, who did you guys like more, Kat or Annie? Also, I don't mind you stating your favorite character either.
Pss...hey...pssss.....it's Annie for me...Just felt like saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on May 26, 2014 11:48:30 GMT
I always thought of Hetty as embodying what the court thought of Renard before he met Annie. They all saw him as a corrupted murderer who killed both Daniel and Sivo; which is what Hetty actually is, or at least is aspiring to be. Whereas since moving into Annie's doll and coming under her power, he has become almost reformed. The end of the chapter where he kills Hetty (embodying what people used to think of him) and meeting up as a friend with Eglamore (previously his jailer and mortal enemy) showing his being redeemed. While Hetty seemed one dimensional and an annoying character, this was what Renard was previously thought to be.
Crash Course, hmm, I was more ambivilent about this chapter myself. The fight is I assume only the first time Annie has been in a proper fight, and I assume next time it won't go anywhere near as similar as that. I took it as setting a baseline for relations with a certain part of the forest, and next time Annie will either have a much harder time on her hands or will have to resort to bigger mixture of force and diplomacy.
While neither was the best chapter in the comic, every series is allowed to have less memorable times, if only to allow the creation of far more memorable and meaningful chapters, such as the one that has just finished. Mort going into the Ether, and erasing his (after)life from the world was very moving, and one of the great chapters so far in my opinion. We are all just cogs in the machinery of the world, ensuring it continues to spin. Is there an afterlife? We still don't know. We do know that Mort's extended life is only remembered by those who met him, Jones' intervention kept his soul in the world for an extra 60-70 years or so, but was ultimately fruitless in terms of giving him 70 years of additional memories to keep. He touched Annie and Kat's lives however, and still made an impact that way.
Sorry I started typing there to respond to you guys without resorting to massive quotes weighing down the page, but not quite sure where I ended up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2014 18:06:04 GMT
I promise this is the last post I'll make in this thread. There's just a few things. I always thought of Hetty as embodying what the court thought of Renard before he met Annie. They all saw him as a corrupted murderer who killed both Daniel and Sivo; which is what Hetty actually is, or at least is aspiring to be. Whereas since moving into Annie's doll and coming under her power, he has become almost reformed. The end of the chapter where he kills Hetty (embodying what people used to think of him) [...] showing his being redeemed. While Hetty seemed one dimensional and an annoying character, this was what Renard was previously thought to be. I don't like "bad" characters being used as narrative devices to ostensibly highlight the virtues of "good" ones; Hetty has a fair point in Renard having surrendered his freedom out of a vain longing for Surma - which, interestingly, is the same desire that first drove him to kill a human being in the first place. Doesn't Renard wonder about this himself? Can you absolve yourself of your shame by shattering the terrible mirror that reminds you of it? Is it aesthetically correct to appropriate other living beings as allegories for your own course in life? For comparison: There is a scene in Lolita where Humbert (who is, objectively, a terrible person) intends to shoot Quilty (who is even more of a terrible person) for stealing Lolita from him, and is apparently terrified by how similar, almost parallel, Quilty is to himself. One significant difference between them is that Humbert constantly tries to justify his raping a child and shield himself from his own wretched nature, while Quilty revels and winces, wormlike, in the full acknowledgment of his actions (the crime is the same). During the entire stand-off, Quilty mocks Humbert's intent to prove his moral superiority, which obviously stems from nothing but a thirst for revenge, or to be precise, the elimination of the shame he feels over having lost Lolita (Humbert doubts his appeal and masculinity throughout the text). And yet, bizarrely as this sounds, Humbert's desperate, delusional clinging to a moral/aesthetic code of sorts, despicably twisted as it is, gives his character a last redeeming quality that the overtly bestial Quilty lacks completely. In other words, there you have the post-modern Mexican standoff. Now I'll explain what this has to do with the fight between Hetty and Renard. I feel that Renard's shame over having tried to kill a child - and to boot, even knowing that it was his beloved Surma's daughter - should not be cleansed through killing a murderous doll that gleefully, without restraint, murders other children. While there is no question that Renard is the more virtuous character in that scene, I think that the chapter and especially its conclusion didn't highlight that Renard is a killer himself, and one who loves indulging in mischief; a magnificent soul, but also weak to flattery. His annihilation of Hetty is neither a heroic act (no less so since it stems from shame), nor entirely without merit in displaying his noble nature. I also question whether Renard's personality has really changed that much at all, which would be very strange for a mythological creature. I think the change lies in him and Annie growing close to each other, i.e. the different circumstances. That's it! I think I have said everything I can about this scene by now. You can breathe again. I also want to stress that Quicksilver still has very good art in every sense of that word; I actually dislike it mostly because I think it could have been one of the best chapters if it had not ended in such almost operatic pathos (this is probably worded wrong). And since the story isn't finished yet and this comic is nothing if not surprising, I would be surprised myself if future events didn't prove that I should just have waited and watched instead of jumping to interpretations. As an aside, I think Renard and Eglamore might have been friends way back when, before they both fell in love with Surma, which strained their relationship, and they became enemies only when Renard