Of course. I do need to further finetune the saturation/contrast to make the pages crisper. I do need to keep working on my anatomy, though I don't think it's anything close to 'terrible' or 'bad'.
The balloon arrangement is also something I keep and need to keep focusing on. As for the other 'criticisms' they were often contradicting each other, or about things I'd already corrected well before the review, or they failed to explain the 'hideousness' so I can't really comment on them in any valid manner.
That's why I said the whole review was disappointing- there are few, if any, pointers for improvement, the bashing taking place does not include any real pointer/help/explanation why it is taking place, and a good part of what I'm being criticized on can be chalked up to not really taking the time to notice if it is still valid, or at all valid.
Even the little gripe of Nicky P as to when the opening scene is taking place (inthe past or future) is immediately cleared up when on the first panel of the first scene it says that this next scene happens "a week earlier".I.e. the torture scene is in the future, and we've rewinded to see how the 'young boy' ended up being tortured- certainly not out of sheer sick sadistic pleasure, but as a means to an end.
I think part of the problem for me was that I don't have strong feelings either way on it. Mike clearly wasn't so impressed and Nicky loved it. I am thinking that I should have asked El cid to get involved with the review, however I didn't want to put too much on him as he has done a lot for me already. Even though El cid has stated he had a similar opinion to Mikemacdee we tend to discuss things more than I did on this review. Which would probably have led to a different review. Advisories… I still think you could tighten the dialogue, even though you have explained much of it I still think it could be more natural in places. Not a major issue though. The visual story telling could be improved a little. This page is one that mike macdee mentioned and I cut from the review, I probably shouldn't have. His point was that the kid startled the soldier and the soldier doesn't shoot him and turns his back on him. An extra panel or two showing the soldiers reaction may have helped. I think more solid line art would help, the darker lines are better than early on but there is still room for improvement. Obviously better anotomy, or more practice masking it wouldn't hurt. better perspective on figures, foreshortening and such like. The layouts could use a little more pop but are certainly functional, this is somethign I need to improve as well. I look at the work of el cid and abt_nihil as good examples yet still i can't seem to get the same effect. Funny I have a better head for reviewing it now than I did doing the actual review…
Might have helped with what? What did he mention it as a specimen of? Where did you feel the dialogue was not 'tight' enough? See what I mean? That's the sort of stuff that was left out. And that aside, it was at times plainly rude and unfair in value judgement, as if there was special care taken to attack rather than give feedback. And the 'little things', the 'not big deal' things were not indicated as such. I'd have much preferred El Cid's nazi objection rather than this rather imbalanced sum. Like I also told you in PQ- the review is just unfortunate on several levels, especially presentation within the text and manner of feedback giving, as well as its quality.
Yes, I agree with all these things- I don't really like solid black lines though. I much rather prefer to go about it tweaking the way I color the foreground vs the background.
Panels: I go about it the european way- simple squares. It isn't the most exciting thing in comic making but I do want to have a traditional feel to it. There is also more reason why I don't let the characters break out of the panels or give odd panel shapes- let's say as a stylistic choice.
I'd like to have read both the things people appreciate in my art and like and enjoy it, as well as things I should look to further improve. I didn't get that, but at least the thread is interesting.
Tantz Aerine wrote: El Cid: Obviously you are missing the point- the particular thought process and behavior of the nazi fellow is, unfortunately, the documented average behavior of…
Obviously you're still missing the point that if you have to write huge blocks of text explaining what should have been communicated in the comic, then the comic failed at its job. And the fact that you're basing your characterizations on historical "average behaviors" is actually just you justifying your use of stereotypes rather than an understanding of human psychology, which I consider lazy writing. You apparently do not think so. That's fine. You don't need to convince me.
Tantz Aerine wrote: You need further proof that the average common (NOT evil or monstrous) joe can end up being brutal, thinking brutal, and acting brutal without even realising it and without any 'motivations'…
No, I don't need any further proof, as that was the very point I was making earlier (and yes, I'm very much aware of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment). My issue was that when you make the characters' evil seem more a direct result of their political affiliation (Nazism), rather than the universal human condition, it reads like a cop out, at best. You don't believe you have committed this error. Again, that's fine, and you don't need to convince me. It's the impression I got and I've made you aware of it.
Tantz Aerine wrote: Also- the whole villain cartooniness you mention was the issue I wanted to address- in that there's nothing cartoony about what is depicted.
What is depicted in and of itself is not cartoony; it's the way it is portrayed by you which definitely struck me as caricature. Maybe some other writer could have pulled it off more effectively, leaving out the silly thought balloons for starters.
