The Surreal Adventures of Edgar Allan Poo - Oh, My.
I have a bit of a confession to make…a confession shocking to hear from someone who often visited the historical sites at the harbor and loved the National Aquarium and many times went with her father to Camden Yards - and enjoyed it. Perhaps even more shocking to hear from someone who favors goth metal. I don’t care for the works of Edgar Allan Poe. What can I say? He was just too…sensationalized for me.
But his little dreamer, Edgar Allan Poo? I can dig this guy.
The Surreal Adventures of Edgar Allan Poo, whimsically penned by Dwight L. MacPherson and marvelously illustrated by Thomas Boatwright, is a probably fictionalized account on how Edgar Allan Poe recovered his creativity after losing his beloved wife Virginia. You see, Poe has made a mistake. Haunted by nightmares of his wife’s ghost, he prays to never dream again. And, one evening in the outhouse, his prayers are answered, and the part of himself that can dream is swept away in the sewage. Now Poe was dumpy-cute enough, but this, ah, “Poo” fellow, with his Poe looks, but now short and squat, his 1800s manner and sole exclamation of “Oh my!”, is absolutely adorable. He is rescued from certain danger but not confusion by a rat fellow with pointy coat-tails who goes by the name of Irving and begins his adventures in the Land of Terra Somnium (Land of Terra - yeah, so redundant).
Most irksome about this comic was quite actually its choice of hosts: Drunk Duck. Druck Duck has a terribly intrusive set up and very slow loading times. I often ended up with time-outs, and I have high speed cable interent, so I hate to think how people with slower internet connections will fare. The customizations to the terribly consticting layout are pleasant enough though. I do like the purple.
More than that, though, or anything else about this comic, I love the pages themselves. Boatwright knows his craft and knows his atmosphere, which he renders masterfully throughout. Let’s see…what have we got? Inks, definitely scanned. Colors…Hm. I’m going to guess this was actually done in a computer. I’m guessing Corel painter. Looks like water color washes. With lots of texture. Eeeeeee, I love texture. But there are parts where the color overrides the ink to give the appearance of light, and I don’t know how you’d do that without digital compositing. It’s a glorious effect. Similarly, we sometimes have colored ink lines, which needs to be done in a computer to look like this. He gets bonus points for unobtrusive visual effects in the sound effects. The panel layouts are edgy and refreshing, not too overdone, although occasionally the boxlessness makes the order a bit unintuitive. On a side note, the lettering, done by one Thomas Mauer, is completely unnoticeable - which is to say “perfect.”
The mood of the art is more mellow and dreamy than gothic, but it does boast a darkness more suited to 1800s London than 1800s Baltimore. The dialogue certainly goes for 1800s whimsy. From the opening potty humor down to the Zelda homage, this is meant to be a child-friendly comic. But it’s a refreshing kid’s comic, simplified without being dumbed down. And for starting with potty humor, it’s pretty clean. Poo’s journey through dreamland, sorry - Terra Somnium, follows the classic children’s literature adventures. Meet lots of new people, see lots of new places, but don’t dwell on any of it. If you want to dwell on anything, you’ve got Poe. Yes, he’s not just there to use the can. While Poo is Alice, or Link, or Bone, Poe is pretty much himself, dwelling on thoughts of the beautiful woman who died young. In losing his dreamer, he’s now defenseless against the King of Nightmares. We hear from Poe in interludes as he faces down the King of Nightmares, or rather is faced down by, while Poo and his new friends Irving the rat and Terence the fiddler crab deal with the King’s followers, who happen to be an array of mythological beings. Boatwright draws these familiar creatures in his own unique bent, so while we know what these mythical beings are meant to be, we easily accept Boatwright’s version in this world. In the same manner, the young artist Poo must also face the classics, and does so by challenging them to a duel. While enthralled for a time, he finds his victory in escape. He is his own person! He does his own work in his own way! He is an individual, a free spirit. Or perhaps I am looking into this too much. Anyway, while Poe gains inspiration for The Pit and the Pendulum, Poo’s swordplay improves against centaurs and cyclops and he tries living in a haversack for a bit. He also meets Nevermore, king of ravens.
While some references were a bit blunt for me, I thoroughly enjoyed this comic. The surreal wasn’t that out there, and it was grounded well by the illustration. Nothing drew me out of the story (except the rude “time-out” errors) and I only had a few minor quibbles. So, having no obvious deductions from the work itself, sure, I’ll hand out a five and eagerly await the next update.
