I can see why people would be curious about the autobigraphical one. On my side, I never quite had a solid construct of Minna in my head, so my interest in her journey to Christianity is nowhere near strong enough to voluntarily to go through a work that looks like it's going to go the "Christianity good, everything else bad" route.
As for the art, I have no clue why she'd choose to represent people as bunnies.
As for the art, I have no clue why she'd choose to represent people as bunnies.I'm not sure that there needs to be much of a reason. Minna definitely is no stranger to anthropomorphistic protagonists, including "bunnies (http://www.minnasundberg.fi/gallery/heading_south.htm)". Drawing humans comes with the risk of falling into the uncanny valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) if you don't get it right, a risk you might want to avoid if you'd rather focus on a message.
I don't generally like talking-animal comics in which the animals act like humans rather than like members of their own species. There's usually too large a chunk of my head saying 'if these characters are going to act just like humans, just draw them as humans'.Ah, if only it were as simple as saying "me drawz realistic hyoomans now" ... :-\
I'm not sure that there needs to be much of a reason. Minna definitely is no stranger to anthropomorphistic protagonists, including "bunnies (http://www.minnasundberg.fi/gallery/heading_south.htm)". Drawing humans comes with the risk of falling into the uncanny valley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) if you don't get it right, a risk you might want to avoid if you'd rather focus on a message.
(Which is not to say that Minna shouldn't be well aware of the possible "cute lure" effect; it's been mentioned quite a lot in the reactions to LP, after all.)
However, lots of SSSS is unrealistic as well, so that's most likely not the reason. -- though I do think the very realistically drawn (when she's having a good day, anyway) human characters help to ground the otherwise-fantastical SSSS world. Maybe she doesn't think to ground her new comics because she does think they're otherwise realistic, however unrealistic I'd be likely to find them. Maybe she thinks the bunnies are cute, and thinks she can use "cute" to draw in people who won't otherwise read what she thinks is a serious discussion.
I'm unlikely to read the new stuff. I don't want to be preached at; I don't want to encourage people to do that sort of preaching (which is not an objection to people doing the sorts of preaching that don't denigrate others -- some of that I'll even read, or listen to); and I don't generally like talking-animal comics in which the animals act like humans rather than like members of their own species. There's usually too large a chunk of my head saying 'if these characters are going to act just like humans, just draw them as humans'.
Ok, I’ll put you there and if you can’t make it, I’ll present something myself. I do have a list of comics that seem to have a lot of cross-following with SSSS, but as I haven’t gotten around to reading them, I can’t really present. But I can make sure there is a comic of the month!
Her second planned comic is uh... all the alarm bells for me. Nowhere is she saying that she's working with someone else on the planned stories.In my experience christian focused storys tend to very forseeable storytelling. The authors think they have found the one, the ultimate story. I can totally understand that they tell variants of this story but it is not pleasant to read this sort of storys. I fear we will get this sort of story.
I also don't know much about lutheran christians or how they're different from any of the other types of christians so maybe they're all like that.
It is possible to do an effective animal comic that isn’t revolting: Doc Rat and Footrot Flats spring to mind, also Digger, but LP seems to have been done much more as ‘suck innocents in with cute’.
Of course, there was undoubtedly whole bunch of vitriolic messages that absolutely were NOT okay. I've heard something about even death threats... was that true? Regardless, the way Minna responded even to the reasonable criticism back then was very childish and unprofessional, which in turn made me expect similar attitude from her later on.
Of course, there was undoubtedly whole bunch of vitriolic messages that absolutely were NOT okay. I've heard something about even death threats... was that true?
I think it tragic and very frightening that in America at present there is a move to get Maus banned. Read it and see why. In my opinion that tale is ethically and socially valuable. We should read it and pass it on while we still can. We are not yet at the situation depicted in ‘Fahrenheit 451’, but may be heading that way faster than is safe.
I think it tragic and very frightening that in America at present there is a move to get Maus banned. Read it and see why. In my opinion that tale is ethically and socially valuable. We should read it and pass it on while we still can. We are not yet at the situation depicted in ‘Fahrenheit 451’, but may be heading that way faster than is safe.
And a comic book store near that school is buying extra copies and offering to lend them to any student who wants to borrow one.Maus is currently also listed as a "Best Seller" on Amazon, for whatever that may be worth. People who ban books in the Internet Age, people who seem blissfully unaware of "the Streisand Effect" are really only showing kids what books they really should read. At that age, if I were told I shouldn't read a book I would go out of my way to find a copy of that book and read it. I can't imagine modern kids are any different. (Edit to add: And modern teens have access to far greater resources than my generation had.)