Tantz Aerine wrote: Actually to be entirely honest, I didn't havethe heart to draw what was the actual treatment average nazis had been ordered to do in Occupied Greece (I even have the particular regiment orders complete with file numbers) as the standard practice (not the extreme). You obviously are not aware of these, nor of the actual happenings, and it probably is easier to think it as cartoon villainy.
I don't believe anything I've written here suggests I'm not aware that the Nazis committed tons of atrocious things, so there's no need to insult me, Tantz. Get over yourself. No one's questioning your historical accuracy with regards to events; it's your failure at depicting the human element of it that was my issue.
Tantz Aerine wrote: Oh and about the indoctrination thing you mention about people generally acting bad: I don't think you're being objective here. Yes people are racist still, and are pranking bony kids still, and do horrible things to each other still. But it's entirely different a percentage of people that do it when the whole 'nasty side' becomes part of your overt social policy, rather than something people refer you to psychologists for. Surely you can grasp that.
"Not being objective?" You just made that whole spiel up to explain why it's okay for you to write cardboard characters of people you don't like, and I'm "not being objective?" Again, seriously, get over yourself. It still sounds like you're trying to find an excuse for treating the Nazis as a "special case" rather than using them to explore the universal human experience. You apparently don't accept that criticism as valid. That's fine. You don't have to accept it, and you're not going to convince me that it is invalid. All I can say is that if you're happy with your creative process and your results, go ahead and keep doing what you've been doing, and have fun with it.
I do believe the one pissed off here is you. And the 'wall of text', I was under the impression was a discussion. A discussion on what is cardboard and what is real, on what nazis were and weren't, on what is realistic and what isn't. I wasn't aware discussing a point makes it 'cardboard character writing justification'.
"Not being objective?" You just made that whole spiel up to explain why it's okay for you to write cardboard characters of people you don't like,
No, I wrote that spiel above to explain to you what it meant to live and breathe a specific propaganda, which has nothing to do with the guy's personality- you focus on his thoughts and not his actions that don't actually fully coincide with his stilted thinking. I can't help what you choose to have tunnel vision about.
and I'm "not being objective?" Again, seriously, get over yourself.
This sort of reaction just indicates you are angered. The guard isn't cardboard, just as no guard CAN be cardboard with just a page or two of screen time. He's a flavor. Like it or not, whether my writing angers you or not, that WAS the average train of thought for nazi culture.
It still sounds like you're trying to find an excuse for treating the Nazis as a "special case" rather than using them to explore the universal human experience.
I am not 'treating' the nazis as a 'special case'. They are what they are. Like them, there have been others before them that did the same. Nothing in my comic indicates they hog the market on deviance. You consistently choose to ignore all the other nazi guards in the story so far as well as the greek counterparts. It still sounds like you are fuelling your own preconception. I explained to you that you aren't looking at the full canvas. I can't MAKE you look at it nor interested in that. I also explained that the actual nazi mc's are yet to be presented so you can only look at what hints I have instilled about the human experience via the nazi prism. Again, I can't MAKE you do that. Obviously it makes you feel better to fume.
You apparently don't accept that criticism as valid. That's fine. You don't have to accept it, and you're not going to convince me that it is invalid.
That much is obvious. But any way you cut it, your opinion is subjective- there's no substantiation for it. Not liking the writing approach- that's your taste. But nothing more, nothing less. You just got mad about the 'biological superiority' thing he was thinking, which I take it struck some kind of chord. Unfortunately, that WAS the nazi premise. It's like going in a rage if I write a creationist as dissing Darwin in his mind while he's having a smoke. Sorry- that IS what creationists (on the average) think, no matter if I like or don't like them. The same goes for nazis.
All I can say is that if you're happy with your creative process and your results, go ahead and keep doing what you've been doing, and have fun with it.
For sure. I just had been under the impression we had launched off on a discussion, with that particular instance as a stimulus. My mistake.
Sorry Tantz, but when you speak to people with condescending phrases such as "you obviously missed the point," and "you obviously are not aware of," you cannot expect a warm reponse, from anyone. You don't get a free pass to flame-bait. You seem to have a tremendously inflated impression of your own abilities, which is not justified from what I've seen. I will at least give you credit for "admitting" that the criticisms of your art were valid, though that's sort of like a sumo wrestler "admitting" he has a weight problem. Honestly, the artwork never bothered me with your comic. When I went to read it, I was expecting a serious, thoughtful war drama, and that's not what I found. I was overall disappointed. And yes, I know, it's going to get better somewhere around Chapter 100 or so, take your word for it. The problem is, by then I'm reading something else because the weak opening failed to grab me.