Rating: 
The Surreal Adventures of Edgar Allan Poo
http://www.drunkduck.com/The_Surreal_Adventures_of_Edgar_Allan_Poo
by Dwight L Macpherson
art by Thomas Boatright
lettered by Thomas Mauer
review by Sly Eagle
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading …
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
September 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
My goodness… awesome review, Sly. The write-up seriously brought a smile to my face, from “a probably fictionalized account” to your thoughts on how it’s more London than Baltimore. Great jorb.
September 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I agree. Well written.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
The truth is very simple: I wish I was British.
Okay… I joke, but Thomas and I draw many of our influences from British literature and art. Just sayin’.
Thanks for the wonderful review, though. We appreciate it!
Dwight L. MacPherson
Creator Edgar Allan Poo
September 13th, 2008 at 7:48 am
“In the same manner, the young artist Poo must also face the classics, and does so by challenging them to a duel. While enthralled for a time, he finds his victory in escape. He is his own person! ”
Great observation there.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I echo all compliments above. I am slightly bothered by the phrase ‘dumpy-cute’ in that specific context. Perhaps ‘dump’ has extra meaning for us Brits - I’m not sure if that’s a UK/US translation glitch, but I’ve never considered any of my dumps cute, although there was this time when …
September 14th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
At last! I am _so_ glad you got to review one you enjoy. Keep up the excellent work.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
BTW, the link to the comic after the five stars takes me to the subject of the previous review–you probably want to fix that.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I’ll take care of it. I hope we can get a few more that Sly will enjoy.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
*cough* Teacher’s Pet! *cough*
September 15th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I thought I might be the only one having those DD errors because of the wireless connection in this hotel. I wasn’t getting it with any of my usual DD reads, though. Glad to see I was not alone or going crazy. Slightly mad, maybe, but not crazy …
September 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I’m the teacher’s pet, now? Huhn.
Thanks guys. I’m glad you guys liked the review - I had fun writing it. Though I’d contest the “well-written”… >.> (coughs at the glaringly awkward passive voice sentence in the second paragraph) But I are perfectionista.
Delos - the observation was more than was meant to be there, I think. One of my favorite works by Henry Fuseli is “The artist moved to despair at the grandeur of antique fragments”. I think the situation just reminded me of that.
Mike - Uhm… “Dump” does have that connotation in the States. I, not having a potty-mind, didn’t really think of that. I more meant “dumpy” as the usual “short and stout,” as well as possibly a blend in my mind between “dorky” and “frumpy.”
September 16th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Well, “Moderator’s pet” wouldn’t have had the same connotation, particularly not in a humorous sense. As the intent was humor and not anything that could even remotely be construed as an insult, I went with “Teacher’s Pet.”
You fancy artists and your obscure quotes, anyway.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
So, like, Delos is gonna school me now? I don’t know how I feel about that. >.>
S’not a quote, it’s a title. And it’s also a link. You should scroll over and click on it. I school you.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Pet” also being a term of affection, I decided “teacher’s pet” was sufficiently ambiguous, actually. I didn’t need to hear about it for the next century if it was taken wrong. I don’t have that many centuries left!
And I actually looked up Fuseli, including your link - typical artistic double talk, says I! You can’t fool me with your highfalutin’ words. That’s why I’m not an artist. My response would be “Here’s a better title! ‘Lady sitting by broken statue thinking of what she paid for it when she bought it‘.” Then I’d get chased out of the art gallery. See what I mean?
September 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Nooo… It’s about the artist confronted with the classics. They’re so beautiful…so grand… All you can do is burst into tears ’cause you can never be that good. At least, I know the feeling. It’s a great piece.
September 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I actually feel sorry for the artist because they waste so much time comparing themselves to other people instead of taking pride in what they do themselves.
Sounds like a good reason to find another line of work, personally.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
…if you don’t compare your work to others, how do you know it’s any good? How do you know it communicates? Where will you get your inspiration from?
September 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I may be simple, but I submit that any artist who puts pen to paper, or writes the words of poetry, or puts pen to canvas, and does so because they enjoy it, love it and it’s part of them is every bit as good as any Beethoven, Van Gogh or Dickinson.
