Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Anonymous · Posted: 8/17/2003 1:01:22 PM Post subject: Curiosity opened the cat's eyes

Hey everyone, I've been lurking for a bit, posting here and there...

This site told me the things MTV did, that Furs were wrong, that furs were sick, fat bald men who dressed up in suits and said 'look at me, I'm a 4 penised dragon'

I read about you guys talking about Schwartz/TDK, Fatalis and the crapness of VCL, the depths of humanity.

I found things that made my stomach turn, shit that got me angry, Care bears, My little Pony, Land Before time, Even bloody pokemon! Nothing seemed sacred to these people.

But I'd still never spoken to one, not live in any case. So I found a site, revolving around pokmon lemons, it had a chat channel, I logged on.

It was called #Liveyiff. When I was going in there I was expecting the worst... Voraphilia, pedophilia, scat, gardening implements, balloons, multiple penises, giant dongs... you name it. I was expecting the shit I'd seen all over the fandom.

but it wasn't there. I hung out there for two-three days, it just wasn't there, none of the weirdness, none of the real wackiness or sick and disgusting things. They were just people who enjoyed cybersex.

some kinky form of cyberse but cybersex none the less.

They were no less sick, depraved, less of a human being than I was. They were just ordinary.

Hell, that channel was laid back too, I didn't have to worry about really getting under someone's nose, hardly had to worry about anything! I remember chat channels where you can't speak, where these two annoying blokes yap on endlessly about warhammer and when asked to take it to pm would BOOT YOU!

And past the cybersex, you know what? There wasn't any unreasonable swearing! Swear words were out of place! Everyone talked coherently. It was actually a friendly community

I had a long chat with Pelican, he told me a bit about his life, we talked a bit about the fandom. He didn't like the sick stuff, I mean hell, take away the fact that online he pretends he's a pelican and there we were, two 16 year olds having a friendly chat about the internet.

Then I started to wonder about the stuff furs have given us, what about the looney toons, tiny toons, et al. What about Jack? That's quite possibly the best webcomic I've ever read. As blasphemous as it sounds I think it's better than Sluggy. (http://jack.keenspace.com )

What about Watership down, Call of the Wild, were those not furry books? (granted not written by furries, but with a furry theme)

These are normal people. They lead normal lives. What's so wrong about them that merits this site be created?

The underground of humanity will always be there. I'll wager that cavemen living in the iceage probably dealt with rapists and murderers and usurpers and all around bad guys. There will always be a darkside to us, so why only target Furs?

Genghis · Posted: 8/17/2003 4:17:00 PM Post subject: Re: Curiosity opened the cat's eyes

Then I started to wonder about the stuff furs have given us, what about the looney toons, tiny toons, et al. What about Jack? That's quite possibly the best webcomic I've ever read. As blasphemous as it sounds I think it's better than Sluggy. (http://jack.keenspace.com )

What about Watership down, Call of the Wild, were those not furry books? (granted not written by furries, but with a furry theme)

STOP. None of those things are "furry". Furries may like them, but that doesn't make them "furry themed". The furs didn't give us the looney toons, Warner Bros did. See, this is a common thing amongst furries - lacking any real mainstream acceptance for what they do, they decide to latch onto anything even vaguely related to them and absorb them into the fandom like some giant, bloated amoeba. Once this is done, they go around telling everyone that the things they've claimed are, in fact, furry.
And you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

True, some of the old-school furries may have some genuine interest in those books, but the fact that they were written for a general audience rather than specifically for the furry subculture means that they are nothing more than simple media which happens to include animals.

Here's a hint: the fact that there are animals in something is irrelevant - it's not "furry" unless the author says it is. PERIOD.

ps. Jack sucks. For serious. OOH LOOK A SCHOOL SHOOTING AND LOTS OF MEANINGLESS "SHOCKING" STORYLINES OOOOH HOW 3DGY

The New Meat · Posted: 8/17/2003 6:52:08 PM Post subject: Re: Curiosity opened the cat's eyes

Then I started to wonder about the stuff furs have given us, what about the looney toons, tiny toons, et al. What about Jack? That's quite possibly the best webcomic I've ever read. As blasphemous as it sounds I think it's better than Sluggy. (http://jack.keenspace.com )

Okay, we fight now. Jack blows pack animal. After Kit 'n' Kaboodle (whom I'm I'm on a personal crusade against) it's got to be the worst webcomic out there. Sure, most webcomics suck, but you can forgive a lot of them because they're just done for fun. This Hopkins character takes himself way too seriously. It's a comic about a goddamn rabbit. just cause he throws in some nutso shit about abortions and Columbine he thinks he's saying something. And the gore isn't there because he's trying to use it to say something. It's there because he's a fucking pervert with insane issues with women and he gets off on that shit. Look through his work and try and find something that isn't a rape/mutilation fetish pic.

