August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Discuss the comic here!
User avatar
Swiftbow
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 13
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Swiftbow » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:15 pm

Ciaran wrote:Some of the expression are weird, but I beleive Tarol has talked about not liking to draw side views of faces, so thats not my nit-pik. Some of my favorite moments in the comic are the looks that characters exchange. Tarol obviously puts a lot of work into them, and it tells me a lot about the characters' relationships. In panel 3, Kin's eyes are not prtraying the same emotion. Hold a finger over Kin's left eye (on the right side of the page) so as to block it from view. She looks sorrowful, or like she's empathizing with another's sorow. Now cover her right eye and she looks very perturbed about Ruby's comment, which is how I would fel about it.

I don't want to complain Tarol, your character's expression are my favorite part of the comic!
Biggest problem for me is I think they should have their eyes closed in panel 10.
Image
Image

User avatar
Liesmith
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 752
UStream Username: Liesmith

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Liesmith » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:36 pm

I think it would be great if, instead of editing Ruby's grammar, Thunt just had Kin correct her in the next update. Given that Kin is probably more than a little annoyed with Ruby at the moment, it would fit perfectly.
"All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day. You had a bad day once. Am I right? I know I am. I can tell. You had a bad day and everything changed."
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 1082

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Glemp » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:45 pm

Kin seems to be somewhat uneven on language precision. When she first met FM, she used 'yeah' an awful lot, for example. Not grammatically incorrect, but odd given her normal use of extended verbalised vernacular - but then I suppose that she feels deeply unstressed at the time, and that may be how she 'normally' talks.

User avatar
Corpsificus
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 125
UStream Username: Corpsificus
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Corpsificus » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:48 pm

Yep, they're all coupley now. They almost kiss, they're always touching each other, and their clothes are similar colours!
Last edited by Corpsificus on Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Misery enjoys company.

Your.Master
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 27

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Your.Master » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:37 pm

I don't think "Can I" is actually incorrect here. She's asking if she can speak privately. That requires our Kin's cooperation (and to some extent, everybody else's, but mostly our Kin's).

Furthermore "Can I?" has been preferred by most speakers in most regions for the past couple centuries, including the highly educated. This is partly because for even longer, while "why can't I" is perfectly cromulent, the equivalent negative constructions using 'may' have been nearly impossible to say : "why mayn't I", "why may not I", "why may I not" etc. all sound affected.

This isn't like "literally" in my opinion. This linguistic battle happened a long time ago, and we have no real loss of meaning by extending the word "can" for permission. I'd argue that any grammarians or English teachers who call "Can I speak with you privately" incorrect are themselves incorrect.

What I would agree with is that using "may" for ability is incorrect, although according to my dictionary even that used to be correct, so we can claim with some historical precedent that this may/can distinction is a weird temporary effect from a narrow slice of time, flash-frozen in people's memory as grammar rules. By the same token, "can" would be a very strange word to use to express that you are considering doing something but are not committed to doing it, eg. "I may go to the store later" (used somewhat interchangeably with 'might' here).

User avatar
AntMac
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 207

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by AntMac » Sat Aug 31, 2013 6:55 pm

Changes_everything wrote: Thunt does not do anything without a plan.


Admittedly that plan sometimes just amounts to stirring speculation, but still.

I just formed a mental image of Thunt sitting with a page of completed art in his hands, going through a check-list.

"Eye-balls, check. Correct number of toes on feet . . . check. Minmax looking confused at least once on the page? . . . check. I can't see anything missing . . . OH, wait, something to foment speculation, I almost left that out !".

:lol:

Pink Bunny
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 15

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Pink Bunny » Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 pm

I'm kind of concerned about her leash and how its dangling and unguarded around her arm. I'm not sure a Kin would abuse another Kin in that fashion, but for some reason its bothering me regardless. Probably that willing to take risks comment from her.

User avatar
stevedj
Voices Opinions
Posts: 417

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by stevedj » Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:43 pm

Hey, wait a minute! When Forgath got his beard back, it also restored his memory of once having a beard.

So, shouldn't it have restored the memory to all three of them now (since they have now touched it), of MinMax having used to wear pants? :D

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by willpell » Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:10 pm

stevedj wrote:So, shouldn't it have restored the memory to all three of them now (since they have now touched it), of MinMax having used to wear pants? :D
And carry rope....
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
RidcullyJack
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 824
Location: New Zealand

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by RidcullyJack » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:37 am

I don't see why it should restore memory of other things. It restored memory of the beard being lost when the beard was restored. It didn't restore the pants or rope, did it?

User avatar
Krulle
Transcribes Goblins
Posts: 8112
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Krulle » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:39 am

Actually it just triggered him to remember he had a beard. He still doesn't remember how he lost it, or the memory of having a beard.
Goblinscomic transcriptions
Collection of G:AR cards

User avatar
jakesdad
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 39
UStream Username: jakesdad
Location: Near a brewery
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by jakesdad » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:37 am

Thunt wrote: Oh good point! I always forget that can/may rule, dammit! :wall:

Thanks!
OK, let me get this straght.

User/Moderator RocketScientist has over 1100 posts...while Thunt has.....16.

It's...it's almost as if...Thunt doesn't care about us!!!!!