We make the distinction between classic and not, good and bad - but it doesn’t have to be that way, nor do we have to succumb to the typical “artist angst.” I can understand looking at a piece of classic work and admiring it - I never would understand the whole “you burst into tears because you can never be that good.” That, to me, is false and detrimental to the cause of being an artist. If that’s the case, then you and the Moderator and anyone else who isn’t Van Gogh, Rembrandt or whomever better put your pens down right now, because you never will be them. And I say “Good!” You don’t need to be them. You need to be you and do what YOU can do.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
And we weren’t talking about comparing, except in a negative way, as I mentioned. Comparing is fine. Going into the whole angst thing because you NEVER can do as well as them says you need another line of work. When all is said and done, it’s opinion, and we all know how prevalent opinions are. If you like your work, that’s all that matters. Those who will get it will, and those who won’t won’t. And if they don’t, so what?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Can I get an Amen from the congregation? Or at least a rousing chorus of boos?
September 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Two things:
1. “Enjoy” and “love” are not the same thing.
2. Beethoven, Van Gogh, Dickinson, and Rembrant suffered from the so-called “artist angst.”
Like it or not, you don’t really do the craft because it makes you “happy.” Serious athletes don’t spend hours and hours and hours dealing with pain and frustration because that’s what they like about it. Serious artists are no different.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Sorry I’m slow. I have a lot of things to get done today.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Wasn’t aimed at you - I have no idea if you’re here, there, reading this or not. Was a general comment designed to elicit a smile, hopefully, from whomever read it.
Your statement probably explains why I’m not considered “an artist.”
There’s also a difference between honest evaluation and using others as a goal and the whole “God I’m such a hack, I’ll never be as good as them” stuff, which is what I got from your dissertation on Fuseli.
Being a student (as well as great admirer) of Beethoven, I’m also aware of the fact that he and the other artists also suffered from artist angst. I just maintain it isn’t necessary, and I believe it’s become romanticized over the years to where it’s almost expected.
If you aren’t happy doing something, why do it? I can understand when you have no choice - we all do things that we don’t like simply because they need to be done - but artists have a choice of career like the rest of us.
And to use your athlete analogy, serious athletes also don’t usually go around beating their breasts and bemoaning their lack of talent to the universe, either. We’re not talking about working hard and putting time into it. We’re talking about the whole “misunderstood/angst ridden artist” facade, if you will, and the apparent baggage that comes with it. To outsiders, it appears shallow when your work is great and yet you go on about how it’s so bad and you’ll never be as good as “x” person.
September 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I consider myself an artist with words - yet I know I’ll never write like Charles Dickens or any of the other “greats.” why? Because I’m not them. I’m in another time, another place, and I don’t have to write like them to write well. I need only write as well as I am capable of, using a realistic assessment of my talent (or lack of it, as it may be), and know that at the end of the day I did my best.
If I can’t do that, then I shouldn’t write. If an artist of pen and paper can’t do that, then I seriously question why they’re drawing to begin with.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
See, see? You think it’s a facade! I’m misunderstood!
Yeah, that looks like a joke, but John Vorhaus writes that “comedy is truth and pain.” And if you think about it, who’s making the movies, songs, poems, etc that “romaticize” the artist angst? Artists.
Say what you want about the Fuseli piece; but I was being honest. I first looked at that sketch and my reaction was “God, I know exactly how that feels.” Because I feel that way whenever I look through a Michelangelo collection. But you know what else I feel like when I do that? Drawing.
I also disagree about art as a “choice” of career. If you can, you’re a lucky bastard. Most artists are doing something else, wishing they were good enough TO do art. And a lot of artists are doing art because…how can you not?
On a side note, I lso disagree with Poo’s choice of running away. “Be your own person” is a very modern idea, sure, but I find it a totally empty one. Be satisfied with who you are, huh? How will you ever do any work? What would be the point of work? I’d rather stand and face Poseidon.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Well, then I guess I don’t know how else to answer what you’re saying. When all is said and done, if being an artist means you go with this angst ridden act of how hard life is and how terrible your art is and how you wish you could do something else, then more power to you but I’ll pass. I neither believe it is necessary nor healthy; and the fact that only artists believe it is should tell you something, IMHO.