This attempt at banning may actually considerably increase reading of Maus. It's now widespread news. In my area of upstate New York, Maus is currently checked out and/or on hold (someone's put in a request for it) at multiple libraries.
I think it's possible that she may genuinely not understand that the title is insulting; or why.
Well, it’s promising that she realizes she is not an authority in in theology. On the other hand it seems like expecting a lot to think she will know how Jesus REALLY is (her words) in two years, or in any amount of time. Still, it seems to me the fires of faith within her may be tempering a bit, which I believe will be beneficial for both her as a person and her future art, be that Christian themed or not.I think the fact she is learning is always a promising thing. I know many people who are really devout and they say it is a forever process.
Still, those animals in the illustration look like they are on the run from something. Hopefully not a regime repressing Christians again. Oh well, maybe it will be just a nice and happy animal story. Just like Watership Down.
A curious detail of the picture - there's nice use of contrasting colours in the chosen palette, and she mostly sticks to the values in that palette... except for the parrot. Its colouring and plumage are different. Hmmm, I wonder what it means.I'm not sure what you mean by "different plumage", considering that there are only two birds in the picture, but yeah, macaws tend to play palette busters in RL, too. 8)
I'm not sure what you mean by "different plumage", considering that there are only two birds in the picture, but yeah, macaws tend to play palette busters in RL, too. 8)Magnetic clasps? The deer are rather large, so they can really be any type (without looking at their back end.). In the US, white tail and black tail deer look like the pics and can grow quite large.
So, macaw (South America), magpie (Northern hemisphere), hyena, and possibly an aardvark (both from Africa). (Can anyone ID the deer species?) Plus, of course, various accoutrements of them being members of a technological civilization, so they might be as widely-traveling as those animals we consider domesticated in our world ... though OTOH, they're apparently not sporting any opposable thumbs to easily work those buckles.
I wonder why the macaw would carry a backpack? Would be a negligible additional weight for several other party members, and must do quite a number on the airworthiness. Something small but valuable that they want to see escape together with the bird, should the party get ambushed?
I hope this new comic will be more like Animals of Farthing Wood, Redwall, or Watership Down, rather than something like Pilgrim's Progress or something based on Noah's Ark. Something super lighthearted like Danger Mouse might be nice, too! Could turn out pretty fun.
Still I think those of you who really absolutely definitely need to or want to avoid bluntly Christian content would do wise to let others pre-read first. But this animal quest is far in the future anyways, she’s only juat started drafting the concept so no hurry.Oh yes, I'm definitely planning on avoiding whatever does happen until it's complete and preread by other people! And also recommend others to do the same if they have similar issues to me. Respect your own boundaries, for whatever reason they might be.
Oh, this is more positive news than I'd hoped about her future comics, for pretty much everything you described, @Linebyline. I was bracing for the next bit of news on that front being horribly insensitive, and for the plans being a trainwreck in slow motion. Still not going to get into her personal testimony comic whenever that releases, since I really don't trust that to be any better than Lovely People and apparently insensitive Christianity is a thing I really need to avoid for my own health these days, but hey. Being around actual people seems to be a healthy thing for her.
I hope this new comic will be more like Animals of Farthing Wood, Redwall, or Watership Down, rather than something like Pilgrim's Progress or something based on Noah's Ark. Something super lighthearted like Danger Mouse might be nice, too! Could turn out pretty fun.
I shall follow the recommendation that one read the posts of others who do look at Ms. Sundberg's posts and submissions, before I decide to look at them myself.
I think Minna has said that she is not going to do allegories like Narnia, where one could avoid the theological message? She wanted to make it unambiguous.
That doesn't sound like a very positive outlook on... well most things.
This feels like "all people are bad except my peeps"That's how some Christian denominations take it, sure. However, the more common (I hope ...) way to interpret the concept of Original Sin is "all people are bad in the eyes of God, including my peeps, but since we're all people here, let's talk about shades, grades, betterment, and ideally, pardoning clauses."
I think I’ll stick to being a Pagan, and accept that I am responsible for the consequences of my own actions.
I think I’ll stick to being a Pagan, and accept that I am responsible for the consequences of my own actions.I'm Catholic, not Pagan, but same.
