[Off-Topic] Raus, Maus!
Tiny Human Ferret
Fear, fear for your lives and culture, little mice!
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8560/hitlercat7uq.jpg
This could almost be a new Goth hobby:
--
nam primi in omnibus proeliis oculi vincuntur.
The Impenetrable Tesseract of Fascinet
Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
> Fear, fear for your lives and culture, little mice!
>
> http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8560/hitlercat7uq.jpg
>
> This could almost be a new Goth hobby:
>
> http://hitlercats.motime.com/
>
That's so cute!
I'm sending that to my sister.
-F
Dav
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>Fear, fear for your lives and culture, little mice!
>
>http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8560/hitlercat7uq.jpg
>
>This could almost be a new Goth hobby:
>
>http://hitlercats.motime.com/
I once saw a comic book based on the events of the Holocaust with Nazi
cats and Jewish mice. I have no idea what it was called now...
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: Operation Ivy - Vulnerability
erithromycin
>Tiny Human Ferret
>Klaatu wrote:
>>Fear, fear for your lives and culture, little mice!
>>http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/8560/hitlercat7uq.jpg
>>This could almost be a new Goth hobby:
>>http://hitlercats.motime.com/
>I once saw a comic book based on the events of the Holocaust with Nazi
>cats and Jewish mice. I have no idea what it was called now...
Amusingly, 'Maus' - two volumes, by Art Spiegelman. Readily available from
all good book stores. Also, prefered term is 'graphic novel', as if memory
serves it was never serialised.
--
erith - .sig
Dav
I love talking about 'reading comics' to my Batman graphic
novel-owning buddy. Drives him fucking nuts...
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: Johnny Thunders - Daddy Rollin' Stone
Dav
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:17:52 +0100, Dav wrote:
>> I once saw a comic book based on the events of the Holocaust with Nazi
>> cats and Jewish mice. I have no idea what it was called now...
>
>_MAUS_, by Art Spiegalman.
>
>See also http://www.iath.virginia.edu/holocaust/spiegelman.html
Yeah, that's the one - thanks.
God, I really hate reading long essays about books. Always seems like
overanalysis to me. Yup, I really hated literature at school...
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: Johnny Thunders - (She's So) Untouchable
Dav
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:53:40 +0100, Dav wrote:
>> God, I really hate reading long essays about books. Always seems like
>> overanalysis to me. Yup, I really hated literature at school...
>
>Is it the literature or the analysis of literature that's loathesome? I
>can certainly understand the latter.
Yup, analysis, analysis and more analysis. Dissecting a book
line-by-line in order to 'understand' what the book is 'really about'
and what 'the author was thinking' - at the same time destroying any
present or future enjoyment you might've got out of just sitting down
and reading the book as it was intended. What a load of absolute
bollocks. What it basically boils down to is some teacher sat at the
front of the room, telling you what the book represents to him, based
on his own opinions. My English Lit. teacher was a real piece of shit
(later proven in court - though he tripped off my SlimyFuckingCuntDar
long before that) - why the *hell* would I be interested in his
opinion on anything? ;)
It completely ruined Shakepeare for me, for one thing.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: The Jam - Girl On The Phone
Dav
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:48:45 +0100, Dav wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 20:13:07 +0100, "erithromycin"
>><erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>Amusingly, 'Maus' - two volumes, by Art Spiegelman. Readily available
>>>from all good book stores. Also, prefered term is 'graphic novel', as
>>>if memory serves it was never serialised.
>>
>> I love talking about 'reading comics' to my Batman graphic
>> novel-owning buddy. Drives him fucking nuts...
>
>I have a vast collection of comic books. Most of the Charles Addams
>ones, a few of the Neil Gaiman, and one of the Scott Adams are even
>hardback.
I've been working my way through 'V For Vendetta' recently, after
seeing the movie. I only bought it because of a pricing error on
Amazon though (marked down as Ł5.99 instead of Ł25.99) - graphic
novels are usually way too expensive for my tastes...
