|
Catching up on the thread has anything happened in the last 2 years?
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
There was a very bad sex scene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Catching up on the thread has anything happened in the last 2 years? Snout hosed, he orgasmed, here is his orgasm face, you can enjoy his orgasm
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
snout is a good boy who did a BIG cummy all by himself for orc mommy
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I would be shocked if he would recognize the name, except as the Fullmetal Alchemist character. I would be doubly shocked if he recognized the name Moorcock. Moorcock is the reason Legacy exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:
Off-topic, but it's funny to me that the meaning of "nerd" has changed so much, that it used to mean someone who is very into book-learning and acquiring knowledge and now it means "I like comics and video games and movies about comics and video games"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
I don't think there's much point in reading that deep into the scroundel/ship thing. He just meant "the scroundel is neutral on the conflict until something happens to him and he picks a side", he just came up with an example that partly evokes Han Solo because Han Solo is a foundational good-hearted scroundel character. He's wrong about thoughtlessly subverting character archetypes for subversion's sake alone being good, but his example is just a thing he came up with on the fly, not a specific reference to try to latch on to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Yeah, to his credit when he does differentiate between when he's citing specific examples, and when he's just being extremely evocative of existing characters that don't quite fit but he doesn't have a better example on hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:He's wrong about thoughtlessly subverting character archetypes for subversion's sake alone being good, but his example is just a thing he came up with on the fly, not a specific reference to try to latch on to. Yeah pretty much this. His "panel" is 10% a collection of very, very shaky points, 90% vamping on the fly describing scenarios that he's making up as he goes, seemingly only to fill time and get applause + laughter. He's definitely not saying he's sick of guys that don't join until they lose their ships, he's saying he doesn't like the Han Solo archetype. Which is fine as a personal preference, but goes against his point - that archetype works because it slots so well into just about any story as a fun, relatable, memorable character. His panel should be called "here are a bunch of character tropes and common story beats I don't personally like".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
I do think the ways in which his specifics don't map to any example or the archetype is important, though. It's actually pretty rare for the 'rogue with a heart of gold' character to decide they will be a good guy purely because of a harm done to them - usually, they make it out with their pay, have a change of heart, and sweep back in. This is important because it makes their change of heart a genuine decision, against their best interests, to do the right thing. Han Solo doesn't have any turning point where the Empire specifically wrongs him and so he sides with the Rebellion, he flies off and then decides actually he should get involved in the death star dogfight at the last second! The important thing here is that in simplifying and flattening these accounts, Mookie is actually introducing huge gaps between his source material and his reactions, which leads to this weird uncanny valley where his characters are much less memorable because they're reacting to an archetype nobody has in their heads. Instead of a clever subversion, they're just free-floating, and their internal dynamics aren't sufficient to make them interesting on their own -- unlike the actual cliches of 'a rogue who has a Road to Damascus moment' or 'hero arises from a poor background and no particular experience of the world, so that you the reader can identify closely with them.' He wants to subvert a cliche but lacks the insight to dig into what makes that cliche what it is, so he can't produce subversive twists, only vague similarities and funhouse reflections.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
Powerful Katrinka posted:Off-topic, but it's funny to me that the meaning of "nerd" has changed so much, that it used to mean someone who is very into book-learning and acquiring knowledge and now it means "I like comics and video games and movies about comics and video games" Yeah... I find it generally refers to someone who... Doesn't actually analyse things? Just geeks out over stuff without criticizing it. And, I mean that was encompassed by 'nerd' back in the day, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I do think the ways in which his specifics don't map to any example or the archetype is important, though. Yeah. Han Solo is a character doing the right thing for the right reasons; it's a legitimate scoundrel with a heart of gold. He does the right thing because it is the right thing. Mookie's imaginary example is not a scoundrel with a heart of gold, and is someone doing the right thing for purely selfish reasons. 'You have wronged me, personally, so now I am going to fight you' is a completely different motivation from 'you are a bad person harming others and so I am going to stop you.'
