I watched “Bones” for the first time a few months ago. It was the episode about the female flight attendant who was baked for several hours in an oven on a airliner. Talk about a gross-out! I’m not all that squemish about that sort of thing, especially if the victim is female, but on broadcast TV? Comon. I think the things they show are just inappropriate for that medium and won’t support it with my viewing. I haven’t watched one since, nor do I plan to.
Good thing you missed the one where the victim had been squeezed through a steel-grid ventilator by the mechanism of a set of power-driven folding bleachers, then…
And
I’m not all that squemish about that sort of thing, especially if the victim is female
Yes, it’s a quirk of mine. Movie or TV female deaths don’t bother me, no matter how grusome. Male deaths do. Sometimes a lot. Unfortunately there is not anything even approaching equality in that area in entertainment media, so there are a lot of things I never have watched completely or not at all. Occasionally, however, a story is so good in other ways, I watch it regardless. Other times I skip past the parts that bother me.
OTOH, children’s deaths in media (or real life for that matter) I cannot abide, regardless of gender.
Why is it troublesome? People do that all the time in movies that feature male deaths. So called action-adventure movies show male deaths by the score, often horrific and brutal deaths, and people shrug that off constantly. They don’t even think about it, it’s so common. I know because I’ve asked. Half a dozen men will be gunned down in a single scene and It doesn’t bother anyone at all. They are not affected in the slightest They just move on the next half dozen or more, thinking, or even saying things like “got ‘em” or “yeah! go man! “, or “cool!” If there is a female involved at all, she is often doing much, if not most of the killing. Take, Eon Flux or Ultraviolet as recent examples. There are many, many films with just that theme. Yet, throw in a single female death, and it’s a big thing. People remember it. I’m simply the opposite in orientation, but it’s no different. Not really.
What I was getting at is context, not gender. To write a death off as “whatever” by gender is the part that seems troublesome. Action movies generally have “cannon fodder”. But to be more affected by the death of a male or female, even if what the character went through was horrific seems odd to me. The context of the genre of movie and what the character went through is what I base empathy of a character on, not their gender.
Okay, I see now. Well, that’s me. I see everything through the filter of gender. I have compelling reasons for this view, however, I’m afraid most are not for public discussion so I really can’t elaborate, sorry.
What I can say is I do have some sympathy for a given character regardless of gender, given a specific story line. For example, if Tina was killed in a horrible way at some point, even showing blood, guts being ripped from her, and dismemberment, the horrific death would not bother me per se. But I would be saddened at her demise as a character from the story because I have some emotional investment in her as a character. I like her character, despite being female. But if it were Kevin, I would be saddened by his departure AND the bloody death scene would bother me. Additionally I would think “Here we go again. As usual, despite a host of female characters, it is one of the few male characters who is killed.” That often happens in stories. In the example from Bones I gave, I had zero emotional involvement with the victim (no background character development was shown), so that was not an issue. That was purely a gender thing. Had it been a male I probably would have turned it off.
BTW, for those of you who, if it doesn’t jump to conclusions, your brain doesn’t move at all, I’m not gay. But then, I’m not attracted to women either (or children, or pets, or farm animals, or insects, or invertebrates, or plastic toys, inflatable or otherwise).
I don’t mean to be so critical, but I honestly don’t like Amanda’s new peg-like nose. I like her looks better the old way, like from the strips when she first got her cat. Other than that, the artwork’s just fine. And I’m glad things between these two worked out okay, plotwise; wonderful note to end the week on! Can’t wait to find out what abilities/insight that Amanda has which Tina and Phix felt she could bring to the table.
Just something about Amanda–I think it’s a combination of her hairdo, that tattoo (we were told it’s a tat in the comments section, anyway) on her right upper arm that looks like some kind of arm cuff, and the fact she’s often shown in some kind of toga-like top or dress– that makes her look very classical, very Ancient Greek-like. I keep wanting to call her ‘Athena’ instead of ‘Amanda’!