killed Sivo - not Daniel, who might even have been another rival, who knows, since we all know that everybody loves Surma. I think that Surma is quite a focal character (Italian speakers are invited to groan at the awful pun), and that her relationships are largely responsible for the current situation in the comic, such as the Forest being closed off to humans, Renard being AWOL, and so on. Annie, too, has shown how in spite of her reserved demeanour, she finds delight in being the center of attention (or rather: attraction), especially the more attracted she feels herself. Actually, "in spite of" doesn't quite fit because there is no contradiction here, but rather tension, comparable to dissonance, that she creates for her own personality. A better way to express this is offered by the bottom right panel in this page, which renders my words redundant, and it is also reflected by the fact that she's apparently a happy drunk who has a blast dancing on her own (cf. Annie in the Forest). The closing talk between Annie and Kat in Thread is another beautiful example in the same vein, also showing that this isn't only true for romantic relationships. This desire is fundamentally selfish, but that's not at all a bad thing; on the contrary, it reveals that Annie loves what she loves very passionately and powerfully, with the claim to exclusivity; I think that therein she resembles Renard as well, which might play a part in why they get along so well. As you can see I'm also one of those who enter the maze of posting and, at certain times, leave it somewhere else entirely. It, uh... tends to happen. ---- Off-topic odds and ends: No, you don't need to shut up. It's not like there's anything more important that this thread needs to be used for, I was just saying that it would be easier to carry on that kind of conversation on the IRC channel, and suggesting we move there. However, the IRC channel also lacks a good way to record a conversation, so carrying on more long-term discussions without going off topic becomes more difficult. The pains of having no face on the Internet. I meant to cheekily agree with you, because damn right I need to shut it after two thousand words on a webcomic. Perhaps I should consider lifting my self-imposed smiley moratorium. very sincere, if a bit overwrought One reason for the overwrought wordings is that I want my positions to be challenged here, because there is nothing less deserving of solemnity than petty criticism. I think I could rely on a much more sober style; however, I feel the need to convey that I'm unsure about my own approach, here, of judging a work of art not by its individual set of aesthetic values, but by whatever I fancy as fashionable for myself at the moment. You may attest me good reasoning, but all of the above is based on nothing but preference and a few lit-theory catchphrases; I might as well be discussing my favourite food by making some good points about molecules. There is one right method to argue reasonably, yet rarely is there only one right thing to reasonably argue for. When I believe the latter to be the case, my sentences tend to get shorter. [...] unpleasantries (Look I leaned a new word from you!) I wish it would have been a different word, such as "keta-kid" (I'm originally from a large German city, can you tell). I'm not sure if "keta-kid" is lexical English, but if you've ever met one, you'll agree that it's necessary to have a word for them. The reason is that trolls do the same thing and you can't see my eyes, hear my voice, or punch my face in, which naturally leads strangers to mistrust each other's words. I'm sure it's a result of my previously studying Law. There is no love between lawyers except for the flattering kind and the flattening kind. It has some appeal. It could all be so simple. It's always the same for me: First I get told to "go read Hamlet", then people tip-toe around my vanity because I can tell Lermontov from Lomonosov, even though I'm not displaying any actual skill. This has been practice for millions of years, and I'm not even twenty. Of course! |
|
|
|
Post by KartoffelnMcNugget on May 26, 2014 21:47:57 GMT
I always wanted to contribute to this forum with something interesting...then I read post like that and remember that I’m a very simple human being.
|
|
|
|
Post by fwip on May 26, 2014 22:28:00 GMT
I promise this is the last post I'll make in this thread. There's just a few things. I always thought of Hetty as embodying what the court thought of Renard before he met Annie. They all saw him as a corrupted murderer who killed both Daniel and Sivo; which is what Hetty actually is, or at least is aspiring to be. Whereas since moving into Annie's doll and coming under her power, he has become almost reformed. The end of the chapter where he kills Hetty (embodying what people used to think of him) [...] showing his being redeemed. While Hetty seemed one dimensional and an annoying character, this was what Renard was previously thought to be. I don't like "bad" characters being used as narrative devices to ostensibly highlight the virtues of "good" ones; Hetty has a fair point in Renard having surrendered his freedom out of a vain longing for Surma - which, interestingly, is the same desire that first drove him to kill a human being in the first place. Doesn't Renard wonder about this himself? Can you absolve yourself of your shame by shattering the terrible mirror that reminds you of it? Is it aesthetically correct to appropriate other living beings as allegories for your own course in life? For comparison: There is a scene in Lolita where Humbert (who is, objectively, a terrible person) intends to shoot Quilty (who is even more of a terrible person) for stealing Lolita from him, and is apparently terrified by how similar, almost parallel, Quilty is to himself. One significant difference between them is that Humbert constantly tries to justify his raping a child and shield himself from his own wretched nature, while Quilty revels and winces, wormlike, in the full acknowledgment of his actions (the crime is the same). During the entire stand-off, Quilty mocks Humbert's intent to prove his moral superiority, which obviously stems from nothing but a thirst for revenge, or to be precise, the elimination of the shame he feels over having lost Lolita (Humbert doubts his appeal and masculinity throughout the text). And yet, bizarrely as this sounds, Humbert's