And by the way - if being satisfied with who you are means stagnation and never trying to better yourself, then I suspect you have a very skewed view of a healthy self image. I happen to be VERY happy with who I am (and it has been a long road to get there, thank you), and yet I work very hard, and also work to better myself and the lives of people around me in tangible ways. I’m sure that’s not NEARLY as elite as being an artist, but you know we mere mortals - we do what we can
And if I am not my own person, then who am I? Someone trying to constantly be someone else or achieve what someone else achieved? Been there, done that, learned my lesson. What a waste of a unique being in the whole of Creation.
Again, I’ll pass.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Yeeeaaahh…. I think it’s safe to say you’re not undestanding what I’m trying to say.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Really?
No doubt because I’m not an artist and so could never understand the psyche of one? I don’t see a whole lot of comprehension on your part of where I’m coming from, either, since it seems to keep being taken to an extreme or ridiculous point at times.
So I guess we’re even.
September 16th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Perhaps we’ll wait and see what the others say, should they choose to. If nothing else, it would prove interesting. Not understanding and not buying it/agreeing with it are two different things.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Well, I poked my co-artist about it. She can often understand someone when I can’t. I’m pretty sure I lost you somewhere around “And to use your athlete analogy, serious athletes also don’t usually go around beating their breasts and bemoaning their lack of talent to the universe, either.” (Have you ever noticed that they tend to interview the ones that win, not the ones that lose? Maybe athletes do tend to do the same thing.)
I just think the so-called “angst” is an important and healthy part of the artistic process.
September 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
That’s fine, then.
I don’t think you lost me - I think we see it differently.
If you think you did, then so be it. That’s why we’re two different people.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I will say, though, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t intend it that way, that the position of “Well, you aren’t seeing it my way so I must have lost you” comes across as a bit on the arrogant side.
If anything, I think it’s more feasible that for whatever reason, neither of us is seeing it from the others’ point of view very well.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
*sigh* Maybe I more meant “you lost me”? I dunno.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Why the sigh? That was a gracious comment, giving us both credit for being ardent believers in what we believe in.
You did say, after all “I think it’s safe to say you aren’t understanding…,” did you not?
I don’t know about you, but I can surely discuss and disagree on things without “having” to convince the other person or not speaking to them any more if we don’t - we don’t see it the same way. No big deal, in the whole scope of things.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Oh, I’d just prefer to be able to say what I mean. That’s all.
September 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Well, surprising as it may be to you, I think you did say what you meant, and I did too
The fact that we didn’t “convince” one another of our respective positions means nothing other than we see it differently.
You can’t really gauge how well or poorly you said something by whether or not someone adopted your point of view - sometimes, people simply don’t. You aren’t responsible for that. Pesky free will and all that.
Trust me, if you tend to take responsibility for the actions of others, you’ll be a lot happier when you don’t.
September 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I go for a dump and look what happens while I’m away? Stuff!
September 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Friendly discussion, my friend. Nothing more
September 16th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Wow. You guys have been busy with the talk-talk.
An interesting conversation… As an artist, you see the work of both other and classic artists and you are inspired by the effect that the work has on you. You also want your work to have that same effect on you.
You can also be deflated because you understand just how finely skilled the crafting of classic works was. And you get the angst because you painfully learn one little thing at a time. There might be a thousand little techniques, observations and choices of style to learn before you can even come close to that level of work.
Doc, if I’ve read you right, you feel that what an artist does is what an artist does. He’s okay (or not) with the results and not worried about the finer details. Once an artist’s art has passed a certain level of proficiency, it’s good enough and there’s no need to fret over it. Does that sound accurate?
September 16th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Actually, not really - or perhaps only partially.
My contention was that an artist, instead of putting on this big artistic angst thing and raving against an uncaring universe because they never can express the depths of their soul, or can never achieve the “greatness” of the classics, should instead aspire to be the best that they can be, according to the level of their talent. They need a realistic inventory of their abilities, and need to work within that. They also should be happy with their work and if they aren’t, or if they slave over it and never are satisfied, then perhaps they need to examine (a) their reasons for being an artist to begin with and (b) whether or not their desires are even rational or obtainable. That doesn’t mean that you stop seeking to improve, or that you don’t gain inspiration from others. It means you do your best and at the end of the day, if you know you did, you are happy.
