furikku

That first one looks like she's supposed to still be alive at that point? But I can't imagine it's an easy pose to keep up when you're bleeding to death either.

I'm not a reader of a comic but those girls all looked alike to me anyway. Meh.

It's not like it's HARD to draw a dead or dying person in a non-sexualised fashion.

Yeah, I hear you on that. Definitely.

those girls all looked alike to me anyway

Yeah, he's got a real problem about differentiating character designs. Which is a common thing for folks cribbing the animu style.

As are bubble tits, I suppose.

I don't know, I'm not an artist anyway but I'm not very impressed by this art.

Not being very impressed by art like that means you have seen the art for what it is.

Frankly, I can't see why Sooz even follows this comic.

Because sometimes, once in a rare, rare while, it comes up with a cool idea.

Also because there's an awesome thread following it that offers highly insightful criticism, and that's always good.

Yes, but seriously? it should not take other people's actions to make the story palatable like that.

Others enhancing the plot in the forums, sure. But if the original work can't stand on its own merits...

It's more that I enjoy reading the snark and discussion, and occasionally check in on the source material if I feel I need to know what they're referring to.

Sort of like how in a sandwich I have to occasionally deal with bread if I want to enjoy the stuff inside.

... Uh. On an unrelated note (or possibly a note related to realism but not to sexism, boobies, or 'dead sexy' poses), arterial spray doesn't work that way. Blood oozes like that when you cut, say, your forearm, on the outside, with a sword. When you cut your throat with a sword, first there is a spray. Then there is some gushing in time with the beating of the heart. There is also a lot more blood than that.

*sighs* My parents are nurses and a good friend of mine is in training to be a CSI and I read a lot of horror growing up. The boobs really should be what I seize on, or the fact that her neck apparently went to rigor mortis immediately, but no, I go 'where all the blood be at?'

Either way, that is useful stuff to know!

Happy to help! I think! At least it's something clearly wrong besides balloonyboobs.

That, however obvious it seems thinking about it in hindsight, is certainly not common knowledge.

I will keep that in mind for future depictions of violence.

... I'm... really surprised that's not common knowledge-- well, arterial wounds spurting blood rapidly, not the initial arterial spray. Aside from my parents and a Dean Koontz novel, I picked that one up from my Girl Scout Handbook's first aid section. Slice open any major artery and you're going to have spurting, and there are major arteries in every limb. (This is why there's no such thing as 'shoot to wound.' You can bleed out remarkably fast from a leg wound.)

Anything that helps depictions of violence! I like realistic depictions of violence.

I did know that arterial wounds shoot blood, but I don't always think about it when watching/reading violent scenes.

(I think my science teacher told us that in the sixth grade. He was kind of scary, though not for that.)

I think it's a Fridge Logic thing-- if it's done well, you don't think about it not being there until you get up to go to the fridge and end up thinking 'wait a second...' It's easier to rig a special effects shot so the blood from a slit throat flows over the knife, regardless of what would happen in real life, so that's what most of us immediately think of. Especially since it can be staged so much more personally with the slow-ooze effect than with something that will spray-- you get a better shot.

Was your scary science teacher at least mildly awesome? At least everyone should have one awesome science teacher.

My eighth grade science teacher was awesome. Because we actually did stuff and had to document experiments and actually got to learn about science as a system, which I hadn't had before or since. We did a few interesting things with chemistry and got to boil some stuff and play with dry ice, but most of what I took away from the class was an understanding that science is a way of describing the world-- a vocabulary to ask the questions 'how?' and 'why?' and a system to find reliable answers. It felt revolutionary at the time and I still use it to explain to people why things like the supernatural or faith or magic (in fiction or in reality) are not the opposite of science.

I also got to learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, which is handy.

My biology teacher in college thought faith was the opposite of science, and was at great pains to tell us that at length a couple of times.

He was overall really cool though, and I learned a lot in his class.

Most of my high school science teachers weren't competent enough as teachers to be truly awesome. Or maybe I just hated school that much, to be fair about it.

That's the attitude that irks me. It belittles both sides when they whip it out-- science is a way to measure things. If it can't be measured (divinity, life after death, quantum physics, and once upon a time, astrophysics, cellular biology, and atomic anything), the first conclusion to reach is not that it doesn't exist but that we haven't yet developed the proper tools with which to measure it.

But oh yeah, learning is the important thing.