I'm very sorry that you get so defensive about people criticizing your work.
Ah, I see the problem here- the use of the word 'obviously' was what irked you. I'm surprised you are so sensitive to that though. I was pretty civil to you, and did not attack you or your qualifications or your quality as a person, which I could have done- but that would actually be a cop out, because that would be an ad hominem.
You are free to not like what I do. And when I ask for a review I do expect criticism. However I find it at least a disservice to not respond to that criticism which may not have a valid basis and discuss it. Unless you feel it is unholy to do so, and indicates an inflated ego. I love discussing my work, and I have taken all the pointers people gave me to self teach myself and to continue improving my art.
But judging from how you advise me not to expect warmth when I get across as 'condensending', I am surprised you in the same time expect me to fell all right with the 'condensending' in the feedback- and the actuall attacks. You do realise you have been attacking all this time, not discussing, right?
I will at least give you credit for "admitting" that the criticisms of your art were valid,
Why is the 'admitting' in inverted commas? Did I pretend to admit something? Was I not frank about something?
though that's sort of like a sumo wrestler "admitting" he has a weight problem.
The sumo wrestler does not have a weight problem. He actually seeks to have the weight he does because that's what's required of the sport he's chosen to do. ;) As for my story failing to grab you that's FINE! Honestly! I knew from the get go it wouldn't appeal to everyone. No problem! But we weren't discussing your taste. (for the record, we're at Chapter 2 yet, not chapter 20, if you get my drift.)
sighs. well, to be honest both of you are right about certain things. Tantz is right to be upset about certain elements, not of peoples opinions so much but the review itself wasn't put together very well. I failed in what I set out to do with it and counter the harsher comments with the positives and constructive elements. It isn't a bad comic and if people take that from the review then I failed completely. edit. I'm not saying she should or shouldn't be upset at peoples opinions rather than that is not what I am apologising for. It isn't my place to speak for others about their comments.
It's an old saw among military men that orders don't mean a thing where the rubber hits the road. What is written often is not what the soldiers do and is not the reason why they do it. It provides validation for what they do after that fact. Standing orders to shoot so-and-so isn't followed until my comrade Werner is killed by a partisan.
However, careful research into the letters and personal effects of most of the men on the spot showed they hated committing atrocities unless they thought they were warranted by enemy action. The ideological racist types were a distinct minority and mostly confined to the Staatspolitzei, the SD and the SS. The averge Landser wasn't into it which is why they were excused from such serivice early in the war (1941 on the Eastern Front) and why a great many Heere (Army) commanders pulled their soldiers out of such operations. Soldiers aren't supposed to be used for massacring civilians. The German officer corps was pretty stingent even chivalric about that… UNLESS the civilians in question had in some way provoked the action by shooting, sniping and killing soldiers on and off duty.
But then the US Army did similar things when invading Germany. A little Youth Corps girl pops up and kills some infantry on patrol she's dead and then the LT rounds up every person and does a shake-down for weapons. Then comes the 12 year old and the panzerfaust. Sometimes spanking the occasional die-hard Hitler Youth was done as well as portrayed in Big Red One. But more often the kid was taken out like any other Landser or SS soldat. One probelm I have had with WM is where are the Italians and Bulgarians? More than two thirds of Greece was occupied by the Italians who were notoriously lax which is another reason for the Nazi High COmmand ordering real hard reprisals against the civilians. Reprisals that unfortunately have been shown to work very well in most of the cases they are implimented without mercy. Most modern research is uncovering this as we get past the glowing praise of the first few generations of historians of the occupied peopes versus the Nazis. But still where are the Italians? It was a combined occuaption and until mid-1943 it would have been Germans ordering around Italians.
Remember what the WWII historian calls the "Tiger effect" Every enemy tank is a Tiger even though they were the distinct minority. In the same fashion every enemy soldier becomes a Nazi even if in reality it was one German Officer, a handful of Staatspolitzei and several hundred Italians.