It doesn't piss me off because it's violent and disgusting and blasphemous. If there was a point to all that, it would be okay. If he was using his violent, disgusting, blasphemous comic to, say, make a point about religion or Christianity or free choice or whatever. It wouldn't even bother me if it was violent and disgusting and blasphemous just to be funny. But it's not. It's just violent and disgusting and blasphemous because Hopkins thinks that makes him DEEP and HIP and EDGY. Look, he's freaking out the squares! Boy, he's profound. Fuckwit.
And why the fuck is it furry anyway? Would it make one single solitary ounce of difference to the comic if the characters were humans? Or aliens? Or chairs? The only reason that it's furry at all is because Hopkins has a fucking hard on for bunnies whacking stabbing holes in each other. Christ.

Plus, those fucking pin prick eyes. And those fucking tears. Every single panel has to have someone bawling. His world view is absolutely retarded. Every character in that strip is either PURE EVIL or a HAPPY HIPPY LOVEY DOVEY angel. And everyone lives a perfect life (which always includes CONSTANT REFERENCES TO HOW MUCH THEY LOVE THEIR WIFE/HUSBAND) He seems to have picked up everthing he knows from some sort of mongoloid Christianity for dummies. If he's trying to use Jack to criticize this sort of simplistic world view, then he's doing a really piss poor job of it, because everyone that's ever read it comes away with the impression that he's endorsing it.

But then I hate Sluggy, too, so I don't find your comparison blasphemous at all.

Someone once suggested to me that whoever came up with the design for the bunny suit in Donnie Darko might have gotten the idea from watching Jack. That migt be, I suppose. Except that if they did, they changed the idea so that it didn't suck.

Anywya, sorry to rat about this. I just fucking hate that comic.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/17/2003 9:20:10 PM Post subject:

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^^ *just trying to be nice*

mouse · Posted: 8/18/2003 4:16:54 AM Post subject:

whoa hey time out....objection

STOP. None of those things are "furry". Furries may like them, but that doesn't make them "furry themed". The furs didn't give us the looney toons, Warner Bros did. See, this is a common thing amongst furries - lacking any real mainstream acceptance for what they do, they decide to latch onto anything even vaguely related to them and absorb them into the fandom like some giant, bloated amoeba. Once this is done, they go around telling everyone that the things they've claimed are, in fact, furry.
And you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

this is the only reason ive ever run into furries. so this area is VERY debateable, particularly since the ORIGINAL fandom conviened to appreciate these works AND contribute similar works....
just cuz its fucked up now, you cant deny the history. the nature of "furry" fandom and what the fans are supposed to be fans OF - it will naturally "latch onto anything even vaguely related to them and absorb them into the fandom like some giant, bloated amoeba". although i would probably reconsider the use of the word vaguely..

True, some of the old-school furries may have some genuine interest in those books, but the fact that they were written for a general audience rather than specifically for the furry subculture means that they are nothing more than simple media which happens to include animals.

most "furry" comics are CURRENTLY targeted at a "general" audience, the only problem is that the general audience isnt there...thats all
furry doesnt know how to market anymore apperently...
B.M.I. , albedo (erma felna specifically), usagi is a success story of this, more recently SFA's Atomic Mouse , etc etc
if you want a more extensive list, i will provide it for you

Here's a hint: the fact that there are animals in something is irrelevant - it's not "furry" unless the author says it is. PERIOD.

this is only valid, right now, today..and only because most professionals avoid furry (particularly if thier comics/whatever have cartoon animals in them)..and thats really the only reason this is true

ps. Jack sucks. For serious. OOH LOOK A SCHOOL SHOOTING AND LOTS OF MEANINGLESS "SHOCKING" STORYLINES OOOOH HOW 3DGY

This Hopkins character takes himself way too seriously. It's a comic about a goddamn rabbit. just cause he throws in some nutso shit about abortions and Columbine he thinks he's saying something. And the gore isn't there because he's trying to use it to say something. It's there because he's a fucking pervert with insane issues with women and he gets off on that shit. Look through his work and try and find something that isn't a rape/mutilation fetish pic.

