telophase | (no subject)

I'm not seeing why I should be less offended that she thinks "older characters" are of lesser visual interest than young ones than if she thought that older characters were less appealing in terms of personality. It's not an unusual prejudice, unfortunately, at least not in the US. But it's as ugly as any other prejudice.

*nods* I find there's a certain aesthetic quality and satisfaction in drawing a smooth, rounded face, but there's also a lot of fun to be had in drawing an older face. I haven't done much of that in manga-style, but there's a lot more challenge because manga style is for the most part simpler and you have to try to pare everything down, but still leave enough lines and detail in to indicate age.

If you've been reading recent chapters of Death Note, have you seen how Obata has subtly aged Light by four years? I haven't sat down and done a point-by-point analysis (and come to think of it, that might make a great subject for another of the manga analyses), but he's very very subtly made his jaw heavier. I think the jaw is the primary thing aging Light at the moment, but there seems to be something else about him - maybe a slightly heavier use of line, but I'm not sure.

I stopped keeping up with DN because the most recent storyline annoyed me. But yes, I would love to see a manga analysis on how different artists indicate different ages--and aging--in characters.

I'll see what I can do. If I start it before I finish the current stage of TEN SEKRIT PROJEKT

rachelmanija will fly halfway across the country and apply a righteous stompage to my person. XD

I noticed that in the FMA manga, too, that as the story progresses, you notice the characters (Ed, mostly) age with the story. I really, really love it when an artist takes the time and detail to do something like that. It just brings a whole new level into the reading experience. In DN, it's a time jump, so it's a little more noticeable that the characters have aged (like Chief Yagami's dramatic increase in grey hair), but I thought it was so insanely cool in FMA that the aging was so gradual that I almost didn't notice it at first. But when you compare how Ed was drawn at the beginning to how he's drawn now, the difference is incredible. And the artist just puts it all together so perfectly that you really don't consciously realize it, it's just really really natural. It's little things like that that separate the great manga-ka from the awesome ones.

Oh, that's a good one to check when I get around to doing an essay on aging characters. And I just remembered that when Obata did Hikaru no Go he did a good job of aging the characters from twelve to fifteen or so. I'll have to see if there's any others out there with pictures easily accessible.

I think "Naruto" does a good job aging its younger cast. The two-year time gap between parts 1 and 2 shows definite physical aging in the babyninja group, and even before the time jump there's gradual change in the characters in the one or two years we see them in the story, although that probably has to do with the artist's style changing as well. Check out Shikamaru moving from scary monkeyboy in his first appearance to chuunin jailbait. And I still can't believe Naruto went from leetle babyninja into this. (He was one of the few main underaged characters I loved but did not perv on! Dammit!)

I forgot about Naruto, because I haven't been reading the most recent chapters (out of laziness more than anything else). Of course, checking in every month or so means I get to read four chapters at once. :)

Babyninja Naruto makes me want to wrap him in a blanket and give him a cup of cocoa. XD

I don't know that she meant all older characters were less visually appealing, or just that what she'd seen of Sophie-as-an-old-woman prior to watching the movie had struck her as visually unappealing. I'm not a huge fan of Miyazaki's short, hook-nosed, huge-eyed, hunched-back variety of old ladies myself.

She was a bit unclear on that, I think - it sounded to me like she was making generalizations about what constituted a good main character in general, instead of for this specific film.

I really liked Miyazaki's use of his stereotype in Spirited Away, where the evil magician (er, forgot her name) is the standard hook-nosed, huge-eyed, hunched-back character, and you associate those traits with her and her evil, and then you meet her sister, who looks exactly like her but is good -- and those same traits because grandmotherly and comforting. And then you come back to the evil one's land, and she changes a bit, both in her character and in our perception of her. I think we needed that trip and to be cued to see those traits as warm and comforting, so we bring that back to the evil one, and her transformation is just that much more plausible.

* "...and those same traits because ..."

Er, those same traits become.

Yubaba and Zeniba are their names. That design works very well in Spirited Away and is quite reminiscent of witches in the "Baba Yaga" tradition who are by turns helpful and terrifying.

Thanks. You'd think that as a Spirited Away fanpoodle I'd remember their names, but I am a Fanpoodle of Inconsistency +1.

~~aarg, I forgot to eat breakfast until just now and it's making my head hurt~~

Well, I never thought this would happen, but suddenly I'm tempted to read "Peach Fuzz".
I never would have picked it up before, aside from the novelty of an American manga-ka. I really got nothing out of the preview in Tokyopop "Sneaks",
but I think maybe I'll pick up the first volume in order to form a more valid opinion of it...
Next time there's a "buy four get one free sale" going on at Waldenbooks.
:P

I'll post some sort of review on my Livejournal when that happens. In a few weeks or so.