Regarding El Cid's point about the Nazi mindset: The way I understand it, I don't agree in either this special case (i.e. Tantz's comic), nor with the general strong version of it - that the way Nazis behaved is somehow rooted in the human condition. That is a highly controversial belief, and I wouldn't criticize anyone for not sharing it, and by extension, you cannot criticize a writer for not modelling their characters in accord with this belief, or to use their story to drive this point home. I mean, anyone is free to root for either Hobbes or Rousseau - there is no way to be sure about whether human beings are inherently good or bad. In fact, recent studies in the cognitive and behavioral sciences have focused more on inherent goodness than inherent evil. There are recent studies finding ethical behavior in infants (Tomasello: "Why We Cooperate") as well as in primates (DeWaal: "Primates and Philosophers"). I very much agree with what Tantz said: that Nazis were and are basically reinforced and (re)educated by their social context. I do also believe that anyone, given an unfortunate context, can turn into a Nazi - but that is far from subscribing to El Cid's belief, as stated above.
bravo1102 wrote: One probelm I have had with WM is where are the Italians and Bulgarians? More than two thirds of Greece was occupied by the Italians who were notoriously lax which is another reason for the Nazi High COmmand ordering real hard reprisals against the civilians. Reprisals that unfortunately have been shown to work very well in most of the cases they are implimented without mercy. Most modern research is uncovering this as we get past the glowing praise of the first few generations of historians of the occupied peopes versus the Nazis. But still where are the Italians? It was a combined occuaption and until mid-1943 it would have been Germans ordering around Italians.
You are right that Greece was under a triple occupation. However, it wasn’t a uniformally triple occupation but rather a territorially distinct one where each of the three forces had their own pieces of Greek land they occupied and were dominent in : specifically Bulgarians were mainly in Thrace and Eastern Macedonia and there were virtually no Germans. My maternal grandparents were from there and lived through it and I can tell you it had been agreed for Bulgaria to annex those lands and enforce Bulgarian language and culture under pain of death. While in tandem tampering with city and town/village rosters to alter the population profile.
The Germans took the prime cuts in all of Greece: Athens, Thessaloniki, Central Macedonia, strategically vital islands of the Aegean and almost all of Crete. Especially in the very downtown Athens where we still are there were mostly German troops while Italians were further out in the periphery of Athens or only when Germans needed extra hands. That’s why you haven’t yet seen any Italians in WM and you will not see any Bulgarians (that’s why in the original WM site I had a colour code for Italian language but not for Burgarian one because we will not meet any speakers of it).
The Italians basically took what what was left because they had been defeated /humiliated in the Greco-Italian war but were still occupiers simply because they were part of the axis and the Duce still mattered to Hitler then (that’s why when he stopped being important Italians found themselves to be treated pretty much like the Greeks were).
Abt_Nihil wrote: Regarding El Cid's point about the Nazi mindset: The way I understand it, I don't agree in either this special case (i.e. Tantz's comic), nor with the general strong version of it - that the way Nazis behaved is somehow rooted in the human condition. That is a highly controversial belief, and I wouldn't criticize anyone for not sharing it, and by extension, you cannot criticize a writer for not modelling their characters in accord with this belief, or to use their story to drive this point home. I mean, anyone is free to root for either Hobbes or Rousseau - there is no way to be sure about whether human beings are inherently good or bad. In fact, recent studies in the cognitive and behavioral sciences have focused more on inherent goodness than inherent evil. There are recent studies finding ethical behavior in infants (Tomasello: "Why We Cooperate") as well as in primates (DeWaal: "Primates and Philosophers"). I very much agree with what Tantz said: that Nazis were and are basically reinforced and (re)educated by their social context. I do also believe that anyone, given an unfortunate context, can turn into a Nazi - but that is far from subscribing to El Cid's belief, as stated above.
I think you have said it very succintly- I agree with all of this. Also, I feel I need to add that generally research shows that people are inherently good (i.e. non-destructive) because that ensures survival more than the other alternative, if we speak in terms of natural selection. That, I have to say, is also my belief and the basis for most schools of psychology, sociology and other fields of social sciences.
Now as far as nazis are concerned: Yes, given the appropriate upbringing, anyone can turn into a nazi, and, alarming as that is, it might not even take a full upbringing but just the right rhetoric and propaganda to achieve it- that is what Skinner (among others) has provided substantiation for, as well as those famous experiments, like the Stanford one and the Milgram one.
HOWEVER: as History has shown, there always comes a point in human nature where one existentially ascribes to their upbringing (good or bad, heroic or not, etc etc) through defining actions, or does not. And what this life choice is and when it is presented to a person is anyone's guess. Up to then, however, the person will go through the motions (the behavioral script) if you like, of whatever upbringing they have had- and that includes thoughts, be they used as a defense mechanismor not. :)
As much as I respect and follow the evidence or many clinical psychological studies of human behavior, a human in extreme, intense pressure becomes a different animal. There is no inherent good or bad in combat, just staying alive. Behaviorial conditioning breaks down as has been shown in studies of soldiers in combat especially those under extreme, unrelenting stress. Soldiers in extremis like the Eastern Front or the Pacific often lost all moral grounding and just killed and never gave a thought to who exactly they were killing until afterward. And then there is the strong human instinct to deny that was ever done even by those who did it.