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Dabir posted:I guaran-loving-tee you Mookie hasn't seen any of those films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Mookie's own weird quirks with morality obviously factor in here too. I don't think I've ever encountered a writer, outside of something like Left Behind, who has such a black and white understanding of morality. Mookie doesn't like characters that didn't decide to do good from the beginning, he doesn't like characters who make mistakes that change their outlook on something. It's a remarkable shallowness that is hard to figure out. Where does something like that come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
SubG posted:I mean like I said I'm not trying to argue he has, but how old is he? The first strip of the original comic is dated 2002, and if he was around 20 when he made it then he's the right age to have watched movies on UHF broadcast channels growing up. And it was categorically impossible to watch UHF stations without ending up watching like a lot of kick flicks. Without even trying I've seen Chang Cheh's Five Deadly Venoms (1978) roughly 1.7 billion times because it was on local UHF stations so often. And that was before Hong Kong action films had a bit of a second Renaissance during the late '90s and were extremely mainstream for awhile. Mookie is about 43. While he's old enough to be in that demo, I don't think he's especially interested in martial arts films. I'm comfortable saying this because both in and out of the comic and on the blog/his social media, all he does is list the things he likes (cape comics, vegan food, metal music) and I don't recall ever seeing martial arts films being mentioned on any of these. Beelzebufo posted:Mookie's own weird quirks with morality obviously factor in here too. I don't think I've ever encountered a writer, outside of something like Left Behind, who has such a black and white understanding of morality. Mookie doesn't like characters that didn't decide to do good from the beginning, he doesn't like characters who make mistakes that change their outlook on something. It's a remarkable shallowness that is hard to figure out. Where does something like that come from? It's a symptom of his lack of theory of mind. Is the character a Mookie? Good guy. Are they not a Mookie? Bad guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 02:51
|
|
|
 this is not the art of a man who has any fondness for the martial arts
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Eight-Six posted:
was that edited to make it look like hes giving Snout the most powerful middle finger of all time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Invisible Clergy posted:It's a symptom of his lack of theory of mind. Is the character a Mookie? Good guy. Are they not a Mookie? Bad guy. That's maybe part of it but it doesn't explain things on a fundamental level. What you're saying is how he writes, but it doesn't explain why he writes. People (usually) write what they believe, and so Mookie very clearly believes, based on his work, that people are inherently good or inherently evil, and can never change this. A bad person can never truly have a change of heart, because they are bad, even if they try to do good things they're still a bad person. Likewise, a good person can never do anything bad, even if they do bad things, they're still a good person. I'm curious where this outlook on life came from because it's so bizarre I can't even think of an origin. It definitely isn't rooted in mainstream Christian beliefs in the US, because mainstream US Christianity is all about the miraculous conversion from evil to good. Even outside of the people who brag that they "did every drug and had sex with all the women and did all the bad things," who are a dime a dozen, the Bible itself has those kinds of stories. Look at Saul, who executed Christians only to have a dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus, look at Samson, who violated an oath to God only to repent at the very end and regain his lost strength. The only thing I can think of is maybe some sort of weird influence from D&D? I know this sounds like a joke to an extent because we know how much Mookie's D&D sessions influenced the original Dominic Deegan, and it feels like just another "Ha ha Mookie thinks D&D is real life" thing. But early D&D editions were very much into the whole alignment being immutable and unchangeable thing. Orcs and goblins were always evil, always, no matter what, no such thing as a good goblin. Elves were always good (or neutral), never evil. So under the old system where a creature's alignment is inherently part of what they are as a living being, Mookie's view makes sense. Here's an orc being nice to the party, uh oh, we know orcs are evil so it can't be trusted. This elf is doing something that seems evil, that can't be right, elves are always good/neutral, so they must have a good reason we don't see for what they're doing. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:But early D&D editions were very much into the whole alignment being immutable and unchangeable thing. Which is to say Mookie seems to have an even more essentialist view on "alignment" than D&D does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
Tbh the metal head thing comes off as a weird affectation, like a guy trying to be alternative but very much not knowing anything about it. Nothing else about his output or general vibe says mosh pit headbanger
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
 go ahead and add BOOKS to the list of people who will hold Snout’s hand and spoonfeed him information
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
TheHan posted:
lol i thought you posted the last page again
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
Ok yep this is written by loving Dominic Deegan alright, no question there
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Just realized something...where is he reading this? Like it's not that important but I realized he hasn't really established where Snout is right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
Happy Landfill posted:Just realized something...where is he reading this? Like it's not that important but I realized he hasn't really established where Snout is right now. Where everyone in this thread is, purgatory
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 07:06
|
|
|
TheHan posted:
How is the armhair more gross than the arm with scales?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 07:24
|
|
|
Moola posted:How is the armhair more gross than the arm with scales?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 07:47
|
|
|
Rotten Red Rod posted:Ok yep this is written by loving Dominic Deegan alright, no question there
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
So...the CHALLENGE /// that apparently nobody in the party has been able to manage in the nearly two years they've had this book (that they all know is super important)...is just reading all the way to the end of the chapter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
SubG posted:So...the CHALLENGE /// that apparently nobody in the party has been able to manage in the nearly two years they've had this book (that they all know is super important)...is just reading all the way to the end of the chapter? To be fair, would you read 200+ pages of "it is and isn't, was and will be, will and won't" for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 08:52
|
|
|
Douche Wolf 89 posted:To be fair, would you read 200+ pages of "it is and isn't, was and will be, will and won't" for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 09:11
|
|
|
SubG posted:The thing that's freaking me out is how his wrists are connected directly to his elbows in that last "panel". Snot has transformed into a Geodude. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
TheHan posted:
Just getting handed the solution, classic DD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 11:18
|
|
|
The smug puppet-mastery begins!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
Also I love how apparently no other person in the world in search of this mystical knowledge just kind of didn't happen to ever turn to the page where the text goes "ok but for real now".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
I mean we already have posts in this thread of people saying "lol I'm not gonna read that," so I can fully believe nobody in the world of Legacy has ever read this book. Snout is the first person to not just say "gently caress this" and quit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 12:25
|
|
|
Dominic made the introduction insufferably boring and obtuse as a ward against jocks.
Emrikol fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Jan 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
In the real world a book full of mystical mumbo-jumbo repeated at tedious length is absolute fuckin' catnip to occultists. The best example is probably Trithemius' Steganographia, which is actually a text about cryptography and various methods of concealing messages. This content is concealed via various methods (e.g. by taking alternating letters from alternating words) in a cover text that contains page after page of elaborately detailed rituals for sending messages via spirits, recitations of the names of demons, their duties, their numerical associations, the celestial objects associated with each, and so on. All of it just nonsensical (and fantastically tedious) bibble-babble constructed entirely for the purpose of holding the hidden text. And despite the fact that a "key" explaining this all in excruciating detail, with voluminous examples, was published more or less contemporaneously with it, Steganographia is still studied as a "serious" work on daemonology today. Often in translation. Which, of course, completely obliterates the actual meaning of the text and leaves only the tortured prose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
If Mookie didn’t crap this chapter out in 30 minutes maybe he would’ve stumbled on the incredibly obvious idea that Snout’s curiosity leads him to find coded messages in the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
TheHan posted:
pathetic
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2022 17:16
|
|
