HOME | DD
Kobi-Tfs — One Sissy Ass Soda pg2
by-nd
Published: 2012-09-03 11:34:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 55466; Favourites: 471; Downloads: 604
Redirect to original
Description
Page 2 big thanks toRelated content
Comments: 17
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How did an ingested soda vanish clothes anyway...
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Maybe you should actually read the story
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Given that this is a comic sequence, if there's information that isn't delivered within it, I shouldn't have to do supplemental reading, that's the thing about adaptation from different source material, if you don't communicate the same info, you have only yourself to blame.
The comic should be able to stand on it's own merits, maybe my question isn't relevant enough to need an answer, but if I'm watching a movie, I shouldn't need to read the book it's based on to get a crucial plot point, just to make a comparative example.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
And yet it'd done all the time. To give an example of YOUR example, in the last Harry Potter movie, it is revealed that Snape's patronus is a doe. This ties in with the book and is fine, HOWEVER, in the book, it is explained that a patronus can reflect your feelings of love, explaining the doe which symbolizes Harry's mother, while in the film you don't get that explanation. Now, bearing in mind that that is a big film with lots of time to explain it, don't you think that you're being a little harsh on a small comic which needs to be brief and to the point?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess that comes down to how crucial you consider that bit of info, it offers insight into Snape's character motivation, but do we need that information about him?
Yes, the HP movies had a lot of time to work with, but they also had a lot to cover, enough so that they had to split the last book in two as it is. Given that this comic spent a lot of time on sight gags or the transformation process, I don't think a single line of explanation for a logical inconsistency is unreasonable, particularly when the orchestrator (if memory serves) did show up at the end and there was an existing usable explanation, unless that explanation wasn't something that could have been delivered succinctly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, to be fair, its not like this story follows any real logic is it? A boy drinks a soda, which makes his clothes disappear, turns him into a girl, makes new clothes grow on him, and makes him incapable of expressing himself. Plus, given that the perpetrator knows what the soda does, and the effects have already occured, why would they tell the victim what had happened?
Your point about a single line could be true, if it weren't for the fact that every panel counts. If it doesn't really add anything then why add it? We know his clothes are gone, and its visual, so that's all that matters.
As I said before, it needs to be brief and to the point. If you want detail, you read a story. If you want visualization, you read a comic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet if that were the case, why even have dialogue bubbles and narrator caption boxes if comics are incapable of providing information in that manner? It's something comics are capable of doing.
And it is possible to have internally consistent logic that just doesn't align with the real world as we understand it, good fiction can do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said comics were incapable of providing information in dialogue bubbles, but that it needed to be brief and to the point. People don't want to read lots of writing in a short comic; they want to look at the art.
And I said that it doesn't follow REAL logic. Of course fiction can follow its own logic - if it couldn't, then there would be no genres like fantasy or sci-fi. However, your 'logical inconsistency' isn't an inconsistency as they hadn't established a basis of logic to begin with.
Basically, an author doesn't need to explain everything. If they say that their piece of work is based on another piece of work, and you feel there is a detail missing, you can either imagine an explanation, or read the original work. After all - it's just a story!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Touche, when the rules haven't been established, they can't really have been said to be broken, but then failing to establish any rules, even retroactively could be said to be a problem in itself, a single line of dialogue, referring to what he drank as a potion would identify it at magic, it'd be a lazy explanation but it could help rationalize things, that just comes down to a simple matter of word choice that wouldn't have taken any more time, effort or space. Alternatively, if it is based in science... well if that is the case I'm not sure how it would have changed the clothing anyway even by the softest of science... nanites released through the swear to alter the materials? If so, just say nanites instead of drink, people could make the logical leap as nanomachines do tend to be used as fairly "magical" science that people will suspend their belief for in order for them to do all manner of things.
You can do a lot with a little if you're clever, and little details can help to establish context, which is something even the most basic forms of storytelling should be able to get across. If it was magic then people can theorize she is a magic user of some kind, out for a lark, if it's science, she could be out for a test subject, or pursuing an old grudge, it at least gives us SOMETHING to go on with who this person randomly showing up at the end is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again though, the problem is WHEN to include this information. It doesn't make sense at the beginning, as he doesn't know and the culprit doesn't reveal themsevles until the end. But at the end it doesn't make sense, as the drink appears, from an outside perspective, to completely change the victims personality into one who doesn't care how it happened, and likes the chanage anyway. In this case, why would the perpetrator bother to explain how the drink worked? While this could have been solved by her appearing at the beginning, the problem with this is that it clashes with the original story.
I decided to look at the story in question (again) and I noticed that even there she is not given any motives. However, he does know her and didn't expect her to do something like this suggests that she is not acting out of revenge. To be fair though, she is not mentioned at the beginning of this comic, although his reaction to seeing her could be interpreted in the same way as before: he knows her, and would not expect her to do anything like this.
Regarding context between science and magic, again it is more obvious in the story. The story is called 'New Threads' for a reason which I will not go into here to prevent spoilers, but it is shown in the first part of the comic (albeit in a difficult to tell kind of way). This seems to show that it is magic, which can be confirmed by the end condtion, where he remains fully conscious, but something else is in control of him.
But is it really necessary for us to know if it is science or magic? If ths were a continued story, I would agree and argue that we do need some explanation, but for a short one like this, I say that if it lies on the border between magic and science, let it lie on the border. It doesn't make any real difference to us
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't saying she go out of her way to exposition dump how it all works, she was already claiming credit for the event, something that by your logic had no reason to do there, if she was going to show up anyway then simple word choice in how she made that offhanded mention would have made all the difference, like the aforementioned nanite possibility if it had been science, or just saying "potion" it all comes down to what you do with the space you have.
Huh... well then that lack of motive could be said to be a flaw in the original source material given that a purely literary work would have all the space and time in the world to fit that in, I'm sure you'll argue though that her motivations were irrelevant as that wasn't the point of the story, but just because something is serving a particular niche interest, doesn't excuse it from basic character motivations, even if they're only brought up as informed traits, that's at least something, and not hard to do. Though you have kind of proven one of my points in that from little details, you were able to extrapolate at least something about why she did what she did, namely that it wasn't for any spiteful reason, thus implying it was for giggles since there isn't any indications there was a definite need for such a transformation as the means to another end rather than the end in of itself.
Still, it doesn't hurt to know, so I really don't get why you're fighting so hard against what was ultimately an idle question that the creator didn't seem too bothered by and I had all but forgotten until you got me in the defensive position by bitching at me, at this point I'm just debating as an intellectual exercise, I've long since stopped caring about this particular story, whatever form it is presented in, but the differing philosophies towards storytelling we posses do seem to be irreconcilable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry you thought I was 'bitching' at you - it was originally meant as a simple suggestion, and this reply stack has now been blown up to extreme sizes. Upon reading it now I can see how it could easily be taken the wrong way and I apologize for that.
Ironically, my reasons for continuing the argument were similar to your own. As you gave a reply to my argument, I felt that I should reply to your point with mine. Upon your retaliation, I strove to retort, as I became on the defensive as well. And sadly, I too viewed the story only as sources for my argument. Perhaps you are right in that our views may never be reconciled; I would rather not believe this, but this reply stack is a testament to it.
At the moment my mind is bubbling with replies to your arguments above, such as why 'potion' wouldn't really help, but I want to put an end to this as well. So, if I may, I am leaving this debate, and I thank you for it. Once again, I apologize for anything which may have caused you offense, and I hope we can end this on good terms.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In the end, it was an intellectually stimulating discussion at the very least, so in that regard I bear you no ill will.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