desperate, delusional clinging to a moral/aesthetic code of sorts, despicably twisted as it is, gives his character a last redeeming quality that the overtly bestial Quilty lacks completely. In other words, there you have the post-modern Mexican standoff. Now I'll explain what this has to do with the fight between Hetty and Renard. I feel that Renard's shame over having tried to kill a child - and to boot, even knowing that it was his beloved Surma's daughter - should not be cleansed through killing a murderous doll that gleefully, without restraint, murders other children. While there is no question that Renard is the more virtuous character in that scene, I think that the chapter and especially its conclusion didn't highlight that Renard is a killer himself, and one who loves indulging in mischief; a magnificent soul, but also weak to flattery. His annihilation of Hetty is neither a heroic act (no less so since it stems from shame), nor entirely without merit in displaying his noble nature. I also question whether Renard's personality has really changed that much at all, which would be very strange for a mythological creature. I think the change lies in him and Annie growing close to each other, i.e. the different circumstances. That's it! I think I have said everything I can about this scene by now. You can breathe again. I also want to stress that Quicksilver still has very good art in every sense of that word; I actually dislike it mostly because I think it could have been one of the best chapters if it had not ended in such almost operatic pathos (this is probably worded wrong). And since the story isn't finished yet and this comic is nothing if not surprising, I would be surprised myself if future events didn't prove that I should just have waited and watched instead of jumping to interpretations. As an aside, I think Renard and Eglamore might have been friends way back when, before they both fell in love with Surma, which strained their relationship, and they became enemies only when Renard killed Sivo - not Daniel, who might even have been another rival, who knows, since we all know that everybody loves Surma. I think that Surma is quite a focal character (Italian speakers are invited to groan at the awful pun), and that her relationships are largely responsible for the current situation in the comic, such as the Forest being closed off to humans, Renard being AWOL, and so on. Annie, too, has shown how in spite of her reserved demeanour, she finds delight in being the center of attention (or rather: attraction), especially the more attracted she feels herself. Actually, "in spite of" doesn't quite fit because there is no contradiction here, but rather tension, comparable to dissonance, that she creates for her own personality. A better way to express this is offered by the bottom right panel in this page, which renders my words redundant, and it is also reflected by the fact that she's apparently a happy drunk who has a blast dancing on her own (cf. Annie in the Forest). The closing talk between Annie and Kat in Thread is another beautiful example in the same vein, also showing that this isn't only true for romantic relationships. This desire is fundamentally selfish, but that's not at all a bad thing; on the contrary, it reveals that Annie loves what she loves very passionately and powerfully, with the claim to exclusivity; I think that therein she resembles Renard as well, which might play a part in why they get along so well. Dang, the part about Lolita is deep. I went and read the wikipedia article... Renard is a murderer, but not all of the connotations apply. In the forest, a fox is a hunter. The forest and, by extension, Renard takes a much more... everyday view of death. For instance, Coyote killed the wisp (which was clearly a sentient creature) without a second thought for food and, what's more, implied (at least in my eyes) that it was not an uncommon occurrence. Death is much closer to the minds of the forest creatures than it is to the minds of the inhabitants of the Court. As such, I think that because Renard was not subject to the same inhibitions about killing and death, and was much more used to death, he should not be judged according to the same criteria that human killers in today's society are judged. When he tried to kill Annie, I'm sure it's obvious that those were extenuating circumstances. I'm not sure that many people have the moral fiber to, after being locked up for years, completely reject offhand the idea of killing a child in order to escape. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on May 27, 2014 2:17:16 GMT
I don't like "bad" characters being used as narrative devices to ostensibly highlight the virtues of "good" ones; Hetty has a fair point in Renard having surrendered his freedom out of a vain longing for Surma - which, interestingly, is the same desire that first drove him to kill a human being in the first place. Doesn't Renard wonder about this himself? Can you absolve yourself of your shame by shattering the terrible mirror that reminds you of it? Is it aesthetically correct to appropriate other living beings as allegories for your own course in life? I agree with your first point. The best villains are the relatable ones. Some of the very best villains turn out to be working for more productive/ethical ends than the hero, and it was a matter of perspective all along. Then again, that's the personal opinion of someone who enjoys grey-and-grey morality stories much better than black and white ones. Unfortunately Hetty was almost comically evil and did not strike a good balance at all. Reynard was never really "evil" like that in the first place. Although he might have been proud and uncaring of who he hurt so long as they were in his way, he was not a sadistic being and in the end turned out to be a fairly normal bloke. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 27, 2014 23:53:11 GMT
I should have said "evil deeds", as that was what I meant, as killing Hetty gave him the impression of being redeemed for his evil acts of murder. You guys are completely right that he was never really a villain.
I'm not trying to make you feel unwelcome. You can post as much as you like, and reply if you want. I'm just saying that this argument is getting a little repetitive. But feel free to keep discussing it, as it seems some people are interested and still have personal input on the matter to offer.