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: The Jam - Girl On The Phone
Tiny Human Ferret
Wait until you run across someone who insists on Deconstructing Surrealists.
The proper approach to that is to jump up and scream "the FISH!", run
around backwards a few times and then sit down. When they ask you what
the hell you were doing, tell them "deconstructing surrealism is being a
fool on a fool's errand, by the surrealist's design. Modern surrealism
has at it's core the understanding that deconstructionists will try to
deconstruct them, and the fullness of the art as done by the masters
only makes the deconstructionist even more surreal in their
interpretation than was the original work. Thus, fool on a fool's
errand, when I was running around backwards I was imitating you".
I guarantee you will get an "F".
Dav
Oh yeah - people that bullshit about art do my head in too. :)
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: The Members - Police Car
The Scythian Boogaloo of Fascinet
I remember it being syndicated in some anthology magazine in the
early-to-mid-eighties.
-F
TenshiKurai9
While I don't find analysis to automatically be aggravating, anything
that smacks of overreading does get on nerves.
In 9th grade, having to do a 3D lump of clay coming from a board and
painting a set of words led to No Meaning Intended. It was just
supposed to be a nonsensical creature with no other meaning, except for
me being aggravated at knowing people do exist who overread art.
My tenth grade English "substitute" teacher (regular teacher was out
first term with Lyme's Disease) was the one who had us read A Separate
Peace. Over some description of the school, he was trying to read
something into it. Later in the book, he objected to jokes of Gene and
Finny as gay. Frankly the joking of they're gay had a more solid base.
-TenshiKurai9
Tiny Human Ferret
You must have a degree in Advanced Deconstructionism.
You just gave the one and only possible Deconstruction of Surrealism
that isn't inevitably bizarre. And in one sentence or less! :D
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
nam primi in omnibus proeliis oculi vincuntur.
==================================================================
"Sometimes, Evil drives a mini-van."
--Desperate Housewives
--
To study and not think is a waste.
To think and not study is dangerous.
-- Confucius, _Analects_, 2:15
Jennie Kermode
> Dav wrote:
>> Oh yeah - people that bullshit about art do my head in too. :)
> While I don't find analysis to automatically be aggravating, anything
> that smacks of overreading does get on nerves.
Anything that smacks of overexplaining the blindingly obvious
is aggravating, too. This is how the process tends to manifest to the
smarter kids in school. What's really disturbing, mind, is when one
realises how little other kids get out of things _without_ that.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Panurge
> Anything that smacks of overexplaining the blindingly obvious
> is aggravating, too. This is how the process tends to manifest to the
> smarter kids in school. What's really disturbing, mind, is when one
> realises how little other kids get out of things _without_ that.
Well, I certainly was able to use it; I would've been oblivious to much in
literature without at least some analysis, in high school anyway. I suspect
it's good to read at least a few works of analysis, just so you're aware that,
you know, *meaning exists*.
--
"There is no excellent beauty which hath not some
strangeness in the proportion." --Sir Francis Bacon
kest
>
> Anything that smacks of overexplaining the blindingly obvious
> is aggravating, too. This is how the process tends to manifest to the
> smarter kids in school. What's really disturbing, mind, is when one
> realises how little other kids get out of things _without_ that.
>
>
One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I would
rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
k
The Scythian Boogaloo of Fascinet
What sort of fork do you use for that?
Dinner, salad or fish?
-F
Jennie Kermode
> One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I would
> rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
Paraphrasing philosophy (in first year at university, no less)
was what I hated most. Some old dead guy spent ages whittling down an
idea to its simplest, most accessible form, and they want me to tell
them what it means. Want to know what it means? FUCKING READ IT!!!
<ahem> Sorry.
Jennie Kermode
<fasc...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> kest wrote:
>> One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I would
>> rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
> What sort of fork do you use for that?
> Dinner, salad or fish?