That's how some Christian denominations take it, sure. However, the more common (I hope ...) way to interpret the concept of Original Sin is "all people are bad in the eyes of God, including my peeps, but since we're all people here, let's talk about shades, grades, betterment, and ideally, pardoning clauses."
I think it's possible that she may genuinely not understand that the title is insulting; or why.
Her father apparently read multiple pages of the reaction on these boards to the bunny comic and understood none of it.
Original sin is different from total depravity. Original sin means that human nature has been corrupted as a result of the Fall (the literal original sin in Eden) resulting in a darkening of the intellect, loss of various preternatural gifts (like immunity from disease and death), and a tendency toward sin called concupiscence.
But not every denomination that believes in original sin believes in total depravity. I'm not familiar enough with the doctrine to know exactly what that phrase means, but the idea that people are entirely evil and can't do anything about it other than overtly accept Christ seems to run afoul of the New Testament. Among other things, one of the epistles says that those who haven't received Revelation are a law unto themselves, meaning (roughly) that they are capable of knowing right from wrong, even if imperfectly, and they are both able and expected to choose to do good based on what knowledge they have.
There are some Protestants who believe that humanity is entirely corrupt and our salvation is the result of God covering over our corruption and looking the other way; in this view, we're like dung heaps covered with snow. Perhaps this is what some of them mean by total depravity? Either way, this belief is definitely anti-biblical, as the New Testament speaks often of the genuinely transformative power of God's grace.
Wait is it "Lovely People" the insulting title? Can someone explain why? I don't understand.
No, not "Lovely People". The at-that-time proposed title of Minna's next work -- only the original link no longer shows that title, and I no longer remember the wording of it. Maybe somebody else does? It was something like 'my journey from depravity to belief' only what was meant by 'depravity' appeared to be atheism, or maybe any belief or lack of other than her current version of Christianity.I don't remember her suggesting a proper title back then (it's said to be "A Meandering Line" now), but her description of her own life so far - which that comic is supposed to recap - certainly sounded a lot like that.
Just found the future site for the journeying animals comic (https://journeyupstreamcomic.com/) on my Twitter feed. I'm going to read an asexual activism post or two to balance out my evening. (Still not a fan of "you're fundamentally broken and God is the solution" doctrines)Thanks, Cat! I'm also not a fan, but as I said when the Bunny Comic came out, my problem was mostly related with Minna's atitude, refusing to properly warn readers about the religious tone and proselytizing speech.
Yeah, it was something on those lines, From total depravity to somethingsomethig (basically the only right thing).
Her Hummingfluff site now shows her works in progress (the two Christian furry animals) and finished work. The latter consists of LP only. I'm sad again.
.I've never gotten the impression that Minna had a condemning attitude in her work or speech.
I think she's using "depravity" in a specific religious sense.Problem is that definition may be quite broad depending on the specific religious "flavour", ranging from orgies and/with use of drugs to people (oh god!) touching hands before marriage...
Sure, there are other, more casual meanings, but 'total depravity' is a specific doctrine with plenty of literature behind it, and even its own Wikipedia page. It's also promoted by one of Minna's favorite theologians. To me, it would be extremely weird if she used it in some other sense in a comic about religious doctrine, comparable to a Catholic using the phrase 'original sin' to mean novel sins that haven't been seen before.Ok, you're surely right about that. I didn't know that part... and it helps understanding Minna's position. Thanks for pointing it, Tehta. (btw here's the link to the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity))
i bit the bullet and read the Testimony comic, it went up this week.
I was kind of just hoping the comic would be more about Minna struggling with faith and finding a meaningful community instead of the "nothing i said/made/did was good before i converted" tone a lot of her stuff has had recently.She made an addendum on her hummingfluff page (Considering she never even mentioned SSSS and ARTD prior)
Unfortunately it split down the middle of those themes. The comic is at its best when she talks about her severe anxiety and depression and how learning about Christianity and finding a church brought her out of that.
Something kind of sad to read during this was how very little merit she saw in her old comics. She mentions Redtails Dream and SSSS by name once each and only to talk about the depictions she had of christians in those comics and, weirdly, how the traditional finnish depiction of the afterlife was grim and bleak.I Liked her handling of Anne. I do not remember any clergy depictions in ARTD. (I read it only once. ).