Me, every time Korba replied. :l
|
|
|
|
Post by fwip on May 28, 2014 0:01:47 GMT
Waitingforthenextpage: Will you be joining the forum in general, or is your status referring to how long you are staying here? I noticed you haven't posted anywhere but this thread.
|
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 28, 2014 0:19:50 GMT
 ![]() Not to worry. It's just a quote!  A lot of the other threads do indeed look interesting. I just haven't gotten around to them yet. But eventually I'll participate in other stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 28, 2014 7:40:10 GMT
[skims thread] Sorry for jumping in after the fact but I was away. I would like to note for the record that comics are not novels; a body simply cannot tell a story the same way in both media. One of the biggest limiters is that space is word bubbles is at a premium in comics and that forces dialogue toward brevity to an extent in general and can (particularly for newer artists) warp plots subtly in ways frustrating to readers. Mainly this takes the form of asking, "Why the hell didn't character X ask about plot point Y during such-and-such lull in the plot(s) which require suspension(s) of disbelief but there can also be a bias to shallowness so I have known some snooty types who look down their noses at comics no matter how good the art or plot might be, because of the simple fact that in their closed minds the media chosen limited the idea down from something it could have been. Likewise the fact that GC is a comic places similar limitations on foils, thus Hetty. Consider how many pages would be required to develop her further to make a slightly deeper comparison to Renard, and then ask if it's worth the effort.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 20:51:00 GMT
The brevity required in dialogue is made up for by the freedom of space allowed by the visuals. A writer, when describing an object, cannot give a precise description of its current state and must focus on the one detail that best evokes the entire state in the reader's head. If a detailed description is furthermore necessary, it is best given by having characters interact with it, e.g. by telling a story that somehow requires its use and transformation. Tom technically does a similar thing by putting rather stylized faces on far-away characters sometimes, whereby the readers are challenged to - let's say - reconstruct the character's face, starting with a clearly emphasized detail (the emotional state) and arriving at a complete picture, with the surrounding panels also providing context.
Besides, this comic has lots of rarely-seen characters (such as Kamlen, Margo, the Robot King, or the Headmaster, or Paz - barring recent developments) that I find very interesting and thus well-written. It is also not specifically the shallowness of Hetty's character that I have a problem with, but rather the resulting shallowness of Renard's own actions.
Also, what's the deal with this again: I possibly get attacked as "snooty" and having a "closed mind" (I'm not sure if that really was your intent, nor if it is factually wrong at all), then I paraphrase Lessing's thoughts on art as detailed in "Laokoon" for my response, and nobody has really gained anything from this conversation. That's why I should shut up - not just because Cloud Strife would like me to, although given the size of his sword, that might be a good idea in any case!
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 29, 2014 2:34:49 GMT
[W]hat's the deal with this again: I possibly get attacked as "snooty" and having a "closed mind" (I'm not sure if that really was your intent, nor if it is factually wrong at all), then I paraphrase Lessing's thoughts on art as detailed in "Laokoon" for my response, and nobody has really gained anything from this conversation. That's why I should shut up - not just because Cloud Strife would like me to, although given the size of his sword, that might be a good idea in any case! Perhaps the conversation has not progressed far enough for anyone to gain new insights yet. But no, the mere fact that you are reading a comic and thinking seriously about it tells me you are not snooty in regard to comics in the same way as the people I was referring to. I did not mean to call you snooty. And no I am not going to backtrack through the thread to see if I unintentionally made a parallel to someone else's post that lent itself to misunderstanding, I'm just going to move forward. The brevity required in dialogue is made up for by the freedom of space allowed by the visuals. A writer, when describing an object, cannot give a precise description of its current state and must focus on the one detail that best evokes the entire state in the reader's head. If a detailed description is furthermore necessary, it is best given by having characters interact with it, e.g. by telling a story that somehow requires its use and transformation. Tom technically does a similar thing by putting rather stylized faces on far-away characters sometimes, whereby the readers are challenged to - let's say - reconstruct the character's face, starting with a clearly emphasized detail (the emotional state) and arriving at a complete picture, with the surrounding panels also providing context. Sure, having the graphic aspect greatly assists with a number of visual and spacial aspects in a given time-slice, with following panels leading the reader to mentally construct a chain of events by filling in the gaps in the action with sensible guesswork, the skill of the graphic artist determining the general ease/difficulty of this process. If you are saying that the visuals plus/dialogue minus means a zero-sum difference between comics/gn and novels I have to disagree; there are some situations that lend themselves to one media over the other. For example: Several things happening all at the same time, super-fast split-second timing tends to work better in the written word then in comic form In My Humble Opinion, particularly for less experienced writers/artists. Not saying Mr. Siddell is one, just saying in general. Besides, this comic has lots of rarely-seen characters (such as Kamlen, Margo, the Robot King, or the Headmaster, or Paz - barring recent developments) that I find very interesting and thus well-written. It is also not specifically the shallowness of Hetty's character that I have a problem with, but rather the resulting shallowness of Renard's own actions. Agree, and I think you have missed my main point in my previous post. We should appreciate the economics in the situation with Renard and Hetty. She's a foil but a rather well-constructed one. I think it would have been a bit better if more about her had been left to the imagination and perhaps answered in a later chapter or a special edition comic, or perhaps just in the twitter-feed, but perhaps she's not even worth that. In order to deepen Hetty, how many more panels/pages would it take? How much real value to the story would it contribute in return for the work that the author/artist puts into it? Three comics equals one week's work, more or less. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 29, 2014 17:46:53 GMT