WAHHHH!!!! :'(

:)

User avatar
AntMac
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 207

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by AntMac » Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:43 am

Maybe RocketScientist has no other hobbies?. We know Thunt has a drawing hobby. :lol:

User avatar
Aegis J Hyena
Game Master
Posts: 4293

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Aegis J Hyena » Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:09 am

Pink Bunny wrote:I'm kind of concerned about her leash and how its dangling and unguarded around her arm. I'm not sure a Kin would abuse another Kin in that fashion, but for some reason its bothering me regardless. Probably that willing to take risks comment from her.
I just noticed that. Yeah, I'm concerned too. In my head I'm seeing a "you like humans? then die" moment where Ruby pulls Kin aside out of sight of MM and kills her. "NOW who's going to exit the circle?!"
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Capricornian/

It's Always Something. No, don't give me that look. It's Always Something.

User avatar
Glemp
Poorly Locked Patron
Poorly Locked Patron
Posts: 1082

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Glemp » Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:27 am

You know, I wish that Ruby's dialogue used "need" so it echoes Psimax.

User avatar
boneguard
Of Few Words
Posts: 75
Location: Gatineau (Qu├®bec) Canada

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by boneguard » Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:38 am

Thunt wrote:
jakesdad wrote:One error on the part of Reality 80 Kin--Ruby in the last panel.

"Can I speak privately with you?" means "do I have the physical capability to speak with you privately?" Can I do it?

"May I speak privately with you?" means "do I have permission to speak with you privately?" May I do so?
Oh good point! I always forget that can/may rule, dammit! :wall:

Thanks!
OR tyou could pretent that English is your second language and fugget about it. :P
You can keep your precious reality, I got a kingdom to save from a horde of savage orcs and then go and do this wetjob for Mr. Johnson.

Never Finishes Anyth
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 31

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Never Finishes Anyth » Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:59 am

I must say, I am delighted by the dynamic composition of the last panel.

-Never Finishe

User avatar
Moroser
Of Few Words
Posts: 72

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Moroser » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:02 am

That was awesome to see the current page in 3 stages: without shading, with some shading and now with complete shading. I like how contrast the shades from the light sources in MoM are.

User avatar
Thunt
Draws Goblins
Posts: 90

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by Thunt » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:03 am

I agree with what some of you were saying about the expressions looking weird in the profile views. When I shaded the page, I re-drew the mouths on all of the profile panels, so they look a bit more natural. The reason they looked so weird? I suck at profiles. I'm getting better, but you can kind of tell that I have a lot less control when drawing a profile pic. :shrug:

Someone mentioned that Kin's expression in the third panel looked off, but it's based off of this picture of Ellen Page...

Image

User avatar
jakesdad
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 39
UStream Username: jakesdad
Location: Near a brewery
Contact:

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by jakesdad » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:57 am

Your.Master wrote:Furthermore "Can I?" has been preferred by most speakers in most regions for the past couple centuries, including the highly educated....
While this is true, Kin's are not like most speakers, or even highly educated speakers. They pride themselves as being intelligent beyond reproach. They would not, and could not be corrected on points of grammar by those they considered to be of inferior intelligence.

Can you imagine what would happen if the last panel had remained "Can I speak..." and the first panel of the next comic started with Minmax saying "I think you mean 'May I speak.'"

The second panel would show Ruby glaring at Minmax.

The third would show her nearly exploding with rage at him.

The fourth would show the result of her rage turned inward at her own mistake...the energy imploding into a singularity.

The fifth would show the entire dungeon being sucked into the Black Hole, without even a chance for Forgath to yell "Hey!"

Noone wants the comic to end like that. Noone.

:)

User avatar
AntMac
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 207

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by AntMac » Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:03 pm

Thunt wrote: The reason they looked so weird? I suck at profiles.
I do not think it means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya accent]

With the greatest respect, and gratitude, my dear Sir, it is patently the wrong word there in that sentence. :P I would sell semi-vital organs to be able to draw as well as your worst day.

More to the point, even with a following wind I would never be able to give people such a generous thing as you have given us, which is humane, uplifting and kindly stories for our edification.

You good sort you, as we say down here.

User avatar
The Rotting King
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 34

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by The Rotting King » Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:47 pm

Yay! Awesome update. I smell Kin-based conflict coming soon.

User avatar
sshipway
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 18
Location: New Zealand

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by sshipway » Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:54 pm

I have to say, the split-frame pictures of MM and Kin about to kiss just don't seem to work.

I think the bit that seems off is that Kin should be closing her eyes as they go in (getting gradually more closed through the two parts of the split-frame). They should possibly also be turning their heads slightly to the side as well to avoid the dreaded nose-bump, though that might just be something I think of due to my impressively long nose (you know what they say about a man's nose, though :P ).

Probably thunt could do better on that one. Maybe he needs more subject matter - a good excuse to tell his better half that they need to snog in front of a camera repeatedly,and it's all for the sake of ART o:)

User avatar
BuildsLegos
Indulges in Conversation
Posts: 906
UStream Username: BuildsLegos
Location: So rorery in OKC

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by BuildsLegos » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:13 pm

sshipway wrote:(you know what they say about a man's nose, though :P ).
Some more than others.
Last edited by BuildsLegos on Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
The only one to pay attention to what happens in Goblins.

User avatar
RocketScientist
Global Moderator
Posts: 5886
Location: Massachusetts

Re: August 30, 2013: We are not amused.

Post by RocketScientist » Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:58 am

AntMac wrote:Maybe RocketScientist has no other hobbies?. We know Thunt has a drawing hobby. :lol:
This is quite possible. :oops:

Post Reply