I would prefer a line separating the hair roots from the skin, too, but that’s a minor quibble. I wonder if KaiserFrazer67 would have minded Amanda’s nose if he hadn’t gotten used to it the other way. I still haven’t gotten used to it, but I don’t think I would have thought about it, otherwise.
If by “cartoon”, you mean “newspaper cartoon< then, maybe – it's certainly Herriman-esque.
(The animated Krazy Kat, as far as i’m concerned, is not worth considering. Basically an imitation of Felix the Cat without the charm of the print version.)
Well, Paul didn’t tell us why she liked the choker. There could be a story there. It could be a powerful artifact that no one but Tina recognizes. But it’s not a threaded collar that Tina screws her head into or other mechanical device for holding her head in place.
Foot action? You’re not implying they’re playing footsies are you?
I guess good friends are important, but not absolutely necessary. Still, unlike siblings, you at least, get to choose your friends.
I remember being struck by a saying that goes, “It’s, nice to work with nice people, be one.” That’s so true. Obviously, I tend to exclude myself from that.
I wouldn’t say they’re playing footsies–I would say they’re comfortable enough with each other to be in each other’s space. But that’s just me.
And I agree with D. Walker–M’s summing up skills could be the most implausible thing about her character. And that’s saying something. Not that I don’t appreciate those skills…
J2p2 Oddly enough, Monica’s ability to sum up complex events is exactly what I would expect of her. She is a researcher, and pulling in sources from all over, prioritizing, and reducing the mass of information to a concise synopsis is the mark of a good one.
Kind of a silly question from Amanda. People have been been through lots of crazy things for millenia. Humans just adapt. It’s what we DO. Although, to be fair, animals are much better at it than we are.
Example, a dog loses a leg? After recovering from the initial trauma, the animal is fine. Yet a person who loses a leg almost always suffers massive psychological problems. Yes, dogs can and do get depressed, but only during and very shortly after the initial harm. Once they heal up enough physically, they cheer up and get on with their lives.
Somewhat back on track, I find it odd that Monica can sum up the entire chain of events when indoctrinating new people (Kevin and Amanda both now) and do so in a single sitting. I’ve personally gone through and reread the entire archives taking extensive notes and I STILL can’t explain the plot to someone else all in one go.
Yeah, but a dog doesn’t worry if he’ll be able to hold a job, or drive a car, or be insurable, or any number of things that we are expected to do in our modern world. Plus he has 3 other legs. We only have two. The domestic dog only worries about his next meal and being accepted by his “pack” of humans. In the wild he would probably not live long enough with 3 legs to worry about much of anything.
As a species, humans are the most adaptable creatures ever. We can live nearly anywhere on the earth. Even under the seas and outer space. We make prostetic limbs, wheel chairs, etc. to help us cope and have developed massive systems to aid us when we are down. Unlike most species, we, generally, don’t kill or abandon the weak or infirmed. We protect and nurture them back to health if we can. Despite all this some still fall by the wayside, but most move on.
I dunno, I think I could do a fair to middling Reader’s Digest summary of what’s happened so far. And, with Amanda, she could start with the whole Antikythera thing (and a “by the way, I’m so sorry I sprayed you with Guinness that time” apology).
Now all you drama queens can sit back and just enjoy the story. This is her oldest friend, Paul isn’t going to make her so shallow that she is going to walk out on our heroine.
Amanda is probably getting used to it. Monica sprayed her with beer a long time ago and hosed her down the previous evening. She should just bring a towel with her.
I think Douglas Adams put all he really had into the original work. It was genuis, especially the concept of the infinate improbability drive. I got about a fourth of the way through the second book, waiting for the same punch as the first, gave up and put it down. The second book was just an attempt to hold onto his legend. I never bothered with the third.
Actually, the “original work” was a BBC radio play. Douglas Adams adopted the first two books from that, then he wrote the other three books. There was also a short TV series based on the original radio shows. After he died, the last three books were adopted for radio. He had started writing the screenplay for the movie, but died before completing it.