It's just violent and disgusting and blasphemous because Hopkins thinks that makes him DEEP and HIP and EDGY. Look, he's freaking out the squares! Boy, he's profound. Fuckwit.
And why the fuck is it furry anyway? Would it make one single solitary ounce of difference to the comic if the characters were humans? Or aliens? Or chairs? The only reason that it's furry at all is because Hopkins has a fucking hard on for bunnies whacking stabbing holes in each other. Christ.

this is kind for both of you...first i dont care if you guys hate jack, thats your opinion and you completely entitled to it. i am NOT totally in love with this comic myself, i do however read up on it and at times find it really good, at worst i think he could have handled some chapters better. The only problem i DO have with BOTH of your statements is the fact both of you are saying he's trying to be "deep, edgy..etc etc"

heres the problem, he has never made a statement about WHY he does this comic, or that it has any lesson...and until he does, you can only make inferences. educated or not, you dont know these things for a FACT. so you should really know better than to make snap judgements like this. personally i think hopkins probably is a vore, or at least panders to them...and trust me i fucking hate vores more than any other group..as far as any rape mutilation fetish...cmon, these activities in the comic are not glorified, its look down upon (uh ...the characters are in HELL, being tormented ..this might be a hint)

you cant assume that if someone writes a scene into a movie, story or comic that they are "into that..." jesus , if that were true, youd hardly see any "bad guys" in anything...(just goin on the assumption that most writers etc are not criminals, rapists, murderers..)

and as far as if it DIDNT have the cartoon characters..what difference would it make is right ...what does it matter? in fact his use of cartoon characters for this comic is probably the only reason i started reading it. i stated before: i found the contrast interesting

saying that:
"The only reason that it's furry at all is because Hopkins has a fucking hard on for bunnies whacking stabbing holes in each other. Christ."
IS REALLY FUNNY (i actually laughed out loud at this), but i dont totally believe that to be true

my biggest complaint is that he cameos WAY too many other furry webcomic characters , and in at least one case (i think) actually furry fans themselves. this coupled with the fact hes left loose ends from early chapters, hardly developed Jack at all, and continues on these tangents and parallel storylines. granted he will probably do this "later" but the thing is already 350+ pages long. its really why i really dont like the semi-weekly, weekly, daily comic strip format, i prefer stories to have a beginning middle and an end. so hes kind of somewhere in between a comic strip that is just unrelated chapters/no timeline and an ongoing story...and that that style just annoys me sometimes.

you want a furry snuff comic with almost no discernable plot or redeeming value other than just totally fucked up sexualized ultra-violence?

Rabid!
[url>http://corona.gd-kun.net/
have fun

edit:
you have to admit its a fucking brain trip seeing shit like this done in her sleepy-eyed character style with almost pastel-colored colored pencils...

btw, david hopkins did some fan art for her of her character mia being butchered..in fact almost all of her fan art is her character being butchered/raped with knives etc

Anonymous · Posted: 8/18/2003 10:20:48 AM Post subject:

Rabid!
http://corona.gd-kun.net/
have fun

that... is disgusting.

I mean... what the hell is it? It's just the torment of some poor woman who continually dies in horrible horrible ways!

just... yuck. The fact that this crazy person even has fans is just... disturbing.

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiii ^^ *just trying to be nice*

Hi angel Paws ^_^

Response to the new meat:

Well, yes, there is mutiation, there is some sick, depraved stuff in there. But isn't that what hell is supposed to be like?

And with the columbine shooting, he was trying to say something, Hopkins got pissed off after hearing about the shooting, because it was blamed on violent video games. Everyone totally ignored the fact that in order to walk into a school and blow people's brains out you have to be one crazy mother ****! So Hopkins simply tried to piss people off with that one, he was trying to make people Hate Brian, basically because he's a sick, depraved, jackass who walks into schools and blows people's heads apart!

I reckon he got his just desserts in the end, which was basically what he was trying to say.

this is an easter egg on Dave's site

http://jack.keenspace.com/images/BadBrian/AB.html

it basically says the same stuff I did, but in his own words.

Hopkins' purpose in the story arcs go from obscure to 'beat you over the head with salami' obvious. We can speculate for them all, but all you have to do is sit back and think about it for a few moments and the possible purpose becomes clear.

Of course, I can't defend everything in Hopkins' comic.

It's funny that you should mention him making a point about free choice... because that's EXACTLY what the current arc is doing. It's about a soldier who believes in fate, and Jack's trying to get him to realise that it's the soldiers own choice, not fate, that landed him in hell.