I'd think that a fish fork would be best for eyes. They're
rarely served as a main course, and the slender curved nature of a fish
fork would enable it to cope better with their round slipperiness and
the way they come apart when punctured.
Dav
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
Sometimes I even amaze myself with my amazingness.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
Now playing: The Rolling Stones - Sad Day
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> kest <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote:
>> One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I would
>> rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
>
> Paraphrasing philosophy (in first year at university, no less)
> was what I hated most. Some old dead guy spent ages whittling down an
> idea to its simplest, most accessible form, and they want me to tell
> them what it means. Want to know what it means? FUCKING READ IT!!!
> <ahem> Sorry.
Well, these both sounds like forms of the syndrome that made it
impossible for me to write essays when I was in high school...
I had the idea that language is about communication, and if I'm
writing something solely for the instructor to read, then there
isn't any point in saying something that I think they know already.
But philosophy papers are *easy* to write. You just read through
the chain of assumptions and find the point where they guy is
just hand-waving. Typically that's in the first chapter. No
need to even read the whole thing.
the enemies of god
um, yeah. or the point at which the author steps into mysticism and
calls on a Prime Mover or other mysterious, intelligent force ...
... refer to the clockwork for substance; we are the clockmakers.
Jennie Kermode
> I found a copy of that in the library yesterday. Had I the time, I'd
> have read it.
I highly recommend it. It's a smart book - by presenting
events in such an off-kilter way, it gets past the familiarity and
distance we've all developed in relation to tales of the Holocaust, and
it's very hard-hitting. Compelling, though - not the sort of book one
wants to put down and hide from, even at its darkest.
Jennie Kermode
> Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> was what I hated most. Some old dead guy spent ages whittling down an
>> idea to its simplest, most accessible form, and they want me to tell
>> them what it means. Want to know what it means? FUCKING READ IT!!!
> I had the idea that language is about communication, and if I'm
> writing something solely for the instructor to read, then there
> isn't any point in saying something that I think they know already.
The thing is, anyone who reads the original ought instantly to
be able to see what it means, so why repeat it? How could I express such
a thing more simply when it's so simple to begin with? I just didn't
know how to dumb that stuff down anymore.
> But philosophy papers are *easy* to write. You just read through
> the chain of assumptions and find the point where they guy is
> just hand-waving. Typically that's in the first chapter. No
> need to even read the whole thing.
Quite - but that means they're easy to _understanf_, not easy
to write about. What's left to say?
I think I suffered from working in journalism before I reached
university - for that matter, it also caused me problems in high school.
My editors wanted neat, concise copy which summed up the issues involved
with no unnecessary fuss. That seemed to be precisely the opposite of
what academia wanted.
Joseph Brenner
The "graphic novel" term isn't really about technicalities of how
something was published, it's about evading a shameful past with
negative connotations. So people will plug away at being
comically correct for another decade or so, insisting stiffly
that these are NOT mere "comics"; and then after people get
annoyed enough at that, there will be a "comic book pride"
movement where people will insist that they are not mere "comics"
but "FUNNYBOOKS"!
But by that point some guys on the web will have popularized on-line
comics by changing the name to something else and insisting that it's
new, new, new ("Aren't you into graphicblogrollers, yet?").
There will then be a debate about the exact definition of this
new genre, where people will attempt to use technicalities of how
something is published to exclude the old and justify calling the
"new" thing "new".
A convenient technical justification would be some way of doing
drawings on-line that you can promote as being a break through in "ease
of use" (despite the fact that close observation would show that it's
more work than scribbling on paper).
Korin..
Jennie Kermode wrote:
> On 2006-06-28, kest <ke...@spamfree.nettrip.org> wrote:
> > One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I would
> > rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
>
> Paraphrasing philosophy (in first year at university, no less)
> was what I hated most. Some old dead guy spent ages whittling down an
> idea to its simplest, most accessible form, and they want me to tell
> them what it means. Want to know what it means? FUCKING READ IT!!!