Yup. :) In the wild-and-woolly world of publicity, bad or not-glowing reviews are just about as good as good ones, and some form of personal contact with the creator is another very, very good method of selling - people tend to buy things they recognize, and why they recognize it isn't as important.*

Volume 1 of PF is out now and has been for a while - 2 is still in the works and I think doesn't have a firm release date yet, but a trip to Tokyopop's website ought to confirm or deny that.

* [pimp] Which is why you should be on the lookout for

rachelmanija's (Rachel Manija Brown) memoir All the Fishes Come Home to Roost coming out this fall and

bitpig's (Bruce Lewis) how-to Draw Manga, coming out in a month or two, and

sclerotic_rings (Paul Riddell) has a collection of rants and essays coming out sometime soon. There's several other published writers who comment here as well -

eegatland is Elizabeth Wein and

sartorias is Sherwood Smith, and there's a few others lurking around (who are welcome to comment XD). There. Naming all those names will make it slightly more likely you'll pick up their books next time you see them. ;) [/pimp]

Nyah nyah, I'm a better mind-reader than you! *g* The original post was vague enough that I wondered, from your comments, whether I'd gotten the wrong impression.

Not that there was anything wrong with linking to it! It got a wider variety of responses than a carefully constructed essay would've, debate was sparked, opinions were exchanged, the internet is a public forum etc etc. Still. I can argue Authorial Intent as well as the next person, but arguing intent on an informal post by a non-public figure... it seemed out of place, at least.

If this was a novel or a television series or even the blog of a professional author, that would have been different. You have to argue What Was Meant with people like that, because they probably aren't going to answer if you ask them yourself. (Not to mention it's part of the unspoken laws of celebrity that if you're famous, you get unwanted attention along with wanted attention. Tom Cruise, for example, has no right to complain when people pick apart his stupid, stupid comments.)

But webcomic authors, even wildly sucessful ones, are not Public Figures. There's a difference between sparking debate and arguing intent.

What's more, you can say whatever you want on your own journal but livejournal does call it a "friends" page. The general rule for these sorts of the things is not to let the OP know you're disagreeing, and not to say things about people you've friended unless they're in on the post defending themselves. You weren't wrong, but you might have been impolite.

Bah, livejournal ethics. Last time I checked we still hadn't reached a consensus on what they actually entail.

I disagree. There is no way for LJ to mandate who is a true friend and who is someone whose LJ you just want to read, and there is no way to prevent someone from adding your journal to their 'friends' list. And LJ naming policy does not dictate etiquette. It is more appropriately called a reading list.

Additionally, the Internet comprises a public forum. This is the equivalent of standing on Speaker's Corner and giving a speech. LJ provides a number of options for you to restrict access to your words if you do not wish them to be bandied about - you can make them friends-only or even private. If you choose not to restrict your audience, then your words are in the public forum and are fair game for debate in the public forum, on that post and elsewhere. This is why I did not friendslock the post or restrict who can leave comments in any way, and why I pointed out the existence of this post to her, should she wish to comment. Had I truly intended to hide from her, I could have friendslocked it, or even simply not posted in her journal under this LJ username; it's easy enough to post anonymously or use a sockpuppet journal if you don't wish to be found.

Thirdly, she is a professional author. Peach Fuzz is not a webcomic, it is a manga published by Tokyopop, and thus by your definition, she is a public figure. A public figure who will probably answer back because she is not so public that she has to distance herself like many well-known authors and actors. You'll note that I did go over to her LJ and post, to offer a dissenting opinion and, as a result, to get what she really meant by it (which, as

coffee_and_ink points out, is still something I don't necessarily agree with.

Fourthly, she is not a friend, not matter what LJ terminology says. She is also not an enemy. She is an online figure whose public posts I happen to read. I have no more moral obligation to go over there first thing and say "Hey, I've posted something here that you might want to answer back to" than I do to go to Neil Gaiman's blog, Teresa Nielsen Hayden's blog, or Charlie Stross' blog and post it when I disagree with them.

If you still think that being on a "friendslist" confers some sort of obligation of friendship, let me also point out that while she's on my list, I have a number of filters including "Friends" "Feeds" "Monitored" "Images" and "Music," and she is in the "Monitored" filter, which consists of a number of journals and communities that I don't read on a daily basis. I do not feel a personal emotional connection to anyone on the Feeds, Monitored, or Music filters.