My other contention was that this artistic angst thing is not only unnecessary, but also detrimental to artists and art in general, as it perpetuates the belief that artists are some kind of homo superior, so to speak, and not really in step with the rest of the world, or above everyone else. To an outsider or non-artist, it also appears that what you’re really doing is looking for an ego stroke, since you constantly are so “tormented” over your work. I don’t maintain that it’s a natural offshoot of being an artist, nor do I believe it’s even real - I think a lot of it is either learned from other sources or is something people think you “need” to be as an artist. I contend that you can be a great artist and still not get wrapped up in all the psycho-emotional baggage that goes with it.
If you want more detail, read my previous posts. Basically, I don’t buy that the angst thing is a necessary part of being an artist. Like the poet who constantly wears dark glasses and speaks in needlessly convoluted sentences, I think a lot of it is show and is taught to us rather than being natural.
September 16th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
This might sound a bit silly, but may I ask the Doctor what his definition of “happiness” is? The context in which it’s used… Well, it just makes me curious, is all.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Nobody fully understands me either Doc - Hey, that must mean we’re artists!!!
September 17th, 2008 at 7:40 am
That question, unfortunately, is one that would unleash an entire slew of discussion over the subjective nature of “happiness.” I believe the first paragraph in which I used the term explains it well. For the sake of being concise, though:
1. Realistically assess your abilities and talents. If you don’t have the ability to paint like Picasso, realize that and paint as well as you are able.
2. Never stop trying to improve, but at the same time realize your work isn’t horrible or worthless because you can’t do it as well as “x” person can.
3. At the end of the day, realize that if you did your best, that’s all that can be asked and tomorrow is another day to try and do better if you feel you need to. Whether you do or don’t feel that way, however, be pleased in yourself and what you do.
If you can’t do these things, then perhaps you need to ask yourself why you’re bothering to be an artist anyway - is it to impress others, or perhaps to feed your own ego? Is it because you feel you need to “leave some impact” on the world? If that’s it, try helping the people around you who need help - that will do it a lot better, IMO.
You’re an artist because you do what you do - not because of the quality of your work or lack of it. The mystique of the “tortured, misunderstood artist” is just that, I believe - a mystique we’ve created; and it’s not the same as genuinely trying to improve your work or using someone/something else as an inspiration.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
It would be all easier if everyone channeled Bill Dee Williams:
Happiness is an ice cold Colt 45.
….
Ahhhh…..
September 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Or a cold Guinness.
I don’t shy away from these discussions, though, because that’s all they are - a discussion. If we suddenly start having to convince one another though, that’s a different story.
And I also am a bit of a realist, so I see things a bit more concretely, perhaps.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Note: In this post I succumb to the long-lingering temptation to resort to extreme sarcasm.
4. Never succumb to strong emotions such as frustration, awe, grief, desire, obsession, longing, or anything else that might result in “inspiration.” These are not real, normal human feelings and are not healthy.
Remember, labor-of-love is just an idiom. Art should be FUN, and producing works should never be anything even remotely similar to laboring to deliver a child. If it causes pain, it’s not worthwhile.
It’s all just a stereotypical mystique. It’s not valid.
(Back to normal programming.) …well, there goes the idea that I can play nice. Incidentally, Delos…yes, that’s the right idea. Milquetoast-ified.
Mike - Of course we’re all artists! That must be it! …or maybe most people actually feel like other people don’t understand them. It’s just the people that stereotypically tend to bother to voice such feelings are either “artists” or “teenagers.”
See, here’s the main problem with artistry and the real world. It’s not enough to consider yourself an artist: everyone else has to consider you an artist too. Now, for plenty of people, mom hugs you and says “it’s beautiful, honey” and that’s all the affirmation they need. Some are pure artists and believe they are what they are, and they see truth and beauty and the work moves through them as easy as breathing. (Or at least they try very hard to make it seem that way.) Most of us aspire to that…and then most of us get our monthly bills. The prisoners have their dilemma, and the artists have theirs. How do I convince the guys that matter? Do I sell out? Can my delicate soul handle that sort of loss of virtue? …erk, but can my delicate soul handle this job cleaning fryers at McDonald’s? Ta-dah! Angst!
So you wanna be a pro artist, huh? Get ready to work two full-time jobs, baby. TWO. Get ready to be the least emotionally and financially stable person you know. And yeah, we laugh about it. We make jokes. We’ve got a whole stereotypical thing now - that poor loser who wants so bad to be an artist but doesn’t have the talent. We laugh…because that’s most of us. And I bet more than a few actually try on and play up the whole “tortured, misunderstood artist” thing, because, you know what? Maybe you’ll get that affirmation. Maybe you’ll get that acceptance.