FWIW, Douglas Adams supposedly thought the second book was the best book. I wonder if your problem was that the novelty had worn off by the time you got to it. I didn’t read the books; I listened to copies of the radio plays.
All’s well that ends well, I suppose. Who could resist that cuteness?
Some societies, when they were introduced to photography, reacted negatively because they thought that the photographer was capturing part of the spirit of the person being photographed. Could Paul work that concept into the plot?
I think that’s the first time I’ve heard “lanky” being used with someone who is supposed to be less than five feet tall, but I understand what Paul means. Her torso may be a little compressed, too, I think. (Well, of course, parts of it aren’t.) It also makes her look more curvy.
@Paul: I may have just spotted a problem with Amanda’s skirt on July 19. I hope this is helpful, rather than nagging.
It’s nice, but kind of unusual. With most people height differences are in the legs. Take two people of different heights and seat them next to each other, the difference often disappears. But with Monica, most of her shortness seems to be in her body length. But then, Monica’s an unusual kinda gal all around.
I think the big hands is more Paul’s style of drawing than indicative of the relative size her hands might be. Like the facial features of the characters.
I agree to some extent, but in Monica’s case I think it’s partly the way Paul designed Monica, keeping in mind his comments up a little higher. If you look here, notice how Monica’s head, lower legs and arms and hands and feet are the same size as Amanda’s, but they look large on her because of the smaller upper arms, legs and torso.
A bit of a typo by Amanda , but still a touching last line by Monica .
Ah . It’s been corrected . Thank you .
That’s so cute!
Awwwww!!!!
Ahhh! So sweet.
I think I’ll need a dose of insulin after that much sweetness. [gag]
Quit complaining & Enjoy the Sugar RUSH !
Could have been worse, I guess. She could have said “I had you, sweetie.” [shudder]
This ain’t no “Bones” episode.
http://bones.wikia.com/wiki/Angela_Montenegro
I watched “Bones” for the first time a few months ago. It was the episode about the female flight attendant who was baked for several hours in an oven on a airliner. Talk about a gross-out! I’m not all that squemish about that sort of thing, especially if the victim is female, but on broadcast TV? Comon. I think the things they show are just inappropriate for that medium and won’t support it with my viewing. I haven’t watched one since, nor do I plan to.
Good thing you missed the one where the victim had been squeezed through a steel-grid ventilator by the mechanism of a set of power-driven folding bleachers, then…
And
“Especially”?
Oh – in case anyone missed it, i added the emphasis in that quote; forgot to point that out.
Yes, it’s a quirk of mine. Movie or TV female deaths don’t bother me, no matter how grusome. Male deaths do. Sometimes a lot. Unfortunately there is not anything even approaching equality in that area in entertainment media, so there are a lot of things I never have watched completely or not at all. Occasionally, however, a story is so good in other ways, I watch it regardless. Other times I skip past the parts that bother me.
OTOH, children’s deaths in media (or real life for that matter) I cannot abide, regardless of gender.
That seems rather troublesome that you shrug off female characters like that. What makes you not affected by there story demise?
Why is it troublesome? People do that all the time in movies that feature male deaths. So called action-adventure movies show male deaths by the score, often horrific and brutal deaths, and people shrug that off constantly. They don’t even think about it, it’s so common. I know because I’ve asked. Half a dozen men will be gunned down in a single scene and It doesn’t bother anyone at all. They are not affected in the slightest They just move on the next half dozen or more, thinking, or even saying things like “got ‘em” or “yeah! go man! “, or “cool!” If there is a female involved at all, she is often doing much, if not most of the killing. Take, Eon Flux or Ultraviolet as recent examples. There are many, many films with just that theme. Yet, throw in a single female death, and it’s a big thing. People remember it. I’m simply the opposite in orientation, but it’s no different. Not really.
What I was getting at is context, not gender. To write a death off as “whatever” by gender is the part that seems troublesome. Action movies generally have “cannon fodder”. But to be more affected by the death of a male or female, even if what the character went through was horrific seems odd to me. The context of the genre of movie and what the character went through is what I base empathy of a character on, not their gender.