But after that she refers to these comics as "empty entertainment", implying they are not meaningful art, and that her good reputation as an artist, the connections she made, and the support of her fans was a frivolous indulgence. And thats...really shocking to read since I know many people consider those comics to be deeply meaningful and beautiful art.
Maybe she finds her new stories meaningful, but to me LP, this new comic, and the upcoming god seeking animal stories are shallow and dull. Theyre devoid of the interesting ideas she put in her "empty" fantasy comics, instead just more well-tread stories identical to every other christian moral lesson you can get anywhere.
The Journey Upstream comic might surprise me, but I really don't think we'll get anything close to a Redtails Dream or Stand Still Stay Silent from her again.
This was probably pretty harsh for a short comic made for what I suspect is Minna's own comfort, and I hope I'm wrong about what her future projects will be like (there was hints at comic ideas she was considering before LP and they did sound neat and I really hope she didn't shelve those permanently) but she doesn't seem to want to do the kind of art I originally admired her for. Oh well
So I was meaning to take a look at it yesterday after seeing your message, tyfasi, but the official Hummingfluff-page says it won´t launch until November, and googling the title itself doesn´t get me any results either. Is there some early-access-thing going on that I don´t know of?
Read the new comic (it's on her website), and it's quite disturbing really. Particularly the third from last chapter.
But after that she refers to these comics as "empty entertainment", implying they are not meaningful art, and that her good reputation as an artist, the connections she made, and the support of her fans was a frivolous indulgence. And thats...really shocking to read since I know many people consider those comics to be deeply meaningful and beautiful art.Someone get this girl a copy of A Defence of Penny Dreadfuls (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Defendant/A_Defence_of_Penny_Dreadfuls), stat!
Okay, so I would be glad if finding God made her happy, but she depicts herself as having an unhealthy mindset about God. It honestly disturbs me. It reminds me so much of the victims of religious abuse and former cult members that I have seen. Almost the entire comic shows her in an unhealthy mental state, and that did not stop when she became a Christian. I am sure she would disagree with me, but that is what she shows us.It's not just you. I'm getting significant "Minna has joined a cult" vibes. Everything I just ranted about above makes me think of high-control groups forbidding members from thinking and talking about things from outside the cult. Reminds me of some people I know who were educated with Catholic homeschool materials that were so religious that every single lesson had a Catholic theme. For instance, in English lessons, all the example sentences told boring little stories about the lives of the saints. I can't say it's surprising that those people are no longer practicing Catholics. I also wasn't all that surprised when Catholic blogger and cult survivor Mary Pezzulo (of Steel Magnificat) mentioned that the Charismatic Renewal cult she was raised in used the same kinds of materials.
Also, her thing about the word of the Bible (also seen in LP) is weird to me. The book was written by humans and has been translated over and over again. We've got translations of translations of translations, all written by people. No Bible could ever be the word of God verbatim.Might be veering off topic a bit, but I want to push back on this a bit. Most modern Bible translations are made using the most ancient copies available. Most contain footnotes that at least mention, and often give explanations, where one possible translation choice was made over another. It might be a moot point, though, since Christians in general don't believe the Bible to be dictated verbatim by God. Not sure if Minna's community does or not.
it's just very.......... sad, i think.
I agree with dreki about the strongly Christian message of the Pastor Anne arc, even though Minna herself says it predated her conversion. It was a far stronger (and dare I say more positive) expression of Christian ideology than anything she's written since, and stands in stark contrast to the Christian pastor snivelling at the gates of Tuonela in ARtD.
I do not believe that it is our place to stand between any soul and its god or gods.
Dreki,Spoiler: show
which really is a shame, because i would have liked to read a pretty comic that explores faith centered conundrums and challenges. like, dreamworks' prince of egypt or the webcomic daughter of the lilies. i do not have a problem with a religious story. i just have a big problem with the assumption that people are bad.
Honestly I can work with the "people are bad" if it's well executed.