I have known some snooty types who look down their noses at comics no matter how good the art or plot might be, because of the simple fact that in their closed minds the media chosen limited the idea down from something it could have been. Well, they are correct: the medium chosen DOES limit the ideas that can be presented effectively. What they are overlooking: so does every other medium. There are things that can be done better/more-easily in a static-page ongoing comic than in a novel or movie. And things that can be done better/more-easily in a movie. And things that favor novels. And things that favor single pictures or *short* series of pictures. And... This past weekend I was at a science-fiction convention and attended several panels on writing. In one of them, someone asked a question of how, in a novel, you present and describe the details of a rapid sequence of martial-arts moves such as are standard fare in kick-flicks martial-arts films. The answer was pretty simple: you don't. The best you can hope for, in such an attempt, is to be merely tedious. Incomprehensible to most people, and wince-inducingly inaccurate to some, are also high on the list of possibilities. This is something you can do well in a movie, but not in still pictures or the written word. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 29, 2014 20:38:50 GMT
I have known some snooty types who look down their noses at comics no matter how good the art or plot might be, because of the simple fact that in their closed minds the media chosen limited the idea down from something it could have been. Well, they are correct: the medium chosen DOES limit the ideas that can be presented effectively. What they are overlooking: so does every other medium. There are things that can be done better/more-easily in a static-page ongoing comic than in a novel or movie. And things that can be done better/more-easily in a movie. And things that favor novels. And things that favor single pictures or *short* series of pictures. And... This past weekend I was at a science-fiction convention and attended several panels on writing. In one of them, someone asked a question of how, in a novel, you present and describe the details of a rapid sequence of martial-arts moves such as are standard fare in kick-flicks martial-arts films. The answer was pretty simple: you don't. The best you can hope for, in such an attempt, is to be merely tedious. Incomprehensible to most people, and wince-inducingly inaccurate to some, are also high on the list of possibilities. This is something you can do well in a movie, but not in still pictures or the written word. That's MY point.  I used super-fast split-second timing as a specific example, though for novels v. graphic novels/comics. Of course every rule has exceptions; many people here might be familiar with Ranma 1/2 in both manga and anime format. I'm fond of it (to an extent, in spite of its frozen characters) in manga form but not so much in anime because in manga form simply because the fight sequences come across as more interesting. The people I wish to criticize harshly would argue that because the space limitations for dialogue push comics toward simple plots that they are grist for the milling of simple minds. There was a time that was true about mainstream comics but that has not been entirely true about indie comics since... well, ever. There really isn't any form of experimental writing that can't be done in gn format; dude-who's-name-I-forget-and-am-too-lazy-too-look-up who does Gunsmith Cats for example includes a bit of technical in his manga and he is commercially successful, for example. This may be a result of his work being somewhat fetishistic, but nonetheless he makes money. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 29, 2014 21:48:12 GMT
Woah, hold up guys. I'm sorry but I thought the initial point you were trying to make was that GC's methods of flushing out characters and extenuating on detail were limited due to it's inherently flawed and graphical medium, while also mentioning all of the inherent flaws born from literature and cinematography. But doesn't bringing up the fact that some comics are still able to bypass these flaws, render your counter point uhh..well..countered? I mean I'm nobody to talk about inconsistency (as the very nature of this thread shows) but I guess I'm just trying to figure out what the argument is. My good friend I want anything but for you to up the shut! Why, with every paragraph you write, I feel like a piece of me may be ever slightly growing smarter! Due feel free to keep arguing your case! Besides, I don't know what you're getting scared over. It's not that big...  ...Well..I mean depending on the angle at least.... :l |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 29, 2014 23:40:58 GMT
Woah, hold up guys. I'm sorry but I thought the initial point you were trying to make was that GC's methods of flushing out characters and extenuating on detail were limited due to it's inherently flawed and graphical medium, while also mentioning all of the inherent flaws born from literature and cinematography. But doesn't bringing up the fact that some comics are still able to bypass these flaws, render your counter point uhh..well..countered? I mean I'm nobody to talk about inconsistency (as the very nature of this thread shows) but I guess I'm just trying to figure out what the argument is. I'm pretty sure you're asking me and not Warrl so I'll first say that I don't think there is any situation that can't be portrayed in any of the aforementioned media. It may require time, thought, and looking up how it's been done by others in the past for inspiration/borrowing to do a good job of it and therein lies the rub. Different media lend themselves to different situations with greater ease/difficulty so I wish to encourage all of you, genteel forum-goers, to think economically about Gunnerkrigg Court for a bit. Specifically to this debate, think about Hetty. She was not introduced prior to the chapter where she appeared. She is a foil; I think we can agree on that. Her purpose in the story is for Renard is to define himself against. It would be *nice* if Hetty would be more complex and more interesting, but how many more pages and work by Mr. Siddell would it take to achieve that? I think that if people start seriously thinking about where the actual inserting of Hetty would have to be, how many panels of interaction it would take to deepen her character to any substantial degree, where that would be, and how many hours it would take to achieve a little more for Renard to bounce off of, it's not worth it. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 30, 2014 0:08:36 GMT
