Comic Genesis Forums

We got the Chief Adjudicator, the Mayor, Master Rillcreek, and the Captain of the Guard out there.

And the first three were there at his Choosing Day.

Well, well....how they managed to keep it a secret from Quentyn is interesting. You'd think he'd have heard them setting stuff up in the early morning.

Sound sleeper.

And that he shut all sound off from his hut. And if I were in my pj's, I'd shut the door real quick too

The JAM wrote:And that he shut all sound off from his hut. And if I were in my pj's, I'd shut the door real quick too

I agree, give him a least time to get dressed and groomed. Poor kit was not expecting a croud.

Best expression ever (Panel 4). Whoever says Ralph's art sucks can... well, I don't think I need to finish this sentence, now do I?

That's why I never open my door unless I'm fully dressed, not even to get the paper or mail. (Getting locked out of your house once in your PJs in the middle of a sub-zero winter morning and having to go next door for rescue will do that to you!)

Mind you, except for the worst of the summer, I sleep in a running suit so that I don't have such problems anymore.

Heh. "Meep."

Doink wrote:Best expression ever (Panel 4). Whoever says Ralph's art sucks can... well, I don't think I need to finish this sentence, now do I?

I've met those people, Doink. In reality, they just hate Ralph.

To quote (or misquote) Sir A.C. Doyle:

Mediocrity never praises anything higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.

The fun part was when Ralph and the rest of us with him on IRC started considering being kicked or banned from their channel as a badge of honor...

Oh, I disagree with Ralph with a passion on most issues. I think he's wrong, stupid, ignorant, assholic, and all that.

...er, strike ignorant and stupid. He's shown to be more knowledgable on subjects than I have. ^_^;

But his art? His ability to weave a story and show it in art... is very well done. Do I often disagree with what he writes in it? Yup. Do I deny its well done stuff that I disagree with? Nope.

Well, his art IS cartoonish, but then it's a cartoon!

Now, there ARE cartoonists who draw as if they were a damned camera, almost photo-realistic. Indeed, some could be described as HYPER-realistic.

(Not to mention a certain name that rhymes with Mug Singer... )

RH's art isn't that sort of hyper-detailed sort, but it's not intended to be, and doesn't need to be.

Hyper? Yes. Realistic? not even close.

The Lurker Below wrote:That's why I never open my door unless I'm fully dressed, not even to get the paper or mail. (Getting locked out of your house once in your PJs in the middle of a sub-zero winter morning and having to go next door for rescue will do that to you!)

Mind you, except for the worst of the summer, I sleep in a running suit so that I don't have such problems anymore.

I know someone who greeted some Jehovah witlesses in his birthday suit. He said it took a few seconds for them to get a clue.

I've found myself more interested in three things as far as comics usually go,

control over the characters and getting them to perform the action you want them to perform.
plot, usually a necessity, even if it is usually unimportant (a plot in a humorous comic) I still like it being there
and if it is humerous (or supposed to be) it should be genuinely funny. that's one reason I keep going back to freefall. it is genuinely funny in a lot of places.

There's no question some people don't like Ralph's politics. Right as Nip'n'Tuck did the "border movie" plotline, David Hopkins at Jack yanked his link to N&T that had been there a long time (and how I originally found Ralph's three).

I actually like Jack but I lost a lot of respect for Hopkins.

RHJunior wrote:Hyper? Yes. Realistic? not even close.

I didn't mean the *ahem* "anatomy". I meant the fur, the sometimes photo-realistic fine details. It's almost as if a certain un-named artist nipped off to an alternate dimension, and did his art from "life". (Although I REALLY don't want to think about what "life" is like in THAT reality.. eww...)

Squeaky Bunny wrote:

The Lurker Below wrote:That's why I never open my door unless I'm fully dressed, not even to get the paper or mail. (Getting locked out of your house once in your PJs in the middle of a sub-zero winter morning and having to go next door for rescue will do that to you!)

Mind you, except for the worst of the summer, I sleep in a running suit so that I don't have such problems anymore.

I know someone who greeted some Jehovah witlesses in his birthday suit. He said it took a few seconds for them to get a clue.

I've slept in running shorts (or a running suit) ever since the bomb threats in Germany back in the early 80's..



*shrugs*

Authors who put politics into their work generally lead me to assume that they want to be taken seriously, and they want their stories to be on some level advertising for their beliefs. That is all fine and well, but when authors do that, I tend to demand that they show a greater depth and maturity to their position than blind dogmatism. Now Ralph may well have a greater depth and maturity to his beliefs than blind dogmatism, but so far it ain't comin' out in his work.

"There is no such thing as an unarmed Raconan" tends to show a profound lack of understanding of the qualities of the gun that made it such an equalizer back in the late medieval period. Raconan politics and economics also makes it fairly clear that he doesn't have a particularly deep understanding of how societies form and how societies evolve. If you're going to preach economics and politics, please show that you have an understanding of politics and economics at various stages of history Or at least show that you have more understanding than people who have done even a casual reading of the history of poltiics and economics, such as myself.

Mutant for Hire wrote:Authors who put politics into their work generally lead me to assume that they want to be taken seriously, and they want their stories to be on some level advertising for their beliefs. That is all fine and well, but when authors do that, I tend to demand that they show a greater depth and maturity to their position than blind dogmatism. Now Ralph may well have a greater depth and maturity to his beliefs than blind dogmatism, but so far it ain't comin' out in his work.