Suddenly the soldier is outside his own body watching helpless as his own finger pulls the trigger to shoot helpless prisoners or civilians or even smashing a face with a rifle butt. Then stands there unbelieving what they have just done. War is brutal and humans can be quite brutal and social conventions disappear and the simple 1+1=2 conditioning of military training takes over. There's no ideology when someone starts shooting at you. (Look at the ETO story on Lite Bites.)
Yes, these are all valid points. I believe it is obvious that any human being can, given the right (or rather, wrong) circumstances, commit horrible atrocities. What I don't agree with is the view that in everyday life, there's some monster in every one of us, just itching to get out, and that our usual more or less "moral" behavior is unnatural. I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. People doggedly construe cooperation and individual advantage as mutually exclusive concepts, which is a fallacy. And so they try to reduce any sort of cooperative behavior to selfish behavior, when it is very easy to see that in certain circumstances, evolution favors cooperative behavior.
"El Cid wrote: @Tantz Aerien: Also, I don't think the review was unfortunate; you got some constructive feedback from readers, which you're free to apply or disregard, along with some extra publicity. It was a win-win for you, so cheer up!" ————- now hold up man. what the hell? she's free to apply or disregard it as long as she doesnt argue with the review itself,right? now how does that make sense? i'm going to explain something and it's that writing a review isnt just a friendly circle jerk between creator and review writer. a review is when someone takes your work and repackages it in their own critique, and hands it to an audience that might not yet be aware of their existance. now why should the creator of the comic have to sit down and eat it if they dont agree with the manner the review was conducted becuase it is NOT a win-win situation. a damaging review can harm the readership of that comic, so it better be fair if it's going to do that. now dont get me wrong, im not saying that reviews have to be all pats on the back, but if it's going to critisize, it better damn well do it validly. THAT was what the issue was here. Tantz said so herself and Gene even admitted it as well. is that something you chose to overlook when you wrote this reply because it's sounds alot to me that you're telling her to cool it about the actual critisizations instead of manner the review was conducted when that is obviously not the issue here. and i do say obviously. you may be offended by that but it's the only word that fits. now, with the nazi issue. your problem was that they werent human enough. this apparently comes down to the fact that you think we're all inherently the ready made stuff of nazis, and that she thinks that it takes special conditiong and situations. i wont inject my own thoughts on that, but she defended herself with no less validity than you did, yet you were the first one to start acting catty. and once she started calling you out on it, you tried pinning her for the same exact thing. what the hell? i have to say, im puzzled what set ya off so bad before you came in here becuase you're taking it pretty personally. what here's annoying you so bad?
PIT_FACE wrote: now hold up man. what the hell? she's free to apply or disregard it as long as she doesnt argue with the review itself,right?
Wrong. I said nothing to that effect. Thanks for being disingenous.
PIT_FACE wrote: and i do say obviously. you may be offended by that but it's the only word that fits.
now, with the nazi issue. your problem was that they werent human enough. this apparently comes down to the fact that you think we're all inherently the ready made stuff of nazis, and that she thinks that it takes special conditiong and situations. i wont inject my own thoughts on that, but she defended herself with no less validity than you did, yet you were the first one to start acting catty. and once she started calling you out on it, you tried pinning her for the same exact thing. what the hell?
It must not be so "obvious," because you seem to have missed the point. The argument, in a nutshell, was that Tantz uses stereotypes. Tantz's defense seems to have ranged from that she wasn't using stereotypes to that it's okay because the stereotypes are accurate. I'm fine with that, and ultimately her comic is not important enough to me that I'm going to go back and forth with her or anyone about it. I offered the observation as advice, in an attempt to help, not to "attack." As for me getting "catty," that was as stated, a direct response of her choice to take a condescending tone, as if anyone who dares disagree with her storytelling must be an uninformed cretin.
i have to say, im puzzled what set ya off so bad before you came in here becuase you're taking it pretty personally. what here's annoying you so bad?
Nothing "set me off" before coming in here, Pit, and I haven't taken anything personally. Please stop putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head. All I did was offer one observation of something Tantz could fix. The rest was a direct result to how Tantz chose to respond to it.
as if anyone who dares disagree with her storytelling must be an uninformed cretin. You choose to read that in my answers, El Cid. I can't help it if you react to things that aren't there, simply because you fear they're there. ;) For one thing, it's one thing to disagree with my storytelling, and another to disagree with documented fact that has nothing to do with storytelling. You'd be able to see that if you weren't STILL fuming! Honestly one would think you have other motives to be so caught up in this.