Okay, I see now. Well, that’s me. I see everything through the filter of gender. I have compelling reasons for this view, however, I’m afraid most are not for public discussion so I really can’t elaborate, sorry.
What I can say is I do have some sympathy for a given character regardless of gender, given a specific story line. For example, if Tina was killed in a horrible way at some point, even showing blood, guts being ripped from her, and dismemberment, the horrific death would not bother me per se. But I would be saddened at her demise as a character from the story because I have some emotional investment in her as a character. I like her character, despite being female. But if it were Kevin, I would be saddened by his departure AND the bloody death scene would bother me. Additionally I would think “Here we go again. As usual, despite a host of female characters, it is one of the few male characters who is killed.” That often happens in stories. In the example from Bones I gave, I had zero emotional involvement with the victim (no background character development was shown), so that was not an issue. That was purely a gender thing. Had it been a male I probably would have turned it off.
BTW, for those of you who, if it doesn’t jump to conclusions, your brain doesn’t move at all, I’m not gay. But then, I’m not attracted to women either (or children, or pets, or farm animals, or insects, or invertebrates, or plastic toys, inflatable or otherwise).
I don’t mean to be so critical, but I honestly don’t like Amanda’s new peg-like nose. I like her looks better the old way, like from the strips when she first got her cat. Other than that, the artwork’s just fine. And I’m glad things between these two worked out okay, plotwise; wonderful note to end the week on! Can’t wait to find out what abilities/insight that Amanda has which Tina and Phix felt she could bring to the table.
Just something about Amanda–I think it’s a combination of her hairdo, that tattoo (we were told it’s a tat in the comments section, anyway) on her right upper arm that looks like some kind of arm cuff, and the fact she’s often shown in some kind of toga-like top or dress– that makes her look very classical, very Ancient Greek-like. I keep wanting to call her ‘Athena’ instead of ‘Amanda’!
The nose reminds me of an early cartoon character. I think Crazy Kat. The hairline is gone again too. Unfortunate.
Her hair’s still drying.
Yes, but when it was wet, she had a hair line on the lower part of her head from the droopy hair. Now she’s getting back to that Herman Munster look.
I would prefer a line separating the hair roots from the skin, too, but that’s a minor quibble. I wonder if KaiserFrazer67 would have minded Amanda’s nose if he hadn’t gotten used to it the other way. I still haven’t gotten used to it, but I don’t think I would have thought about it, otherwise.
If by “cartoon”, you mean “newspaper cartoon< then, maybe – it's certainly Herriman-esque.
(The animated Krazy Kat, as far as i’m concerned, is not worth considering. Basically an imitation of Felix the Cat without the charm of the print version.)
Yes, you’re right. I probably should have said comic rather than cartoon to be more specific.
I think it’s an armband, personally – the lines extend just a wee bit beyond her arm.
It’s a tattoo, just a bit sketchy, style wise on my part.
It’s a tattoo.
scoff scoff
And again, Snort
Yes, as Paul said (again), it’s a tattoo. I remember Paul mentioning it in the comments section from an earlier strip.
…after Fairportfan whined enough.
BTW, Tina’s choker is just a choker. That was covered at the same time.
Uh huh. I still think he’s holding out on us. It’s the only costume detail on any of the characters that never changes…
Mark my words – one of these days…
Well, Paul didn’t tell us why she liked the choker. There could be a story there. It could be a powerful artifact that no one but Tina recognizes. But it’s not a threaded collar that Tina screws her head into or other mechanical device for holding her head in place.
Awww, how sweet!
She is so nice. I love nice.
Good friends are so important! Notice the foot action?
Foot action? You’re not implying they’re playing footsies are you?
I guess good friends are important, but not absolutely necessary. Still, unlike siblings, you at least, get to choose your friends.
I remember being struck by a saying that goes, “It’s, nice to work with nice people, be one.” That’s so true. Obviously, I tend to exclude myself from that.