> <ahem> Sorry.
I felt that in my English lessons. One of our English Language exams
would require us to comment on a poem we'd not read before, then
compare it to one we have. The second poem would be chosen from a
booklet we were given earlier in the year, containing about 20 poems.
Therefore, for a month or two, we went through every poem, analysing
every little reference, commenting on every verse, every line...
Our teacher knew my feelings on analysing poems. I felt I could take
most of it at face value ("Perhaps s/he just wrote that because it
rhymed with the last line?")
Funnily enough, I seemed to be the only person who thought that. But I
still maintain we didn't need to go into all those poems in the detail
that we did. Especially as out of all of them, we'd only need to know
anything about one of them in the end.
Korin
TenshiKurai9
> Our teacher knew my feelings on analysing poems. I felt I could take
> most of it at face value ("Perhaps s/he just wrote that because it
> rhymed with the last line?")
Let me now read My Soul and By Myself by Sarah, the Little Goth Girl.
http://www.matazone.co.uk/animpages/little_goth_girl_open_mike_night.html
If you think such works are mere exercises in rhyme, then you will
never understand.
> Funnily enough, I seemed to be the only person who thought that. But I
> still maintain we didn't need to go into all those poems in the detail
> that we did. Especially as out of all of them, we'd only need to know
> anything about one of them in the end.
Maybe it's one of those so-obvious-that-only-one-person-gets-it
situations.
I wonder how much forced overthinking makes sure people tune-out their
poetry? (Learning the person's life and larger social context and
language when there's a gap between reader's use of language and poet's
use is one thing. Forced overthinking is another.)
-TenshiKurai9
"Didn't anyone tell them that it's in the darkness that you see the
stars?"-Sarah, the Little Goth Girl
The Scythian Boogaloo of Fascinet
I understand that people who can't stand to read comic books because
they associate the medium with 1950's Super-Westerns "graphic novel" to
hide behind, and although I prefer that the term to be used only for
long stories that were meant to be read as a whole, I understand that
Maus is a coherent enough story to warrant being called "graphic novel"
as a meaningful whole, just as Oliver Twist is properly called a novel.
That being said, when a comic book is called a "graphic novel" just to
satiate an adolescent need to eschew the childish, it grates. It
grates nearly as much as hearing the vile term "graphic memoir" on NPR
last week.*
Comic books as I was introduced to them are dying.
There won't be a meaningful revival.
>
> But by that point some guys on the web will have popularized on-line
> comics by changing the name to something else and insisting that it's
> new, new, new ("Aren't you into graphicblogrollers, yet?").
>
> There will then be a debate about the exact definition of this
> new genre, where people will attempt to use technicalities of how
> something is published to exclude the old and justify calling the
> "new" thing "new".
>
> A convenient technical justification would be some way of doing
> drawings on-line that you can promote as being a break through in "ease
> of use" (despite the fact that close observation would show that it's
> more work than scribbling on paper).
>
It's a disgusting amount of work to take a paper drawing and get it
looking good on the internet, and usually it fails. I'm really not
sure about starting from scratch with a graphics tablet; it seems like
certain types of negative space could be defined fairly readily that
way. Some people tell me it's still a rather nasty job, however, and
they've given up on the tablet altogether.
Plus, you have to sit in front of a computer the whole time, which
sucks.
I'd expect a meaningful "ease of use" would be for the reader, not the
artist. In a perfect world, the only internet comics would be stories
designed to give more to the reader from the medium's unique features
than they lose by by their lack of portability, etc.
There are several ways in which an internet comic could be different
from a comic book or graphic novel. Although I've done a little
searching, no one has been trying them with any frequency. For the
most part, internet comics are written like normal comic strips or
comic books (the best of the latter, a combination of the two). I feel
that there is more that can be done as far as story telling is
concerned with this medium, however.
It's just that nobody is doing it.