Now, for the last time: I didn't 'defend' my comic. I merely explained to you something you either fail or refuse to grasp, understand and examine- and understandably so, considering the way one "experiences the world" through the less than healthy, logical or realistic world in your so-called adult comics- some of the things in there would make nazis vomit, blush or call for help.
But that is your prerogative to take.
Surely for something that's not important to you, you display too much ire, partiality and tunnel-vision to claim you're not attacking somthing you have no grounds to attack. The nazis in WM are not stereotypes. They are just nazis. XD
And for the record, Pit Face isn't putting words in your mouth or thoughts in your head. She's stating the obvious. If you took a breath and stopped to think why she'd tell you that, you probably would see it too- unless there is some special interest you have vested in forcing on everyone an image of nazis as they WEREN'T.
Continuing beating on this dead horse is not doing you credit.
Tantz Aerine wrote: …For one thing, it's one thing to disagree with my storytelling, and another to disagree with documented fact that has nothing to do with storytelling. You'd be able to see that if you weren't STILL fuming! Honestly one would think you have other motives to be so caught up in this.
"So caught up?" I didn't even realize this thread was still going until I popped in to comment on the Dark Sisters thread, and I'm only here now because this thread was mentioned by someone else. I'm definitely not "caught up" in anything and you appear to be the one who's "fuming." ???
Surely for something that's not important to you, you display too much ire, partiality and tunnel-vision to claim you're not attacking somthing you have no grounds to attack.
Well, what little ire there was, was my irritation that you chose to be disrespectful. As for "partiality" and "tunnel-vision," if that's what having an opinon and sticking to the subject translates to in your world, then so be it. I have my opinions about your writing, and all you've done here is reinforce them, as well as present a very negative image of yourself.
I can see that you're hurt, which is why you've sunk now to childishly lashing out at other people's comics and making insinuations that I'm a Nazi (which I'm a few shades too brown to pass for btw), but there are more mature ways to deal with that.
Continuing beating on this dead horse is not doing you credit.
Actually, that's you beating the dead horse. I've been done discussing your comic for a verrry long time; I was responding to Pit Face's commentary. This may be tough for you to process, but your comic is not nearly important enough to me that I would spend too much time on it, trashing it or otherwise. That's not an insult (more than I can say for what you've said about my comic), and I don't expect you to like it, but I would expect you could understand it.
I think it's best if we all leave it there. agree to disagree and all that stuff. For the most part I don't think either have set out to offend or irritate the other but it's happened so time to step back. I'm sure we used to be able to lock threads but I'll be buggered if I can see how at the moment.
Thanks El Cid :) Your reply illustrates exactly what I was talking about. Whose image is negative and whose isn't is neither yours nor mine to call, people judge for themselves.
first of all, clicking the link does mean you still have interest in it. wether you happened to see it or not. you took the initiative and clicked on it. YES, the arguement you were having was wether she uses sterotypes or not, and what i mentioned was how you guys went about it. she told you it was based in fact, and then that spiraled into a conversation about what makes a person do those things, wether it's inherent or wether it's a condition. so, no. i did not miss the point. as for who acted catty, she started talking to you in a consenscending tone after you started doing it to her! read her post RIGHT before yours where you tell her she's being condenscending. she points out to you exactly where you did it. do you chose to forget about it or did you just not realize it? that's an actual question, not mockery. and you never said anything to the effect?! are you SERIOUS?! i just QUOTED you,dude! how that post came across was that she got an interview and feedback, so it should be enough. all along, before you even came in here, the point of the fuss was the quality of the feed back. not that she was critisized, but she didnt believe it was justified well enough in the review. she has a right to think that doesnt she? how was she supposed to respond, Cid? becuase up until you started using condenscending phrases (again, read her post about it), she was only discussing it with you. a discussion actually, that i think had the potential to become very interesting, on both sides! Brovo and Abt seemed like they wanted to get in on this too. but by then, it'd already started to turn into a pile of crap. as for…putting words in your head?….really im just telling you what i see. sorry, i would have used the direct quotes, but it's being a jackass. all of what i said though relates right in order to the last post you said to me, Cid.
@PIT: I get it that Tantz is your buddy, and so I realize in advance that there's no practical purpose in even responding, but if you're going to continue weighing in on this (which you shouldn't), then I'll at least try to explain my perspective:
PIT_FACE wrote: first of all, clicking the link does mean you still have interest in it. wether you happened to see it or not. you took the initiative and clicked on it.