I wouldn’t say they’re playing footsies–I would say they’re comfortable enough with each other to be in each other’s space. But that’s just me.
And I agree with D. Walker–M’s summing up skills could be the most implausible thing about her character. And that’s saying something. Not that I don’t appreciate those skills…
J2p2 Oddly enough, Monica’s ability to sum up complex events is exactly what I would expect of her. She is a researcher, and pulling in sources from all over, prioritizing, and reducing the mass of information to a concise synopsis is the mark of a good one.
Kind of a silly question from Amanda. People have been been through lots of crazy things for millenia. Humans just adapt. It’s what we DO. Although, to be fair, animals are much better at it than we are.
Example, a dog loses a leg? After recovering from the initial trauma, the animal is fine. Yet a person who loses a leg almost always suffers massive psychological problems. Yes, dogs can and do get depressed, but only during and very shortly after the initial harm. Once they heal up enough physically, they cheer up and get on with their lives.
Somewhat back on track, I find it odd that Monica can sum up the entire chain of events when indoctrinating new people (Kevin and Amanda both now) and do so in a single sitting. I’ve personally gone through and reread the entire archives taking extensive notes and I STILL can’t explain the plot to someone else all in one go.
~D.
Yeah, but a dog doesn’t worry if he’ll be able to hold a job, or drive a car, or be insurable, or any number of things that we are expected to do in our modern world. Plus he has 3 other legs. We only have two. The domestic dog only worries about his next meal and being accepted by his “pack” of humans. In the wild he would probably not live long enough with 3 legs to worry about much of anything.
As a species, humans are the most adaptable creatures ever. We can live nearly anywhere on the earth. Even under the seas and outer space. We make prostetic limbs, wheel chairs, etc. to help us cope and have developed massive systems to aid us when we are down. Unlike most species, we, generally, don’t kill or abandon the weak or infirmed. We protect and nurture them back to health if we can. Despite all this some still fall by the wayside, but most move on.
You forgot to mention ass-kicking contests.
And humans can hire someone else to do their ass kicking for them.
Gaaaaah, exactly! I can’t stand it when people compare the supposed resilience of animals to that of human beings. It’s not the same.
I dunno, I think I could do a fair to middling Reader’s Digest summary of what’s happened so far. And, with Amanda, she could start with the whole Antikythera thing (and a “by the way, I’m so sorry I sprayed you with Guinness that time” apology).
Ah, but could you do it in a single tweet? Now, that’s a challange.
Monica visits library, banishes bad demon, destroys calendar machine, saves universe. Friends are golems, one is broken girl named Jin.
Details, dammit! Details!
Not bad.
Looking for devils, Fatuncle?
Did someone mention my name?
Nice horns…
This story is getting really interesting now.
“Now”?
Okay.
So when it gets crazy again … who’s Amanda going to have?
I don’t think Amanda needs anyone. Which is why I like her. Sorta.
{Nelson, Otis, Lefty, Charlie & Lucky}
Amanda may be able to provide a different viewpoint to Monica’s situation(s).
For example:
What is up with Diezl?
Is he a mutant? Supernatural?? What???
Relative of Snoopy.
Let’s all say it together: D’awwwwwwwwwwwww!
There!!!
Now all you drama queens can sit back and just enjoy the story. This is her oldest friend, Paul isn’t going to make her so shallow that she is going to walk out on our heroine.
All These Years … Monica Can Still See The Good In Amanda.
“… And by ‘you’ of course I mean Bridget and Inez here …”
D’AWWWWWWWW…
They gotta wrestle. I mean, it’s like a LAW…
Or at least hug and generally paw each other a little.
Am I the only one who would still be pissed at Monica?
Amanda is probably getting used to it. Monica sprayed her with beer a long time ago and hosed her down the previous evening. She should just bring a towel with her.
Always know where your towel is.