I had very few really competent teachers in any subject and I hated school that much. *shrugs* The ones who stand out in my memory are that one science teacher, a choir teacher, a drama teacher... And I guess that'd really be it. I had a couple of English teachers I liked a lot, but none that stand out as 'omg such an awesome teacher and I learned so much!' (But then the reason I liked English was because it was usually easy. The few times it wasn't easy was when it was analytical and I was too avid a reader back then to want to do anything but prove I'd read the books in order to go forth and read more books.)

the first conclusion to reach is not that it doesn't exist but that we haven't yet developed the proper tools with which to measure it.

Are you bemoaning the lack of patience into scientific insight, or using 'we do not have the tools' as an excuse for wacko articles of faith?

I think you mean #1, but want to be sure.

My dad was a scientist. I'm an artist and I tell fortunes. Nevertheless, I got to believing in this actually by playing around with scientific method for awhile, charting my experiences carefully, etc. My bullshit meter for both newagers (and shoddy scientists who excuse away EVERY conceivable fault of human behavior as genetics and *never* a behavioral choice)runs very high.

I've really yet to encounter anyone into these sorts of things apply rational methods to them.

... Probably #1? Because I know for damn sure it's not #2, but it could be some unnamed #3. Um. Now I go fumbling for my own words to make sure, because I'd like to have the words for later use.

As an example, people in novels and on TV and whatnot like to say that science and sorcery are opposites, are incompatible, use of the one cancels out the use of the other. It always seems to me like the depicted scientists who are throwing up their hands and going 'well, crap, it's magic!' are, to quote the macros, doin it rong. Science isn't the opposite of magic; instead it could be used to accurately describe how and why magic works.

If there is evidence of something's existence, however small the evidence, but science can't find the thing itself, this does not necessarily mean that the thing (magic, God, psychic powers, giant squid) does not exist, only that it exists somewhere or somehow that it can't yet be gotten at. And proponents of science should facepalm at the attitude that the thing doesn't exist because they don't have a way to prove it exists, because that's a pretty darn circular argument.

I'm not excusing wacko anybody, science or faith. And I've told fortunes a time or two myself and if I haven't been in the presence of a ghost, I've been in the presence of a convincing collective hallucination. So. There's me. Egads I hope I'm clearer this time.

... I'm... really surprised that's not common knowledge--
Come to think of it it might be, just not something I've ever seen myself... at any rate I blame this.

...hey, it just occurred to me: is the pressure that causes the spray the same reason why being in a vacuum wouldn't necessarily cause your blood to boil inside you and blow you up?

--Amelia. is now a meme. (ITT we post solo pre-doggy poses w/that caption shopped on)

It almost seems like he thinks it's a required part of the style he wants to emulate or something. At least that's the only reason I can think of...

I think the reason some comic artists do this is b/c girls are just sexy objects to them and if they're gonna die and lay there it might as well be fun to draw. -_-;;

I remember reading "How to be a comic book artist.. not just how to draw" by Tim Seeley who said "When drawing, remember the 30/70 rule. 30% of everything you draw is totally fun- big splash pages, cool monsters, cute girls - stuff that really gets your pencil flying. 70% of everything you draw is the obligatory car and garbage cans." and it made me think that it's prolly why some ppl go completely over the top when they get a chance to draw a girl and it's like "OMG FINALLY I GET TO DRAW A GIRL.. dammit she has to be dead.. hmm.. I can work around that" -_-;;

Or something. I dunno he doesn't seem to spend a lot of time drawing detailed backgrounds either >___>;;

I hesitate to think of Terraciano that way just because he otherwise seems to be a decent dude... I think he's just regurgitating stuff drawn by people who DO have that attitude. Which is worrisome on its own level, since, y'know, he's not giving thought to what he's taking in or emulating, but at least it's not ACTIVE ignorance.

It's sort of a second-degree rather than third-degree burn.

i agree, but what i meant was that it isn't a conscious thing but a subconscious one, where it looks "right" to him and so he does it even if he's not consciously thinking that he wants to do it... and that is something ppl pick up too :\

Ahhh, yes, I can see that.

It's such a weird viewpoint to me, because I've spent most of my serious drawing career trying to figure out how things look For Real. :/

MAN, REST OF THE WORLD, WHAT IS WITH YOU AND NOT THINKING EXACTLY LIKE ME?!

One would rather ask.. why do you keep reading a comic that offends you that much? O_o

I've never been impressed with cuts from this comic, but maybe this should tell you something about the lack of intelligence/interaction with real human beings/understanding of life on that part of the author.

Sorry... but dead girl ass link... hit my anger button.

One would rather ask.. why do you keep reading a comic that offends you that much? O_o


This came up previously.