I find it very strange that you would assume that a personal connection of any sort is implied by reading someone's public posts on their journal. I also don't see where the rules of etiquette say that I am obligated to directly inform someone if I am standing on another Speaker's Corner on the opposite side of the park and talking about what they say.

Mmm. I didn't know she was a professional. That does make a difference. If she's a public figure, most of what I said doesn't apply.

You'll note that I never said you were wrong, because you weren't. I didn't say you were unreasonable, because you weren't. I said you were impolite. I still believe that.

Disagreement is a constitutional right, yes, and this is a public forum. But directing someone you don't know well to a post that criticizes their remarks and work is rude.

(I'll admit that most of what I mean by "being polite" is really "avoiding conflict". Still. I like to imagine situations like this as letters to The Ethicist (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ETHICIST.html?ex=1120276800&en=65523e20b42c1000&ei=5070). If you knew that your post might upset the author, and you pointed it out to her anyway, you were being rude. Reasonable, but rude.)

Her response was completely uncalled for, but that's another story.

PS. I don't think monitoring a journal implies any sort of personal connection. I know that many people object to LJ's naming policy. I also know that many other people do not object to livejournal's naming policy, and do seriously consider "friends" to mean "friends". That's what makes it so tricky.

I had someone get really, really pissed off at me because I argued with a post of hers in my LJ and didn't tell her about it. Seriously, I think half of all LJ-ers think it's rude to tell people if you're going to disagree with a post of theirs on your LJ, and half think it's rude not to.

Yep.

I still can't believe she went back through

telophase's old entries to find something else to whine about.

I finally just decided that if anybody puts their words in public, then those words are fair game to the public. If someone puts a political bumper sticker on their car, they have no right to be angry if I write to the letters column of a newspaper pointing out that sticker and disagreeing with it without telling them that I did so.

If my best friend put the sticker on their car, I might tell them I was going to write the letter, but here on LJ, if I argued with you for some reason, I probably wouldn't email you specially (unless I knew you weren't reading LJs at the time) about it because I know you read this. No need to point it out, you'll see it.

* And one more passing thought - my favorites are the people who post publicly in their journal about somethng without restricting the comments n any way, and who are then offended when someone drops by and argues with them. Offended at the tone of voice, sure, perhaps offended at their opinion, but the sheer fact of a stranger commenting on your post when you left it wide open...? Nope, sorry, no moral high horse there.

I remember one a year or so back that made it to one of the wank communities (I read it, didn't post in it). Someone was on the staff of a con that was being organized and was posting stuff publicly in her journal that did not reflect well on the con. When someone who didn't normally read her journal found it and pointed out that maybe she should friendslock or otherwise hide the entry because she could easily be torpedoing the con, she exploded at the SHEER EFFRONTRY that a total stranger would criticize her journal, and that it was her PRIVATE journal and that nobody should take anything psoted in a PRIVATE journal to be representative of the con.

At any rate, all she succeeded in doing was entertaining a number of us who had formed very definite opinions about the staff of the con and their competence by that point. I have no idea if the con itself succeeded or failed.

I'm not sure which point you're talking about, or what you're arguing now. I got the impression from the first comment that you were arguing that I should have pointed it out to her in order to give her a chance to respond, and not doing so was rude, and now it seems like you're arguing that pointing it out to her is rude.

I did not specifically point out the first post - she came over here and found it. I did not hide it, because I'm not deliberately trying to say anything behind her back - it's public and everybody has a right to respond. I pointed out this post because by that time she was already upset, had joined in the fray, and deserved the right to argue her side.

I don't think either of those was rude. You could argue that making *this* post, in which I pointed out the argument to everybody else, was rude. I did debate the ethics of doing that to myself for a while, but then reasoned that (a) our argument was in public anyway, so the public had free access to it, (b) few people reread older posts on the off chance any new comments have been posted, (c) the subject was certainly a matter of public interest on this particular LJ. Had she wanted to keep it out of the public, she could have emailed me - my email address is on my LJ info page. Had *I* wanted to keep it out of the public, I could have emailed her back or screened the comments so that only she and I could see them.

(b) few people reread older posts on the off chance any new comments have been posted

I really must get back to Usenet. I miss Usenet.

Yup. You could assume everyone following that thread was reading all the new posts.

What I really miss is trn. I imprinted on the way it handled newsreading and everything else I've tried is a sad second. I'm currently using Outlook's newsreader, which is OK and does the job passably well. The most annoying thing about it is that the school I work at no longer has an accessible news server, so I had to poke around and find a free one, which doesn't keep articles longer than a week. Whine, moan, grumble, complain.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.

Re: Livejournal ethics, always tricky business.