There's been a bit of a discussion about why it's furry. The best explanation would be that it throws off all of the racial issues. I mean think about it, in today's world, if Jack was depicted as a black man Hopkins would get into a boatload of trouble. for some weird reason society will only accept white people doing shit like what's in David's comic. Any other colour does bad things and all of a sudden it's racist.

I agree with you on the tears, and the polarisation between good and evil. I was getting sick of all the crying too, you can always tell the good guy in Hopkins' comic. But seriously, sometimes he does make bad people seem good, like in the Suffer arc; who the hell would've seen THAT coming!

I mean damn...

anyway, looking over all the story arcs I can see what you mean about Jack having no message in general. But, I mean, do you only watch movies that have deep messages? I just finished reading "Of mice and men," it was a brilliant book which I highly enjoyed, but that doesn't mean it has a message. (BTW, if your a looney toons fan you should get a kick out of reading of mice and men, I know I did)

Genghis:

I agree with what mouse said, but I do see what you mean, I mean, they don't call Michaellangelo's artwork aboriginal art just because a few aboriginals might like it. It was created for a mainstream audience.

But I thought the whole definition of a furry was an anthropomorphic animal, or an animal with human thoughts and feelings. Therefore, by that definition, the works that I said WERE in fact furry works.

But just because furries like them doesn't necessarily make them furry...

Gah, paradox.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/18/2003 11:04:33 AM Post subject:

Genghis · Posted: 8/18/2003 11:21:47 AM Post subject:

But I thought the whole definition of a furry was an anthropomorphic animal, or an animal with human thoughts and feelings. Therefore, by that definition, the works that I said WERE in fact furry works.

But just because furries like them doesn't necessarily make them furry...

Gah, paradox.

Oddly enough, you wouldn't be far wrong. It really depends what your definition of the word "furry" is. If you're going by the old-school fan definition, as it appears you are, you would indeed be right. However, that particular definition is very rarely used these days, and most material that could be descibed using the word can be described far better using some other term (eg. Bugs Bunny is a cartoon, while the Redwall series is a bunch of fantasy novels, and so on. No more clarification is required).
I suppose what I'm getting at here is that calling something "furry" doesn't really say anything about it. Asking someone to show you a randomly selected piece of furry art, going by the "anything with anthropomorphic animals" definition, could result in anything ranging from shitting dicknipple porn to that picture of dogs playing poker - making it a genre only in the loosest possible sense.
This, my friend, is why we've taken to using the word as being descriptive of the target audience - at least this way it actually means something.

The New Meat · Posted: 8/18/2003 1:14:42 PM Post subject:

this is kind for both of you...first i dont care if you guys hate jack, thats your opinion and you completely entitled to it. i am NOT totally in love with this comic myself, i do however read up on it and at times find it really good, at worst i think he could have handled some chapters better. The only problem i DO have with BOTH of your statements is the fact both of you are saying he's trying to be "deep, edgy..etc etc"

heres the problem, he has never made a statement about WHY he does this comic, or that it has any lesson...and until he does, you can only make inferences. educated or not, you dont know these things for a FACT. so you should really know better than to make snap judgements like this.

Sorry, Mouse, I gotta disagree. You can tell what Hopkin's intentions are even if he doesn't come out and say them. Whenever Jack and his cronies aren't punching holes into each other and then jamming their cocks into aforementiond holes, they're spewing bad teenage philosophy, the sort of stuff that the goth chick in your high school English class would say to impress the teacher. You can tell that Faulkner thinks he's the shit when he writes a sentence that goes on for ten pages; he doesn't have to actually write "LOOK HOW AVANT GARDE I AM!!" You can just tell from the material. And you can tell from the material that Hopkins is a fuckwit who thinks he's rocking the boat and freaking the squares.