42
What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9 (in base 13)…
I think Douglas Adams put all he really had into the original work. It was genuis, especially the concept of the infinate improbability drive. I got about a fourth of the way through the second book, waiting for the same punch as the first, gave up and put it down. The second book was just an attempt to hold onto his legend. I never bothered with the third.
Actually, the “original work” was a BBC radio play. Douglas Adams adopted the first two books from that, then he wrote the other three books. There was also a short TV series based on the original radio shows. After he died, the last three books were adopted for radio. He had started writing the screenplay for the movie, but died before completing it.
FWIW, Douglas Adams supposedly thought the second book was the best book. I wonder if your problem was that the novelty had worn off by the time you got to it. I didn’t read the books; I listened to copies of the radio plays.
Really? I didn’t know that. Also, I’m sure you’re right, the novelty had worn off after the first.
“A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have.”
Eep! I just had a scary thought about books of Vogon poetry in the Bibliothiki.
It’s in the Restricted section under the “torturous reading” heading.
That’s the cue for a pillow fight…
No punching. No kicking. Just just Jameson on the rocks. That’s how friends make up.
I don’t see any ice.
Which even i know would would be a sin, anyway – and i don’t even like whiskey.
I didn’t see ice either but they are ladies after all.
Ooooh – if you were to suggest to my wife putting ice in her Lap Frog single malt…
All’s well that ends well, I suppose. Who could resist that cuteness?
Some societies, when they were introduced to photography, reacted negatively because they thought that the photographer was capturing part of the spirit of the person being photographed. Could Paul work that concept into the plot?
Very Sweet! You can see that these two have been thru a lot together! You did a great job, once again!
Good call Monica, that is the best thing to say to apologize to your friend.
Oh, cavity.
My teeth hurt.
It’s so sweeeetttt!
Whoa, that is some optical illusion with Monica’s legs. Makes her shins look twice as long as her thighs.
Having her shin longer than her thigh has been a purposeful style that I have included in Monica’s character design.
Oh, good. I thought I was going crazy!
No worries.
i did that to help give her a gawky lanky quality.
…and so her knees could hit her boobs when she runs fast.
Much like Betty Boop I think.
SWM: in this case it’s Betty Bounce!
Betty Bounce: http://tinyurl.com/2bwl9dz
I think that’s the first time I’ve heard “lanky” being used with someone who is supposed to be less than five feet tall, but I understand what Paul means. Her torso may be a little compressed, too, I think. (Well, of course, parts of it aren’t.) It also makes her look more curvy.
@Paul: I may have just spotted a problem with Amanda’s skirt on July 19. I hope this is helpful, rather than nagging.
SWM: you’ll note the proportions are quite similar…
It’s nice, but kind of unusual. With most people height differences are in the legs. Take two people of different heights and seat them next to each other, the difference often disappears. But with Monica, most of her shortness seems to be in her body length. But then, Monica’s an unusual kinda gal all around.
In a way, she is like a young puppy of a large dog breed. I was just noticing how big her hands seem to be.
FWIW, LurkerLady said, “shin,” but that’s just the front of the lower leg. The correct term is crus. I’m sure everyone wanted to know that.
I think the big hands is more Paul’s style of drawing than indicative of the relative size her hands might be. Like the facial features of the characters.
I agree to some extent, but in Monica’s case I think it’s partly the way Paul designed Monica, keeping in mind his comments up a little higher. If you look here, notice how Monica’s head, lower legs and arms and hands and feet are the same size as Amanda’s, but they look large on her because of the smaller upper arms, legs and torso.
I like this kind of Friday ending!
No stress from cliffhangers lol
OMG!! CLIFFHANGER!! WHAT”S GONNA HAPPEN NEXT????
ggoottaa ttaakkee iitt eeaassyy oonn tthhee ccooffffeeee……………….
That smile of Monica’s is simply gorgeous. So genuine and heartfelt, so simple. I love it.
Amanda is the anchor that keeps their frienship grounded…WAIT did I just say that Amanda’s heavy? (ducks as chair is seen flying overhead)
Monica has such a sweet expression on her face in the last panel…very endearing