Some particularly radical vegans do believe no animal should be carnivorous or even eat eggs and that every living thing can survive on a vegan diet.Good luck preaching that to the animals - yes, a large part of them belong to the fauna - that we call "decomposers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposer)".
the downside listed by the text is "people in power may be corrupt". is... is that really the drawback of totalitarianism? is that the biggest problem we will encounter in a totalitarian state?I think that you can describe its biggest problem with those words if you leave it sufficiently widely open what the definition of "corrupt" is. ;) It might easily turn into a non-precise, unusable description that way, though.
not saying corruption ISN'T bad, but it's such a simplistic explanation - does it imply totalitarianism is fine if the people running it are virtuous? is it fine if all the rules are Good Rules?I'm right with you to distrust anyone in politics who claims he's "doing it just for the good of everyone", but you might want to note that, as the thing transitioned from a U.S. military project (DARPAnet) to the early Internet, the actors setting the technical standards with widespread interoperability, net neutrality etc. in mind pretty much did that, and are still often referred to as a "benevolent dictatorship". The things I do, to this day, as a systems administrator quite often come from a "this ain't a vote" kind of decision-making, too. (And don't get me started on the thinking of civil defense back in the Cold War ...)
In particular, if you regard the suppression of minorities and dissenters as "the biggest problem" of totalitarianism, all you need is some of those calling that "corrupt" (per their standards) and hey presto, we found unspeakable "corruption" at the heart of the problem.see the thing is that you're approaching the topic with an iota of nuance and understanding that societies & situations are complex. i am not disagreeing that there are instances where administrative decisions have to be made for the benefit and safety of a group.
I'm right with you to distrust anyone in politics who claims he's "doing it just for the good of everyone", but you might want to note that, as the thing transitioned from a U.S. military project (DARPAnet) to the early Internet, the actors setting the technical standards with widespread interoperability, net neutrality etc. in mind pretty much did that, and are still often referred to as a "benevolent dictatorship". The things I do, to this day, as a systems administrator quite often come from a "this ain't a vote" kind of decision-making, too. (And don't get me started on the thinking of civil defense back in the Cold War ...)
Angstronaut, yes, that’s exactly it! It’s wrong, but not the kind of wrong I think she’s trying for. Or maybe it is! She’s written horror before. Just doesn’t seem likely this would be intended as horror.Spoiler: show
I think she is trying to convey the animals as humans (Which would have worked better) The furry thing make it all horrible weird.Spoiler: show
I really wasn't going to read this thing.
And the more I read about it, the less I want to read this thing.
Except -- that this discussion is fascinating, and in order to make better sense of it I do want to read this thing.
What to do, what to do . . .
She is giving human traits to animals and it does not work (I know she likes furries, but it is whacked in my opinion) The furry thing makes it all weird.Making all the characters anthropomorphic might have helped with suspension of disbelief; less questions about why the rabbits are eating flesh and such when the creatures are half human and presumably have human traits. Still wouldn't get rid of all the weirdness though.
Making all the characters anthropomorphic might have helped with suspension of disbelief; less questions about why the rabbits are eating flesh and such when the creatures are half human and presumably have human traits. Still wouldn't get rid of all the weirdness though.
Making all the characters anthropomorphic might have helped with suspension of disbelief; less questions about why the rabbits are eating flesh and such when the creatures are half human and presumably have human traits. Still wouldn't get rid of all the weirdness though.
(Every time I write the word Calvinism I think of "Calvin and Hobbs" (lol) It is not that tho
Furries work because they're mostly human.As far as I'm concerned, they're all stand-ins for a single species (humans), either way, so unless the creator goes out of his way to show most "herbivores" eating meat and/or carnivores going veg, I'd be wary of "there's got to be a secret message there!" ...
to see a rabbit-like humanoid eating a steakFunny that you would put it like that, considering that Minna did make a vote incentive of a non-humanoid rabbit tearing meat off a (raw?) steak as large as himself with his teeth ...
Well, at least the artwork's back.I still find it closer to adv 2 than adv 1.
-- for one thing, I keep wondering how the animals got into that mess in the first panel. That's not standard Christian theology, I don't think -- in Genesis God creates a functioning ecology (one in which, while we're at it, some of the animals eat other animals) and "saw that it was good". And unless created in that state, they must have had better living conditions at some point, or no young would have been produced and they'd long since have died out. And even when Adam and Eve got thrown out of Eden, wherever they wound up it was possible to make a living, even though by the sweat of their brows. So what happened?
And I suppose if you're going so negative there kind of can't be a god in the biblical sense - since how could god create something in his image that's so wicked?There is plenty of precedent in the form of "if God is good, omnipotent, and all-knowing (including the far future), how could He allow ... to happen" discussions. The two main counterarguments are "humans cannot understand God's reasons (except in the most simple cases)" and - at least in the catholic teachings I've had - "preventing all (human-perpetrated) evil would negate the freedom of will He gave us".