Of course, I guess the fact that I hate him so much shows that he's succeeding. I just can't win.

as far as any rape mutilation fetish...cmon, these activities in the comic are not glorified, its look down upon (uh ...the characters are in HELL, being tormented ..this might be a hint)

Okay, yeah, they're in hell. It might not be exactly glorifying this sort of thing, but I can't see him looking down on it either. He's dwelling on it far too much and too lovingly, though, to be anything else but a fetish canvass. Plus, have you seen his other work? Go to his VCL gallery, and you'll see that every single pic is either some woman getting killed or some woman getting raped. Often, in fact, by this Drip character, whom some people have mentioned is his (gack) "fursona."

you cant assume that if someone writes a scene into a movie, story or comic that they are "into that..." jesus , if that were true, youd hardly see any "bad guys" in anything...(just goin on the assumption that most writers etc are not criminals, rapists, murderers..) [quote/>

You're right, Mouse. But when an entire movie is nothing but a series of rapes, then I begin to wonder...

and as far as if it DIDNT have the cartoon characters..what difference would it make is right ...what does it matter? in fact his use of cartoon characters for this comic is probably the only reason i started reading it. i stated before: i found the contrast interesting

Okay, you're right there. I just let my hatred get the better of me and I started grasping at straws. He's perfectly within his rights to use cartoon characters if he wants, so I'll take that comment back.

saying that:
"The only reason that it's furry at all is because Hopkins has a fucking hard on for bunnies whacking stabbing holes in each other. Christ."
IS REALLY FUNNY (i actually laughed out loud at this), but i dont totally believe that to be true

Again, go check out his VCL gallery. Or, rather, don't.

you want a furry snuff comic with almost no discernable plot or redeeming value other than just totally fucked up sexualized ultra-violence?

Rabid!
[url>http://corona.gd-kun.net/
have fun

I hate this comic slightly less, because it's just a pure rape fetish comic without the additional idiot moralizing that you find in Jack. But I still hate it. Rumor has it that this chick used to date Dave "Am I a furry?!" Kelley of "Living in Greytown" fame. But I believe they broke up because she's actually like this in real life.

The New Meat · Posted: 8/18/2003 1:44:16 PM Post subject:

And with the columbine shooting, he was trying to say something, Hopkins got pissed off after hearing about the shooting, because it was blamed on violent video games. Everyone totally ignored the fact that in order to walk into a school and blow people's brains out you have to be one crazy mother ****! So Hopkins simply tried to piss people off with that one, he was trying to make people Hate Brian, basically because he's a sick, depraved, jackass who walks into schools and blows people's heads apart!

The Columbine story was toe-curlingly retarded. Especially odd is that the day was saved when the NRA kid plugged Brian . Which made me wonder...why did that other kid also happen to bring a gun to school that day? Is that allowed?? Is EVERYONE at this school armed? What's Hopkin's saying here? Next time that there's a school shooting, do we have to hope that there's an NRA member around to defend us?

A while ago some fan of Jack was actually using one of my quotes about the comic as a signature. "Jesus, I've never seen so many rapes and child murders in one comic. It's jut depressing." I thought that was rather an honor.

It's funny that you should mention him making a point about free choice... because that's EXACTLY what the current arc is doing. It's about a soldier who believes in fate, and Jack's trying to get him to realise that it's the soldiers own choice, not fate, that landed him in hell.

All right, I gues I should give credit where credit's due. Some of the later storylines have been a little more thoughtful; the one about all work and no play or whatever wasn't too bad. Although the whole polarization of good and evil is still really obnoxious.

I agree with you on the tears, and the polarisation between good and evil. I was getting sick of all the crying too, you can always tell the good guy in Hopkins' comic. But seriously, sometimes he does make bad people seem good, like in the Suffer arc; who the hell would've seen THAT coming!

I mean damn...

I saw that coming. It was pretty obvious because the evil dude didn't have a lovely wife/girlfriend/lover over which to dote. In Hopkin's universe, anyone who's not in a beautiful, commited lovey dovey relationship wherein each patner constantly tells the other how much they wuv each other can pretty much be assumed to be evil.

anyway, looking over all the story arcs I can see what you mean about Jack having no message in general. But, I mean, do you only watch movies that have deep messages? I just finished reading "Of mice and men," it was a brilliant book which I highly enjoyed, but that doesn't mean it has a message. (BTW, if your a looney toons fan you should get a kick out of reading of mice and men, I know I did)

Okay, a story doesn't HAVE to have some deep message. But if it doesn't, then I expect it to be exciting or funny or at least entertaining in some way. And Jack isn't any of those things.