First of all, that was cheap, and you're better than that. I didn't say I have no interest whatsoever, like I'm just accidentally wandering in here and being forced to type against my will. Tantz was characterizing my involvement by saying I was "caught up" in it, when it fact I'd already moved on until I realized there were still people (namely you) piling in.
YES, the arguement you were having was wether she uses sterotypes or not… she told you it was based in fact, and then that spiraled into a conversation about what makes a person do those things… so, no. i did not miss the point.
The only debate was over whether or not Tantz uses stereotypes, which she admitted to. She did attempt to expand it into a broader discussion, because she had no way of ducking the obvious, and I wasn't interested in any of that. That's why she's accusing me of having "tunnel vision." That's code for "you're not letting me wiggle out of this by changing the subject, or expanding the conversation until we lose sight of the actual point, so therefore I'm going to say bad things about you."
as for who acted catty, she started talking to you in a consenscending tone after you started doing it to her! read her post RIGHT before yours where you tell her she's being condenscending. she points out to you exactly where you did it. do you chose to forget about it or did you just not realize it? that's an actual question, not mockery.
I must not have realized it, and I'm afraid you would have to show me a quote because I'm not going back and reading it.
As for Tantz's behavior in this thread, it's been piss poor the whole time, at least to me. My first post was not at all angry, while her immediate response was something along the lines of "Whoa! Calm down!" And that's pretty much how she talked the entire duration of the thread. Maybe you missed it, but I know you're sophisticated enough to realize that actually IS mockery, and moreover, it's an insidious attempt on her part at an ad hominem: "You're angry (according to me), so therefore what you said is invalid." It's a way she tries to avoid confronting the content of what's being said. She then goes on to say something about "You must have ulterior motives," which again is a crude ad hominem, and sort of a territorial grunt as well. While she's not stating exactly what the "ulterior motive" must be, she's again trying to insinuate that my statements are not genuine and therefore she can dodge them, and also hinting that she's going to say unpleasant things about those "ulterior motives" if I continue dissenting from her opinion.
It goes on, but you get the point, I hope. She was being adversarial from the beginning, but no I do not recall being condescending to her before she was disrespectful to me. It's entirely possible that I unwittingly did say something in an early post that upset her, but I certainly never outright insulted her, as she did to me in that last post. It's entirely possible that, as Genejoke put it, neither of us initially meant to disrespect the other, but from that last post of hers (or second-to-last, I guess), that no longer holds true at least for her. She has abandoned all claim to the high ground, so this has become a moot point.
and you never said anything to the effect?! are you SERIOUS?! i just QUOTED you,dude!
And I was responding to what Tantz had said about the review being "unfortunate." I was not saying she could not argue; that's the whole point of this forum being here. I just didn't think she should be so down and negative about it.
…becuase up until you started using condenscending phrases (again, read her post about it), she was only discussing it with you. a discussion actually, that i think had the potential to become very interesting, on both sides! Brovo and Abt seemed like they wanted to get in on this too. but by then, it'd already started to turn into a pile of crap.
That's true that it would be an interesting discussion topic, separated from this context. About things turning into a pile of crap… like I said earlier, it's entirely possible that I did say something which set Tantz off that I didn't notice, and since you caught it and I didn't maybe you could quote it back to me. But so far as I'm aware, the discussion going south was entirely her fault. She took an adversarial tone from the very beginning, which didn't bother me all that much (though it gave me a very negative impression of her), but it wasn't until she became outright disrespectful to me that I told her to "get over herself," which she still hasn't, and with people continuing to patronize her, she never will.
as for…putting words in your head?….really im just telling you what i see.
Then you're commenting on things you have no way of knowing. You should never accuse people of "taking things personally" or trying to characterize their statements in one way or another. First of all, you'll probably be wrong, and second, it's a very common tactic used by people as a weasly ad hominem, as I described earlier. And just for the record, before you come back with a "whoa, calm down man, stop yelling!" response, I'm very calm right now. I'm not angry, at anybody, and if I were speaking I'd be saying all of this in an even and measured tone.
I'm sure you see things differently from me, but I hope that at least clarifies the discussion, as I saw it. I'm sure you have disagreements with my interpretation, but there's really no constructive purposes in going over them at this point.
*sigh* An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] (wikipedia)
Stop using terms you don't fully grasp, El Cid. And stop using value judgements against people to make it look like you have arguments.