Hmm, okay I see what you're saying there. I think your right, it's not at all necessary to spend so much time on a one-shot character like Hetty. In a very poorly done and unimaginative analogy, maybe one could compare her purpose as a character to a fork at a restaurant. The waiter could show up and give you a completely elaborate story about the making of this utensil and it's journey around the globe. In immeasurable detail, he could fill you in on how majestically crafted it was, but why spend so much time over a simple kitchen appliance when at the end of the day it's still just a fork and you're going to use it all the same? Now I understand that was probably an awful comparison, as I can assure you characters in a story and eating utensils differ greatly in depth, but if her primary function as a character was merely to analyze more of Renard's character, I think she served that purpose just fine. I don't really think it's necessary to give everything a flushed out back story, or a unique personality. Maybe in some ways it's actually a little more engaging to contemplate how Renard and Hetty became friends. Usually the fun part about GC is speculating over all the possibilities that aren't brought up. At least that's what I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 30, 2014 4:02:44 GMT
Hmm, okay I see what you're saying there. I think your right, it's not at all necessary to spend so much time on a one-shot character like Hetty. In a very poorly done and unimaginative analogy, maybe one could compare her purpose as a character to a fork at a restaurant. The waiter could show up and give you a completely elaborate story about the making of this utensil and it's journey around the globe. In immeasurable detail, he could fill you in on how majestically crafted it was, but why spend so much time over a simple kitchen appliance when at the end of the day it's still just a fork and you're going to use it all the same? Now I understand that was probably an awful comparison, as I can assure you characters in a story and eating utensils differ greatly in depth, but if her primary function as a character was merely to analyze more of Renard's character, I think she served that purpose just fine. I don't really think it's necessary to give everything a flushed out back story, or a unique personality. Maybe in some ways it's actually a little more engaging to contemplate how Renard and Hetty became friends. Usually the fun part about GC is speculating over all the possibilities that aren't brought up. At least that's what I think. Presumably they ran into each other in the Court while Renard was on one of his jaunts. I'm not sure they were friends because Renard gives a lot of non-answers in that chapter to things Hetty says. but perhaps he thought they were or were going to be at one point because of the surface similarities of their situations, at least as far as Hetty had described hers up to that point. But Hetty is rather well crafted for a foil. I even made Hetty fan art, after a fashion (which is up in the fan art thread... though be warned if you dig it up that my fan art is always unpleasant). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 6:29:13 GMT
I'd have preferred Hetty's personality to be a little more self-ironic and charming instead of so obviously egomaniacal. This would not have taken any additional pages, since her poses and faces would have made all the difference. For example, during the visit to the graveyard, she could have covered up her impatience by delivering her sigh less loudly and with an amused smile - which would ultimately still reveal her as immoral and lacking respect for others' feelings, but make her less obnoxiously self-absorbed. Basically I just would have liked her to be more like this. Edit: As for CloudedAtTheMoment's most recent post, I think we'll have to agree that we will not agree with each other. I dislike characters being used for specific narrative purposes, and I want every character within a given work of art to be unique, which is not to say that they must differ much at all - just a little, in fact, is enough. The waiter narrating the unique story of the commonplace, replaceable, mass-produced fork represents everything that art means to me. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 30, 2014 7:06:12 GMT
I'd have preferred Hetty's personality to be a little more self-ironic and charming instead of so obviously egomaniacal. This would not have taken any additional pages, since her poses and faces would have made all the difference. For example, during the visit to the graveyard, she could have covered up her impatience by delivering her sigh less loudly and with an amused smile - which would ultimately still reveal her as immoral and lacking respect for others' feelings, but make her less obnoxiously self-absorbed. The key word being "ultimately." If Hetty behaved as you wish then I humbly suggest that it would have taken more than one chapter to establish that Renard had tried to talk sense into her before deciding to kill her without making his current moral positions a bit darker shaded in the minds of the readers than I believe the author would like. The choices of doll and bug are not accidental, methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on May 30, 2014 7:40:55 GMT