What, you mean "Tell me about the rabbit, George?"

mouse · Posted: 8/18/2003 7:17:34 PM Post subject:

Of course, I guess the fact that I hate him so much shows that he's succeeding. I just can't win.

in fairness most of the positive critisms that appear on his sites are from other furries or fucked up sites, the only exception (i think) is inkwell.com

he is supposed to have done a story in wild frontier #4 (which i think was a great comic) its g-rated , and really funny ..too bad its way behind schedule and i wonder if its ever going to come out

Okay, yeah, they're in hell. It might not be exactly glorifying this sort of thing, but I can't see him looking down on it either. He's dwelling on it far too much and too lovingly, though, to be anything else but a fetish canvass. Plus, have you seen his other work?

ok him "dwelling" on it is a way more valid point. that hasnt condemned it as a "fetish canvas" to ME yet, but i see where your coming from there. i guess the main thing is when i first read this thing i thought it was basically a "furry spawn" , or just a angels n'demons horror comic. and because it didnt hold back in the storylines , it really was horrifying in some instances. REALLY bad shit happens to his characters. so i guess i just take this differently.

Often, in fact, by this Drip character, whom some people have mentioned is his (gack) "fursona."

shit i was hoping to have found some stuff for you. someone had found david's OLD stuff, including what are probably the first 2 appearances of drip, i been searching for a few minutes from the information i saved could only find one.

[url>http://www.gamers.org/pub/idgames2/graphics/artwork/

some of his doom .wad files are here too

i believe the rest is somewhere @ [url>www.solfire.com/yna/

specifically i was looking for an image called proud.jpg
but couldnt find it
i dont think its "his fursona"...i think its someone else

Again, go check out his VCL gallery. Or, rather, don't.

no, he does draw fucked up things. like i said he probably is a vore, which disgusts me, or at least is vore-friendly. i just feel that he cant have THAT bad of issues with women, hes going out with that katie popp (rainbow's end) girl , and apperently has been for a while...who knows

I hate this comic slightly less, because it's just a pure rape fetish comic without the additional idiot moralizing that you find in Jack. But I still hate it. Rumor has it that this chick used to date Dave "Am I a furry?!" Kelley of "Living in Greytown" fame. But I believe they broke up because she's actually like this in real life.

im not surprised, if you read her journal its clear. when i first first came across this comic , i had a few of my friends check it out trying to freak them out. and they were saying things like, holy shit, this girls FUCKED UP...i started thinkin maybe she gonna kill herself...she gonna end up like that girl that used to do "A Burden" who is M.I.A. again (judging by the message on her site: at one point she hung herself, someone found her in time, she got sent to a hospital...said she was gonna put the site back up...still isnt up so she may have had some kinda relapse.) in fairness to aubrey, i think the whole point of the comic is to be horrible and offensive

All right, I gues I should give credit where credit's due. Some of the later storylines have been a little more thoughtful; the one about all work and no play or whatever wasn't too bad. Although the whole polarization of good and evil is still really obnoxious.

and the only other good thing i have to say about jack though, is david really does a good job with characters usually, hiding thier intentions or motives until the end of a chapter, and i do like how in his world (of the comic) there kind of is hope for all the characters, no matter how fucked up they are. so i do have to disagree with the polarization thing...theres a lot of grey area (even with characters like drip). he (david) will give you a million reasons to hate a character then for like 1 panel, show a different side of them. i cant remember where or what it was , it was when drip was hiding in that girl's (he killed her) paradise or whatever, but he was crying...dmitri probably knows which i am refering to

i actually found the one arc with taylor (one of drip's disciples) and janet in the car a pretty fucking intense story, and to date is probably the one of the best hes done. so i think hes definatly got great story-telling ability in some areas.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/18/2003 10:37:33 PM Post subject:

Mouse: Not only that, I know exactly where it is

at the end of "Why do you do what you do"

http://jack.keenspace.com/d/20021014.html

[quote=The new meat>I saw that coming. It was pretty obvious because the evil dude didn't have a lovely wife/girlfriend/lover over which to dote.

Well I obviously don't have your superior perception, I figured that Suffer was just going to be another Trixi and Tet arc (possibly with a happy ending) but... DAMN!!

[Quote=The New Meat>What, you mean "Tell me about the rabbit, George?"

or the Bugs bunny version "Oh boy oh boy! A little bunny rabbit for my very own! I will hug him and care for him and feed him and call him George,"

I'm easily amused with things like that.

mouse · Posted: 8/18/2003 11:07:27 PM Post subject:

http://jack.keenspace.com/d/20021014.html

yup, thats the one i was talkin about, another example would be when they(i dunno who) take drip's purple scarf from him, eventually fnar wound up with it.

also, that is a good example of exactly the type of loose end im refering to..drip's scarf seemed to have some type of significance (at least just to drip, if not to the story as a whole)...yet 2 years later , nothin

What, you mean "Tell me about the rabbit, George?"