"There is no such thing as an unarmed Raconan" tends to show a profound lack of understanding of the qualities of the gun that made it such an equalizer back in the late medieval period. Raconan politics and economics also makes it fairly clear that he doesn't have a particularly deep understanding of how societies form and how societies evolve. If you're going to preach economics and politics, please show that you have an understanding of politics and economics at various stages of history Or at least show that you have more understanding than people who have done even a casual reading of the history of poltiics and economics, such as myself.

Howso, a lack of understanding? I design logical sounding cultures for a hobby (and sometimes a job), and I'm more than a CASUAL researcher of how societies evolve and change. The civilization that Ralph proposes in TOTQ, so far, rings true.

Sure, there's bits and pieces that don't make sense... but the camera is focussed on KITS, not adults. We're seeing the world through their eyes, really, and learn as they learn. We're also missing some informaton that they have, like history lessons.

So far, all Ralph has done in TOTQ (I no longer read N&T at all, and kinda read GH for this reason) is present ideas and problems that exist in his fictional world, and present what he feels would be the ideal solution for the situation, as opposed to applying RL problems and situations to his other comics.

BTW, my 11 year old cousin loves TOTQ ^_^

"There is no such thing as an unarmed Raconan" rings about as true as the statement "there was no such thing as an unarmed medieval peasant". The latter statement is technically true. Few peasants didn't have knives, and farmers had all sorts of implements that could be (and often were when they were impressed into service or revolting against their lord) as weapons. And yet somehow the medieval world failed to be an egalitarian place.

The gun was a great societal equalizer mainly because a peasant with only days of training could become good enough that a group of them could do a fairly impressive kill rate on knights who had vastly more expensive equipment and years of training (which was also incredibly expensive). Prior to the gun, the military effectiveness of knights compensated for the greater expense. After the gun, military effectiveness became much more cost effective.

Now if Ralph can conclusively show that an illiterate, uneducated, untrained and underfed Raconan peasant after a few days of training can wipe out a well trained Raconan with years of fancy education and the finest equipment, I'll be willing to believe that lux ability is a great equalizer. Everything he has shown has indicated it is not the case. And he has shown very little reason for me to swallow that a farmer's son like Quentyn is going to be literate, going to be educated, going to have the time and the energy for militia training in his spare time.

Medieval life was vastly different than it was now, with 90+% of the people working hard as farmers and having little time or energy for anything else, even when their ruler wanted them to do so. English kings had a devil of a time getting their adult men to train with the longbow, and the longbow strikes me as a far simpler thing than learning to use lux. Ralph is assuming that even the common folks of what is essentially an early industrial predominantly agrarian society have the wealth, time and educational opportunities of an advanced industrial society.

Mutant for Hire wrote:"There is no such thing as an unarmed Raconan" tends to show a profound lack of understanding of the qualities of the gun that made it such an equalizer back in the late medieval period. Raconan politics and economics also makes it fairly clear that he doesn't have a particularly deep understanding of how societies form and how societies evolve. If you're going to preach economics and politics, please show that you have an understanding of politics and economics at various stages of history Or at least show that you have more understanding than people who have done even a casual reading of the history of poltiics and economics, such as myself.

What a wonderful argument considering how little bits and pieces we have actually seen from racconan society. In order to support what you said you would have to make pretty gross presumptions and build the whole economical and political structure from bread crumbs... Besides that it's a comic. It might or might not carry a message at times but that isn't main point of it. TotQ isn't a political comic unlike so many others imho. Just try to enjoy it instead of trying to nitpick it apart?

Mutant for Hire wrote:"There is no such thing as an unarmed Raconan" rings about as true as the statement "there was no such thing as an unarmed medieval peasant". The latter statement is technically true. Few peasants didn't have knives, and farmers had all sorts of implements that could be (and often were when they were impressed into service or revolting against their lord) as weapons. And yet somehow the medieval world failed to be an egalitarian place.

The gun was a great societal equalizer mainly because a peasant with only days of training could become good enough that a group of them could do a fairly impressive kill rate on knights who had vastly more expensive equipment and years of training (which was also incredibly expensive). Prior to the gun, the military effectiveness of knights compensated for the greater expense. After the gun, military effectiveness became much more cost effective.

Now if Ralph can conclusively show that an illiterate, uneducated, untrained and underfed Raconan peasant after a few days of training can wipe out a well trained Raconan with years of fancy education and the finest equipment, I'll be willing to believe that lux ability is a great equalizer. Everything he has shown has indicated it is not the case. And he has shown very little reason for me to swallow that a farmer's son like Quentyn is going to be literate, going to be educated, going to have the time and the energy for militia training in his spare time.

Medieval life was vastly different than it was now, with 90+% of the people working hard as farmers and having little time or energy for anything else, even when their ruler wanted them to do so. English kings had a devil of a time getting their adult men to train with the longbow, and the longbow strikes me as a far simpler thing than learning to use lux. Ralph is assuming that even the common folks of what is essentially an early industrial predominantly agrarian society have the wealth, time and educational opportunities of an advanced industrial society.

I would say that it's a pretty good equalizer when used against beings without lux skills.. like in the comic. Also with the example you gave then that racconan peasant would be fighting against a being not using lux. It's also incorrect considering that almost all(minus mageblinds) racconan have used and continue to use lux all their life. I don't think that using lux efficiently as a weapon necessarily needs years of training(which every racconan actually has). Even the smallest tricks can be devestating when used in correct situations. Remember Quentyn using a kit's trick on that tallowcandle?