The nazi issue: you call stereotyping (actually you called it 'cartoony') what is the historically documented cultural and behavioral pattern of a social aberration. I know why you're doing it when it's obviously not true and it's provable, because that 'cartoony' behavioral set was the average thought and behavioral patterns, discernible not only in nazis (i.e. members of NSDAP) but also KKK members, Holy Inquisitioners, and so on, but you haven't asked me for an analysis of your defense mechanisms nor am I interested in studying you to write them out here. If you feel nazis have been wronged by all means go on and write a story that will show them in whatever way makes you happy, goodness knows there are many out there that will love it, rewriting history is the fad of the day. But at least take the time to separate fact from fiction and/or wishful thinking, if nothing else for your own sake.
Your opinion of me, my comic, my writing, and anything else is your prerogative and I don't care for or about it, just like my opinion of you, your comic, your writing and anything else is my prerogative and you shouldn't care for or about it either.
You KEEP illustrating all my points about this issue. And for the record, I didn't call you a nazi. I said that nazis wouldn't be able to stomach the stuff within your comic. Sorry if you find that insulting, despite the warning you have there. My actual field is psychology, nothing I told you about your comic is straying from the average feedback anyone in the mental health field would give you- and whether it's 'satirical' or 'in good fun' or 'not serious' or 'tongue in cheek' is irrelevant to what we pay attention to in my field for content analysis.
Now, I think you just feel the need to have the last post in this thread. So for the record I am saying I won't answer your next post, because it will be regurgitating the very same things. Write them out, have your closure, feel you have not been refuted, and move on…
so why shouldnt i weigh in Cid? is she my buddy? yeah, you're right. but i also think she was right in what she said. isnt that why you continue to respond as well? you believe you're right? neither of us were part of this original review in any way, we're about level in this involvement. so why suddenly should i be the one to stop responding? —————————————– if you truley feel that what i said about still having interest is a low blow, then that's how you feel. but it most definatly takes two to tango. you're right, ill give you that, that just clicking on the link doesnt mean that you're still wound up about it, but the way it's still going on, it's gonna be hard to convince me that you're not. maby there ARE things you really just dont see, so im gonna make my case, im hopin for the last time before just moving on and what happens,happens. —————————————- so how did she duck the obvious? she aknowledged your response and told you why she writes nazis like she does. it sounds more like the conversation was being expanded becuase she was trying to explain to you why she writes nazis in the vein of stereotypical like bad guys becuase historic nazis were conditioned into a certain stream of thought and therefore, for the most part, performed their duties a certain way. that IS part of the debate. im not sure what made you think that it isnt. wether you agree with her or not, that doesnt really bother me. but it's that you just brush it off as not being part of her argument against you when it IS. and THAT in itself is very insulting. when i finally clicked on this thread and read through it, THAT was what seemed offensive and made me wanna step in. so, since you refuse to read back into the thread, these are the kind of things that tipepd me off that you were starting to get antsy. your first post- ". I'm sorry, but you don't get to just shrug and say "golly gee that's just how the story fell together." that's down talking. it sounds like you're calling her a ditz and she hasnt even SPOKEN to you yet. not to mention the number of times you used the word "stupid" in referance to her writing in the same post. i'd be willing to bet, that's what tipped her off to telling you to calm down. -it settled down for a short time, but then, although you said it didnt matter to you, you continued to use terms like "lazy writing" and "cop out". and how that seems to others is you're basically saying dont worry! im not upset at you for your shitty writing! how is that not offensive, Cid? and from there on, you tell her everything she used to back herself up is just a bunch of bullshit because she just cant possibly TAKE the rational conversation she was trying to have with you.so does she turn a bit ore defensive afterwards, yeah! who wouldnt? ——————————— after that, it's pretty much a fuckin waste. so you know what? maby you SHOULD go back and read the thread. SHOW ME where her behavior was piss poor before you came in and started acting like an ass! those things i pointed out to you were before that last post. IF you really just didnt realize them, now is maby a good time to apologize for them and attempt to save some face. if NOT, then fine, dont. but dont you DARE sit here and think that im writing these replies to you JUST becuase she's my friend! i've been able to defend why i said WHAT i said sufficiently and when you try to cheapen it by telling me i should just drop it, you better believe i WONT becuase i mean what i fuckin say, Cid. it didnt work for her and it sure as SHIT doesnt work for me. YOU are the one trying to put words in my mouth and i wont tolerate it. i advise ya go back. read through it all if you're going to write back to try and continue this and try to see where this is all comming from. like i said, if it's something you TRULEY TRULEY didnt realize, then maby it's time to rethink your approach to this.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