or the Bugs bunny version "Oh boy oh boy! A little bunny rabbit for my very own! I will hug him and care for him and feed him and call him George,"

I'm easily amused with things like that.

are you guys talking about steinbeck???
hes a good writer...i guess
people like him... i suppose
but not me , nope

edit:

also re: jack
because i was on the other side of the argument, id like to clear up that i actually DO think hopkins is trying to tell a story that either has deeper meaning or at least has some weight to it.
in a lot of ways it is deep and edgy...i just didnt feel that it was "D33P and 3DGY",
sometimes jack is lame, and sometimes its not , my opinion anyway

Anonymous · Posted: 8/18/2003 11:56:41 PM Post subject: Re: Curiosity opened the cat's eyes

STOP. None of those things are "furry".

Sorry, but "Jack" is certainly furry. As to the rest, you're right that furries like them but that doesn't make them "furry" in and of themselves.

Of course, that's largely a matter of semantics. Liking Watership Down doesn't make you a furry, and not liking it doesn't prevent you from being one either. I'm no fan of WD myself. I would, however, point out that the Bunnies and Burrows RPG from Steve Jackson Games (based on WD) was largely a furry-backed project. So there's a degree of overlap in these things.

See, this is a common thing amongst furries - lacking any real mainstream acceptance for what they do

Which completely ignores the fact that Furry Fandom itself derives from material that exists in the mainstream. Sure, you can point out any number of wackos who take things to unhealthy and extremely perverse levels. And if you insist on saying that furries produce nothing acceptable to the mainstream, you're simply flying with blinders on.

Here's a hint: the fact that there are animals in something is irrelevant - it's not "furry" unless the author says it is. PERIOD.

Wow. Yet another of the Thousand Definitions of Furfandom. This, of course, runs afoul of the fact that no other art form or medium is held to this standard. If I draw a manga comic and claim it isn't manga simply because I don't want to be involved with the general manga community, people are going to call bullshit.

It's called a double standard.

Jack sucks.

Personal opinion noted. I'd agree with you on the art, but frankly Jack is the only webcomic out there that I've seen which actually goes past the point other comics stop. A school shooting? Sure, we've seen that elsewhere. A school shooting that goes inside the killer's head? Very rare. And virtually no other comic even likes to TOUCH the idea of a Hell which isn't the traditional Catholic form. Jack's Hell is particularly creative in that the author acknowledges most of what the damned are going through is self-inflicted.

Very creative, if poorly drawn.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 12:09:27 AM Post subject:

Whenever Jack and his cronies aren't punching holes into each other and then jamming their cocks into aforementiond holes

Gee, I can't recall a single case where Jack or any of HIS cronies do that. In fact, the only characters that do are flatly and straightforwardly defined as FUCKING EVIL.

As has been noted by just about anyone who's ever studied human psychology, evil people virtually NEVER think they themselves are evil. The real pervertedly sick shit out there, both on and off the Internet, is perpetrated by people who present this kind of thing as RIGHT and PROPER.

The fact that the stories are all told in such a way that the EVIL FUCKERS wind up getting punished in the end doesn't indicate that Hopkins himself has a real mutilation fetish or any such crap.

What your argument sounds like, to me, is someone who got nastily squicked on reading Jack, built a personal loathing from there, and is self-justifying that loathing with hit-or-miss assumptions about the author.

It also sounds like you're simply overlaying your expectations about furries on the strip. From what I've heard from you so far, "furry" is ABOUT sexual perversion involving animals, so therefore the gore and nastiness in Jack must "obviously" be a matter of the author's personal fetishes.

Jesus Christ, man, getcher mind out of the gutter. Yer blockin' my snorkel.

You can tell that Faulkner thinks he's the shit when he writes a sentence that goes on for ten pages

Lemme get this straight: you're comparing Hopkins to Faulkner in order to show how BAD a writer he is?

Damn, man, don't tell Hopkins you said that or his ego will explode.

Anonymous · Posted: 8/19/2003 12:17:28 AM Post subject:

By the way mouse, Driprat is actually Dave's fursona, I heard he uses it on IRC

But he's also called himself Pepe the skunk back when he was doing RTD.

I heard Hopkins called his neopet Dripbait... something I find amusing and disturbing at the same time.

