Spleen Squeezin's

Aren't UJ and PDH both drawn by the same person (Jennifer Diane Reitz)?

(Reply) (Thread)

Uh, yes. Yes they are.

The funny thing is, if you looked at the bodies now and not the medical history or into the actual bedroom, you could view that living situation as polygamy: one man with three wives.

Which is practically old-fashioned.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Aren't you drawing a comic that has an anthropomorphic bear as a main character who interacts with physical manifestations of his subconsciousness and is also basically your alter ego?

O.o

(Reply) (Thread)

Let me try again, for the people who were sleeping through the lecture last time.

This is referencing going ABOVE AND BEYOND the normal necessity of creative writing and worldmaking. We're talking about stories where the writers feel the need to rewrite EVERY law of the universe, to the point that they literally create an entire new setup for the laws of physics and quantum mechanics (quite literally, in two of the three examples listed.... and in the third, the laws of time are rewritten.)

Perhaps this is too subtle for some of you out there, but there's a pretty obvious qualitative difference between a moderate suspension of reality, and the complete erasure and recomposition of it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

One would easily argue that "Racconans" and "Luxcraft" are extremely unrealistic fictions... but they are satisfying and enjoyable fictions because they aren't *arbitrarily* portrayed. They are *consistent* within their universe, and consistency is always far more important to a fictional work than accuracy or realism.

I'm curious about something. It seems to me that the Racconans seem to adhere to a life philosophy similar to your own ideal. Is this the case? And if you've created an entirely fictional civilization to write about, is this any different than creating an entirely fictional universe?

Not that there's anything wrong with it; I'm just genuinely curious is all. It's a pretty awesome and well handled piece’a work, and it seems to me like it would naturally be easier to write about a universe you’re emotionally invested in.

(Reply) (Thread)

There's hardly a subtle difference between normal suspension of reality for creative fiction--- and feeling compelled to literally rewrite the universe clear down to the subatomic particles and laws of physics. (The latter, for that matter, generally makes for exceptionally BAD science fiction writing anyway.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

One would easily argue that "Racconans" and "Luxcraft" are extremely unrealistic fictions... but they are satisfying and enjoyable fictions because they aren't *arbitrarily* portrayed. They are *consistent* within their universe, and consistency is always far more important to a fictional work than accuracy or realism.

I'm curious about something. It seems to me that the Racconans seem to adhere to a life philosophy similar to your own ideal. Is this the case? And if you've created an entirely fictional civilization to write about, is this any different than creating an entirely fictional universe?

Not that there's anything wrong with it; I'm just genuinely curious is all. It's a pretty awesome and well handled piece’a work, and it seems to me like it would naturally be easier to write about a universe you’re emotionally invested in.

Also: Argh... accidental anonymous posting is my bane.

(Reply) (Thread)

Yet, even though Luxcraft is something created from Ralph's mind, it follows set rules and laws that can not be changed nor overridden.

This difference between Tales of the Questor and one of these comics(which I've not read)or any others like it, is that TotQ actually follows some kind of actuall scietific method. To me, the difference between good fantasy and bad fantasy is a matter of realism.

Sure, the wizard over there can cast a massive earth shattering spell, but at what cost to himself? Luxcraft in the Questor universe is pretty thought out and scientific in it's approach to "magic".

I can not stand fantasy where things happen with no sence of realism behinde it. Lets go back to the wizard and his spell. A good fantasy writer would write in some kind of setback the wizard would face. Rapid ageing due to the extream toll on his body casting such a spell or falling into a coma for several days. A good writer makes his or world, no matter how fantastic, beliviable. A bad fantasy writer would have said wizard cast such a spell with no such reprocusions unto himself. They write worlds which are not only fantastic, abut unbelivable and unrealistic.

Everything has to follow some kind of rule or order or law. "Magic" is no different than physics. Best way to sum it up is Equivilent Echancge from Full Metal Alchemest. In order to give something must be taken in return. Or even simpler, for every action there is an equal and oppoiste reaction.

People who creates worlds where the laws of science and physics don't apply, or they re-write the rules to suit their own ends, are just bad writers who can't make a world without warping what will make it belivable to suit their own ends.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Those who create fiction, or if you want to go even broader then creative minds in general, are very frequently a little bit... different from the rest. And homosexuality has always been disproportionately common among artists. (Noteably, Simpson considered the idea of being transgender and considered himself female for a time, but has now decided he is comfortable as a homosexual male.)

The entire fantasy genre (including D&D), as well as a large number of comics and pretty much all cartoons, involve an aggressive rewrite of physical laws in order to suit the creator's preferences. And Goblin Hollow's gotten pretty surrealist at times, particularly in the Shlock sequence that grew into an encounter with a gigantic, satanic clown.

You're probably reading too much in. There's probably a correlation between discontent with what nature's given you and a desire to create worlds with less restrictive rules... but one of the purposes of fiction is to explore different circumstances without risk. Would you assume that Dan Shive of El Goonish Shive is obsessively transsexual?

(Reply) (Thread)

Dude.