I'd have preferred Hetty's personality to be a little more self-ironic and charming instead of so obviously egomaniacal. This would not have taken any additional pages, since her poses and faces would have made all the difference. For example, during the visit to the graveyard, she could have covered up her impatience by delivering her sigh less loudly and with an amused smile - which would ultimately still reveal her as immoral and lacking respect for others' feelings, but make her less obnoxiously self-absorbed. The key word being "ultimately." If Hetty behaved as you wish then I humbly suggest that it would have taken more than one chapter to establish that Renard had tried to talk sense into her before deciding to kill her without making his current moral positions a bit darker shaded in the minds of the readers than I believe the author would like. The choices of doll and bug are not accidental, methinks. I thought she ended up being a type of prawn in the end rather than a bug (although I suppose crustaceans are all technichally bugs), there was even a species of prawn " Heteropenaeus" that looked very similar to her that Hetty could be a shortened form of: |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 30, 2014 8:18:00 GMT
And Helpful Hetty might technically be less of a doll and more of an old-school pediatric diabetes training aid since she comes with hypos, but I trust ya get my drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 30, 2014 8:42:09 GMT
No, imaginaryfriend said that in reply to warrl. Not quite. The point was that some people make that claim and look down on comics because of it - and those people are {insert possibly-impolite adverb here} failing to observe that EVERY medium of expression imposes restrictions on what can readily be done. Their reason for rejecting comics is no more true of comics than it is of novels, or cinema, or interpretive dance, or... No, but it does demonstrate that a master can find ways to work around the limitations of his (or her) medium and appear to do things that are generally thought not possible in that medium. (Sometimes by actually doing them, sometimes by making it seem like he's done them, and sometimes by skipping them so elegantly that nobody notices.) |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 30, 2014 21:15:49 GMT
Well I wouldn't say quite say that we can't agree, at least not on all grounds. I can understand what you mean, as I sometimes enjoy stories that take time to present something with it's own original background, and really defining it as it's own entity. I can definitely agree that maybe some more depth could have been added, and a self-ironic take on Hetty would have definitely been more interesting, and might had led to brighter possibilities. But I personally believe that with the route the chapter went with, it might have been a little more appropriate to present it in the style that it did. In the example I made, giving that fork it's own precise and unique background is an original and eccentric style, and would make for a comedic one-shot piece of a story. However in this type of situation, I feel the excess detail would stand a stronger purpose, if this fork were to be some kind of a recurring element in the gram scheme of the overarching story, maybe played for laughs or something to lighten the mood of a depressing story. And while the whole "building up, and characterizing something's grand, mystical past, only to get rid of it in the last moment of the story's segment" thing is also something I tend to find quite humorous, Hetty seems intended for a more serious purpose. Although hearing the idea now, I can say that perhaps the chapter could have dealt with some more funny scenes between Renard and Hetty, maybe even give her a better purpose. However, unless Tom has some kind of hidden, grand purpose for her (not saying it's out of the question, after all this guy has brought back things from previous chapters, giving them bigger roles) I think it's safe to assume Hetty probably won't be making any return, therefore leaving all that back story as a tad meaningless. But if you really enjoy giving everything in a story (even the small throw away characters) a unique twist, then I suppose it all does just add up to our diverging opinions, as that's you're preferable outlook in literature. And I shall do well to respect that!
Sorry got confused with you and imaginaryfriend. And yeah, I see what you guys mean now.
True, these are all slick and clever methods and techniques that masters of these mediums use. You have to really respect them for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2014 21:19:19 GMT
]The key word being "ultimately." I should have used "simultaneously" in its place. Laughing at someone's deepest feelings of guilt in a graveyard, even if it is meant cheekily, reveals Hetty as childish and immoral without the need for any more chapters. Fair point. But I disagree, because there is no moral defense for child murder regardless of how many layers one covers it up with. I don't want Hetty to lose her psychopathic tendencies, but I want her positions on Renard's current state (the "slavery" of love) to be more tempting and apparently credible without being necessarily true. I want Renard's doubts to become apparent to myself through a conflict of philosophies in which neither side is easy to dismiss, or fully agree with. If his code of ethics doesn't conform to human ideals, as he is a god of the Forest created by humans and based on a predatory animal, I think that would make him more interesting, in fact, but not less likable. The author can and must do whatever he wants to do. I criticize not because I want the work "corrected" - that would be dreadful - but because I want to make my own thoughts and preferences clear to myself through discussion (and have them criticized myself). I do not think so, either; but what do you think they mean? Edit: CloudedAtTheMoment, I think we understand each other now. I want to make clear that I don't want every single stone in the comic to be accompanied by a biographer; but I like when stuff is enhanced with suggestive details in art whose purpose in the narrative is superficially unclear, and which gain meaning because they are linked with other details or recur in objects/characters that would not seem related otherwise. I also like such hints to be misleading or slightly twisted so that they cover up something else. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 30, 2014 23:34:31 GMT