The New Meat · Posted: 8/19/2003 12:21:10 PM Post subject:

ok him "dwelling" on it is a way more valid point. that hasnt condemned it as a "fetish canvas" to ME yet, but i see where your coming from there. i guess the main thing is when i first read this thing i thought it was basically a "furry spawn" , or just a angels n'demons horror comic. and because it didnt hold back in the storylines , it really was horrifying in some instances. REALLY bad shit happens to his characters. so i guess i just take this differently.

First off, Mouse, I have to say that I appreciate you not using my mispelling of the word "canvas" against me. Mst forum arguments I've been in that would've been the end of this whole argument. Still, I can't help but think the whole thing is a fetish fest. Everything I've ever seen produced by Hopkins involves rape in some way. Maybe that doesn't mean anything, but it makes me suspicious. And I'll admit that part of it has to do with it being furry. If it were a comic about humans raping each other, I might be les apt to assume that the author's into it (maybe), but furries tend to wear their kinks on their sleeves.

Rabid doesn't bother be nearly as much. I hate it, but it's a pure, clean hate, since she's at least being honest about it. She gets of on being raped and gutted. Bully for her. Meanwhile, Hopkins tries to cover his ass with some ham-headed "good is good/ evil is bad!" moralizing. It reminds me of those old sexploitation documentaries, where the narrator comes out and says," Here's an educational look at Amreican nudists for your education and learning" and then they show a two hour orgy flick.

The New Meat · Posted: 8/19/2003 12:55:01 PM Post subject:

The fact that the stories are all told in such a way that the EVIL FUCKERS wind up getting punished in the end doesn't indicate that Hopkins himself has a real mutilation fetish or any such crap.

Okay, so evil people get punished in the end. Sort of. Except for the reeaally evil people, who all seem to become minor deities in hell. Which I'm sure is some deep and profound statement about the justice of his cosmic order. No matter who's getting punished, the fact that he's constantly dwelling on rape/murder is what makes me suspect that he gets off on it. If he has a rape/murder fetish, that's fine. He can't help it, that's how it is. But when he tries to make his jerk fantasy profound by adding a tidy little "moral" at the end, that's dumb.

Oh, and I'd say the only reason that any evil people end up getting punished at all is because he's subconsiously ashamed of his fetish, so he needs that little moral justification so he can wank with his mind at ease I AM A PSYCHOLOGIST!!!! But then that would be my squickiness talking, wouldn't it?

What your argument sounds like, to me, is someone who got nastily squicked on reading Jack, built a personal loathing from there, and is self-justifying that loathing with hit-or-miss assumptions about the author.

I see. So I hate Jack and therefore any reason I give for hating Jack will necesarily have been invented after I started hating it to justify my original hatred? Which apparently has no basis at all? Yes, your impeccable logic has destroyed me. I really just hate Jack because I don't like rabbits. Got me there.

It also sounds like you're simply overlaying your expectations about furries on the strip. From what I've heard from you so far, "furry" is ABOUT sexual perversion involving animals, so therefore the gore and nastiness in Jack must "obviously" be a matter of the author's personal fetishes.

Jesus Christ, man, getcher mind out of the gutter. Yer blockin' my snorkel.

Lemme get this straight: you're comparing Hopkins to Faulkner in order to show how BAD a writer he is?

Damn, man, don't tell Hopkins you said that or his ego will explode.

Ummmm, no. I was saying that often you can tell when an author throws in gratuitous flourishes and crap just because they think it makes them look smart. A lot of artists and authors do this. Good ones do it less often than bad ones, but many still fall victim to it on occasion. Many artists don't publish their own interpretations of their work, so it's ridiculous to expect the public to make no assumptions about what they're trying to say until they do. I don't need Hopkins to come out and tell me, "Yes, I think I'm being meaningful." I can tell that he's trying to be meaningful just from looking at his work. Other people do that, too. Faulkner was the first example I could think of, because I just had to read "Go Down, Moses." Joyce thought he was the shit for writing a book that was all gibberish. Brecht thought he was the shit for writing plays that were purposely boring. Bjork thinks she's the shit for drawing cartoons of amoeba vaginas in her albums. That guy who did "Neon Genesis Evangelion" thinks he's the shit for sticking in a ten minute sequence where people ride an elevator. Since they all think they're smart, well, then they must all be exactly the same in every other respect as well.

But, to make you happy, here: Hopkins breathes oxygen. So did Jesus. Therefore, Hopkins is the messiah!!!

Whoops, sorry, don't want to leap to any conclusions there, just in case Hopkins is too good for a dumb old gas like oxygen. I'm sure he breaths a much better, smarter, profounder gas than the rest of us.