And that’s just the professional side of things. People want more than monetary success. And some people can’t live without that creative outlet. But…have you any idea what paints cost?
El Santo: I thought that Colts come in .45 and are generally better hot and smoking.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
And in this post, not wanting to continue what has obviously devolved into a pointless rehashing of things already said, I hereby withdraw and will take the route of not resorting to sarcasm because not only do I not see the sense in doing so, but because if I showed you how it was done (which I am able to do, believe me) I have every belief I would be banned from this site and rightly so.
I’m sorry you can’t play nice. I can, and I have, despite temptation to not do so with some of you earlier posts and statements. However, I’m more sorry that you feel the need to resort to things like patronizing attitudes and outright mocking rudeness to try and kick the props out of what I’ve said - the ridiculousness of which has been emphasized by statements like “If it causes pain, it’s not worthwhile” and your rant about not feeling strong emotion. Yes, that’s definitely what I was trying to convey, and I’m glad you picked up on it.
I wonder, when all is said and done, who truly doesn’t understand?
September 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Okay, dude, STOP changing your posts after making them. I don’t know which one to respond to.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I don’t believe the change I made was a significant one. I elucidated something I said before, but didn’t change anything substantial. And when I become all knowing, “dude” I’ll know you’re here responding. Until then, I guess you’ll have to grind your teeth a bit longer, won’t you?
September 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I can save you a lot of trouble, Sly - I quit.
I concede.
Whatever it is you want to say. You won. I give up.
If you feel you really need to respond, go for it. I won’t though, as this has truly gone too far.
My apologies if any insult was given to any artist or the artists of the world.
Chalk it up to ignorance and my not being one if it makes you feel better.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Oh, it’s a lot simpler than that. I’m not here, hanging around the site. But I get e-mail alerts with new posts. And I read it there. Seems like I only get the first posts, though. No rewrites. So when I come over here to respond…maybe I’ll notice that the post has changed. If I’m lucky.
If Delos wants to remove my post, that’s fine. It’s his site. I still stand by it. A person can only handle so much “Hey, this is how I feel” only to hear “those feelings aren’t real; it’s all mystique, training, faking” before they feel like they have to take a real stand for themselves. The artist protests feelings of repression! Yar!
Anyway, it’s not meant as a personal attack. Just an uncensored demonstration of my feelings. Which, I dunno, could be a personal attack and I’m just kidding myself.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
…and apparently I also don’t get alerts with responses until awhile after they’re posted. >.>
September 17th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Ok let’s raise the level of the conversation around here … er, who do you think would win in a fight between the Hulk and Doomsday? I’ve got you there haven’t I? And you thought I was stupid! Showed you.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Erm…Hulk is the big green guy, right? …but who’s Doomsday? *D’oh! is showed!*
September 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Perhaps they’ll shoe-horn him into the next Superman movie and then the people of the world will be made better by their knowledge of him … and then again!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Mike …
Hulk. Doomsday’s a knock-off wanna-be piker.
Heh. I’m sure them’s fightin’ words.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I don’t know - I stopped reading Superman when they rebooted him in the 80’s, and definitely never picked it up again after they “killed him” and he came back as a super powered Fabio with long hair
Now - THEM’S fighting words. If you’re going to do it, Talekyn, do it RIGHT!
September 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Our Moderator suggested email - I’m not a person who scurries behind the scenes in dark shadows. When I have lumps to take, I take them. I don’t expect responses to this and really don’t want any - it’s something that must be done, and so here I am, doing it - no explanations, no justifying. Just a simple apology.
I was made to realize, belatedly, how narrow my view appeared in the posts for this comic, and that although no harm was intended, my way of discussing it left much to be desired in terms of grace and kindness. I apologize, sincerely, if anyone that has read it or DOES read it in the future is offended. “Strong, unflinching words” was the phrase the Moderator used, and rightly so. Sly, I apologize to you as well, for seeming to trample over something so special to you as an artist. Our moderator, friend that he is, took me to task and I’m glad he did. He’s an artist too, after all.
I will do my best to not allow myself to become so adamant again - this isn’t the forum for it, and as far as I am concerned it’s a moot point. Thanks for reading and, hopefully, for understanding.
The Doctor