Baaaaaaad choice for a counter-argument.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Those who create fiction, or if you want to go even broader then creative minds in general, are very frequently a little bit... different from the rest. And homosexuality has always been disproportionately common among artists. (Noteably, Simpson considered the idea of being transgender and considered himself female for a time, but has now decided he is comfortable as a homosexual male.)

The entire fantasy genre (including D&D), as well as a large number of comics and pretty much all cartoons, involve an aggressive rewrite of physical laws in order to suit the creator's preferences. And Goblin Hollow's gotten pretty surrealist at times, particularly in the Shlock sequence that grew into an encounter with a gigantic, satanic clown.

You're probably reading too much in. There's probably a correlation between discontent with what nature's given you and a desire to create worlds with less restrictive rules... but one of the purposes of fiction is to explore different circumstances without risk. Would you assume that Dan Shive of El Goonish Shive is obsessively transsexual? Or that Amber of DMFA is deranged?

(Reply) (Thread)

Mate, They are web comics. They are a flight of fancy that someone has taken the time and efort to draw and improve over time and gain a readership.

This reminds me of some 'Research' in the mid 80's saying that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were married and in a gay relationship!

What is next, will every little quirk over the course of a comic strip be analysed? Does Jim Davis have an eating disorder because Garfield's weight yo-yo's alover the place? Did the late Charles Shultz have a lonley childhood because there are never any adults shown in Snoopy?

(Reply) (Thread)

Dude, when the writers are openly, expressly and FAAABulously obvious about their lifestyles, one has to wonder.

This is the point: that three different writers have been presented who have some very specific personal issues in common. And, three for three, their WRITING demonstrates certain parallels as well.

The question at hand is whether this trend will go beyond the first three samples.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Different laws of physics can be an interesting story concept. I see no reason, why it would necessarily be connected to any dissatisfaction.

(Reply) (Thread)

Like Sigmund Freud himself once said: "Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar."

(Reply) (Thread)

Tell Monica Lewinsky that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I generally like Jennifer Reitz' work. In fact, I appreciate the fact that she does indeed go to extreme lengths to describe how and why her worlds work. Her stories are affected by the physics of the universe they occur in, not vice-versa, and I like that.

That said, I have trouble figuring out how such an obviously intelligent individual can have such narrowminded positions on real-world social and political issues. I've had arguments with her that essentially boil down to "you're just wrong". It's a damn shame.

(Reply) (Thread)

Ozy and Millie is blantantly political satire, as well as pointing jabs at anything that gets with in range. It doesn't have to fit to a clearly defined world since it's not an attempt to create an alternative universe or even much of a continous story beyond a few mini arcs. That goes even further for the other comic (Which I admit to having read only sparingly) which doesn't try to be anything other than political commentary and which each comic can stand on its own for that purpose without the rest. Very few writers, including those in the heart of English Lit, manage to write politically, write realistically, and still manage to be mildly entertaining. To expect a web comic that updates almost five times a week to live up to that kind of quality is silly.

I haven't read the other authors you discuss, but I check Ozy and Millie everyday. Maybe I care far less than you do about sexuality, but I would never have guessed transexual, and quite frankly, I fail to see how that should undermine the validity of the webcomic in any way other than to make the commentary about gender roles more relevant to those fans who would know and might care.

(Reply) (Thread)

Using Lux, I can traverse from point A to point B in a very short period of time, fairly safely, in a straight line.
It's the street 3 blocks down. ;P

As far as the topic o' this thread: Meh. I honestly couldn't care less about how they write. I quite reading O&M about a year ago as I found it was becoming, well, not funny. I think the biggest point in favor of Ralph aren't really the strips all y'all are talking about, but DS' I Drew This. Talk about someone trying to warp the world to their own POV. @ least O&M was set in a fictional universe.

BTW, Ralph: Still loving the comics! Not posting regularly on LJ or @ all on the forums 'cause my internet's spotty @ best. Keep it up.

If you won't stand for one thing, then you'll fall for anything.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think it's certainly possible to imagine crazy worlds that you've built up from the subatomic level without being horribly dissatisfied with your lot in this world we actually live in, but in the case of these particular authors/artists, you very likely have a point.

(Reply) (Thread)

A can be followed by B,
but that does not mean that B is always accompanied by A.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mr. R.H.

I agree with you in principle. I suspect that your judgement in respect of the gender-confused/questioning/I've lost track of what the people who fit into this category want to be called and courtesy, therefore, fails me) and their fundamental conflict with reality is correct.

I also agree that it is probable that your observation that this conflict would be represented in their art is reasonable. If you had proferred your observation as such, I would not be quibbling, herein.

But your sample size is far too small to make anything more of this: anecdote is not evidence, despite what the global-warming alarmists would have us believe.

Godspeed.

(Reply) (Thread)

Which is why I said that it only seemed to be a trend. For the record (yet AGAIN, dang it--- READ the posts already!) I have noticed this parallel in other strips and comics and the like. I only named the first three comics that came readily to mind.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Gender roles are not natural. That's where I stopped reading.

(Reply) (Thread)

In order to be a Liberal:

You have to believe that homosexuality is natural---
but that gender roles are not.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)