-F
* It's vapidity can be found here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5521170
Apparently, some comedian is doing the 100 book challenge this year:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508995
erithromycin
Joseph Brenner:
>>>>I once saw a comic book based on the events of the Holocaust with Nazi
>>>>cats and Jewish mice. I have no idea what it was called now...
>>>Amusingly, 'Maus' - two volumes, by Art Spiegelman. Readily available
>>>from all good book stores. Also, prefered term is 'graphic novel', as if
>>>memory serves it was never serialised.
>>I remember it being syndicated in some anthology magazine in the
>>early-to-mid-eighties.
>The "graphic novel" term isn't really about technicalities of how
>something was published, it's about evading a shameful past with
>negative connotations. So people will plug away at being
>comically correct for another decade or so, insisting stiffly
>that these are NOT mere "comics"; and then after people get
>annoyed enough at that, there will be a "comic book pride"
>movement where people will insist that they are not mere "comics"
>but "FUNNYBOOKS"!
There's that, and there's the 'myth of the ongoing campaign' - comic books
just keep plugging along. A graphic novel has a definite end. Titles usually
keep plugging along. Sometimes you'll get discrete arcs, but how many
interesting stories are there? Batman has a creation myth which I can enjoy
seeing retold time and again. Superman, less so. Wolverine, not at all.
>But by that point some guys on the web will have popularized on-line
>comics by changing the name to something else and insisting that it's
>new, new, new ("Aren't you into graphicblogrollers, yet?").
If my internets hadn't been temporarily suspended due to billing issues* I'd
be able to, no, actually, I've remembered - Scott McCloud - I think it's
called 'Imagining Comics'. There's lots of snark around it. I think you'd
like it (at least as conversation fodder).
>There will then be a debate about the exact definition of this
>new genre, where people will attempt to use technicalities of how
>something is published to exclude the old and justify calling the
>"new" thing "new".
There's some interesting stuff in the old/new thing going on at these here
heres:
http://smithmag.us/shootingwar
http://www.garenewing.co.uk/rainboworchid/webcomic/stripIndex.php
http://e-sheep.com
Shooting War's interesting as much for what it is as how it is, e-sheep's
'spiders' is arguably the best alternate history of the Ongoing War in
Afghanistan that you'll read, and the Rainbow Orchid is Tin-Tin without
Tin-Tin in. Which is pretty good going.
>A convenient technical justification would be some way of doing
>drawings on-line that you can promote as being a break through in "ease
>of use" (despite the fact that close observation would show that it's
>more work than scribbling on paper).
Wacomm tablets. Also, mices are not pens.
--
erith - the only mouse mightier than the sword is mighty mouse
erithromycin
>The Scythian Boogaloo of Fascinet
>>>One of my least favorite things to do ever is paraphrasing poetry. I
>>>would rather stab my eyes out with a fork.
>>What sort of fork do you use for that?
>>Dinner, salad or fish?
> I'd think that a fish fork would be best for eyes. They're
>rarely served as a main course, and the slender curved nature of a fish
>fork would enable it to cope better with their round slipperiness and
>the way they come apart when punctured.
I would have thought they'd be best served with an eggcup and a little
spoon. Removing them would be easier with a spoon too.
--
erith - .sig
Jennie Kermode
> I would have thought they'd be best served with an eggcup and a little
> spoon. Removing them would be easier with a spoon too.
Eyes? No, not in an eggcup. They'd ping out when one pressed
the spoon into them.
Dark Phoenix
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnebighh.6an...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On 2006-07-14, erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>> I would have thought they'd be best served with an eggcup and a little
>> spoon. Removing them would be easier with a spoon too.
>
> Eyes? No, not in an eggcup. They'd ping out when one pressed
> the spoon into them.
>
> Jennie
I find those little olive forks work splendidly.
--
Laurie, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
"Vampires are make believe. Just like Elves, Gremlins, and Eskimoes."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GothicGardeners/
http://www.geocities.com/dark_phoenix54/50booksin2006