No, but it does demonstrate that a master can find ways to work around the limitations of his (or her) medium and appear to do things that are generally thought not possible in that medium. (Sometimes by actually doing them, sometimes by making it seem like he's done them, and sometimes by skipping them so elegantly that nobody notices.) I agree but would like to add that it may take brilliance or even genius to overcome the perceived limitation of a medium, once it's been done and has become known the same technique becomes quickly relegated to "competence" in a given field. ]The key word being "ultimately." I should have used "simultaneously" in its place. Laughing at someone's deepest feelings of guilt in a graveyard, even if it is meant cheekily, reveals Hetty as childish and immoral without the need for any more chapters. It did pass through my mind at the the time that I first read the chapter (and a few times since) that Hetty might be typed on a micro-organism, and we've all been vastly over-estimating her. She may be permanently amoral by nature if that is the case, where a complex animal who interacts with humans can become more human-like. I've noted this elsewhere but I don't see any evidence for an eternal soul in the GC universe; the concept of some stories being more important and powerful than others, over-writing reality, and so forth, does lead to the notion of some characters being less important than others in fundamental ways. Perhaps it is depressing but I do not see it as inconsistent with the body of GC to view Hetty as very much a fork... a disposable plastic fork that could have been something better if she'd wanted to, possibly, and in that we readers may perceive some waste. (B)ecause there is no moral defense for child murder regardless of how many layers one covers it up with. I don't want Hetty to lose her psychopathic tendencies, but I want her positions on Renard's current state (the "slavery" of love) to be more tempting and apparently credible without being necessarily true. I want Renard's doubts to become apparent to myself through a conflict of philosophies in which neither side is easy to dismiss, or fully agree with. If his code of ethics doesn't conform to human ideals, as he is a god of the Forest created by humans and based on a predatory animal, I think that would make him more interesting, in fact, but not less likable. I have been reading the comic for a long time and was in the camp that thought that Renard did indeed try to kill Antimony via stealing her body. My thinking was that because a fox would chew off its own leg to escape from a trap OF COURSE he would sacrifice a human child. Though he might agonize about or rationalize it at to great lengths later once he was safe and free, he would act like a fox when action was called for. Renard is wounded and probably medicated when he hesitates; does his pain drive him forward like an animal or cloud his mind, or both? The same can be asked about the drugs. It's the hesitation that Hetty really criticizes as far as his deeds and it would In My Humble Opinion take a great deal of time and effort to define further to a meaningful degree. As far as Hetty's deeds, there remains a great deal of doubt about what Hetty claims and what actually happened as far as her previous owner's death. Is she trying to impress Renard by saying she murdered her former master? Will she actually go through with her assassination plot? CAN she go through with it, since that would seem to contradict what we know about how these ownership things work in GC? The author can and must do whatever he wants to do. I criticize not because I want the work "corrected" - that would be dreadful - but because I want to make my own thoughts and preferences clear to myself through discussion (and have them criticized myself). I do not think so, either; but what do you think they mean? Well, there is such a thing as editing... particularly if things are going to print. Continuity errors happen. Some artists concentrate on the visuals to the detriment of the dialogue and webcomics are slow... it is easy to get lost in your own work and lose track of what you're writing. David Barrack of Grrl Power should probably be fined for every further use of "touche," for example. Either that or it should become a drinking game for archive binges for noobs. But I know that is not what you mean.  Normally I encourage overthinking on this forum because it is a grand way to pass the time but in the case of the doll/bug contrast I think I'll discourage it for a change and point to a conventional interpretation. In general: The doll is a child's toy, a symbol of innocence. The doll is also generally a girl's toy, which reminds the reader of a child who's now departed. The bug represents that which creeps in the shadows, an indication of uncleanliness, a spreader of disease, perhaps in an abstract way anxiety. Bugs can bite. The revelation of the bug within the doll represented bringing a danger out of where it was lurking, which was meant to limit sympathy for Hetty I suspect. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on May 31, 2014 22:28:18 GMT
Don't think there's any misinterpretation there. I'd say that general outlook is pretty valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Jun 1, 2014 11:48:12 GMT
Wow....get this everybody, I just spent 3 long hours typing the hugest response to you guys and accidentally clicked on something before I could post it. When I hit the back button, all that text was gone. Gone... Gone.......
. Saved me many times from throwing my pc through the window. |
|
CloudedAtTheMoment
Junior Member
Anyone watch Steven Universe? ....oh, well...great show!
Posts: 74
|
Post by CloudedAtTheMoment on Jun 5, 2014 6:14:13 GMT
Wow, just got it installed. Thanks man, this thing looks like just the angel from heaven I need to save me.
Still can't get over how awesome this community is. The precise and relevant spelling, wonderful discussions, suggestions and helpful pointers, as well as the responses that actually have some since of intelligent significance, as though an actual fully functional human being is really behind the computer, and not some strange entity incapable of forming coherent, legible sentences. You know, Facebook could really learn a thing or two from you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jun 5, 2014 8:24:22 GMT
Still can't get over how awesome this community is. I think part of it is thanks to the three forum rules and the fact that Tom banns everybody who breaks rule 1 repeatedly. This place is the only internet forum I visit regularly and I got so used to this calm and civilized atmosphere that I feel dumbfounded whenever I check out some different forum, haha. |
|
I used super-fast split-second timing as a specific example, though for novels v. graphic novels/comics. Of course every rule has exceptions; many people here might be familiar with Ranma 1/2 in both manga and anime format. I'm fond of it (to an extent, in spite of its frozen characters) in manga form but not so much in anime because in manga form simply because the fight sequences come across as more interesting. 