*technically it doesn't say "apple" just "fruit" and it's one of my partner's pet peevesFrom the actual back-then flora, the pomegranate is considered the likeliest prototype for the biblical "fruit" - which is literally called "granate apple" (Granatapfel) in German. :P
There is plenty of precedent in the form of "if God is good, omnipotent, and all-knowing (including the far future), how could He allow ... to happen" discussions. The two main counterarguments are "humans cannot understand God's reasons (except in the most simple cases)" and - at least in the catholic teachings I've had - "preventing all (human-perpetrated) evil would negate the freedom of will He gave us".
From the actual back-then flora, the pomegranate is considered the likeliest prototype for the biblical "fruit" - which is literally called "granate apple" (Granatapfel) in German. :P
Many a pope, from the time of 'Peter' onward, might have taken that last sentence as his papal motto.
Or a more succinct Latin version thereof.
And then there are all the questions about the weird disaster they create in the new place. Polluted springs don't "give up", they make those who drink from them sick. I suppose magic ones might give up, but wouldn't the animals drinking from them before they did still sicken? And if there isn't any water, thirst will get you before hunger will; at least for species not designed to get most of their liquid from the body fluids of their prey. And, if starvation in their original desert made them too weak to eat each other, why wouldn't it do the same thing after the springs gave up? And why didn't they eat each other in the original desert before they got too weak, until they got back down to carrying capacity -- especially given that as soon as they gain enough strength eating each other is what they all start doing? The desert clearly is supplying some food and water, as they hadn't all quite starved; just clearly not enough to go around.
"That's what you got when you hire a cheap terraforming company to prepare your planet! First, they botched the producents. Second, they didn't plumb the water supply right. Third, they are trying to make horse a predator. And their solution to all this? Send down a winged lamb with a few quick patches!"
@Dilandu, thank you for the laugh!
Well... haha, called it I guess? I dunno, from all of your commentary this series that's meant to be useful as a Christian piece of literature is seemingly quite useless with glaring flaws. Seems like the kind of thing my dad would have me read to then grill me on what's wrong. Certainly doesn't seem like she's working with her church or any actual theologian to produce it.
Well, as far as I understood (and I may be wrong), the current pages is more a lore - retelling of a legend, or something like that - than the actual events.
Even if we assume that Minna somehow thinks that atheists and members of non-Christian religions are disconnected not only from God but also from each other (she specifies that the creatures in the desert at the beginning can't connect with each other), which seems to me to be obvious nonsense but maybe it doesn't to her -- the lamb goes away and leaves them after (temporarily) making the area fertile. The renewed separation isn't initiated by the animals, but by the god.
There are several Christian and related groups who believe this. A common number for the ‘saved’ is 144,000. Not sure how this number is derived, I think by interpreting some passage in the Bible or the Apocrypha? Does anybody know? Apparently the rest of us can’t be ‘saved’, however virtuous we may be. Really doesn’t seem fair or just.
That's coherent enough in itself -- I meant that it's a problem if Minna's trying to show that the animals are in a spiritual desert because they rejected a connection with God. Because according to that comic, they didn't reject it; they weren't given a choice.
There are several Christian and related groups who believe this. A common number for the ‘saved’ is 144,000. Not sure how this number is derived, I think by interpreting some passage in the Bible or the Apocrypha? Does anybody know? Apparently the rest of us can’t be ‘saved’, however virtuous we may be.Wikipedia has a page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000#Christianity) about that number, but the info about a) what exactly the various denominations believe the fate of the rest of humanity will be and b) whether or not personal virtousness is a factor in the selection seems incomplete at first glance ...
Really doesn’t seem fair or just.Which is only relevant if you consider religion a tool to promise justice etc. to be working behind the scenes of a world of the living that obviously fails (more or less) to provide them directly. Just from the premise of "there are beings with superpowers, and they use those and supernatural perception to work towards a goal that is more or less beyond human understanding", results that look fair or just to the very same (single-)human understanding seem rather unlikely. Even if those beings were very much sympathetic to individuals' desire of justice, they'd nonetheless face major problems providing it to all humans involved in a situation simultaneously, as there are constellations where there's just no intersection between what different parties would accept as "just".
Which is only relevant if you consider religion a tool to promise justice etc. to be working behind the scenes of a world of the living that obviously fails (more or less) to provide them directly. Just from the premise of "there are beings with superpowers, and they use those and supernatural perception to work towards a goal that is more or less beyond human understanding", results that look fair or just to the very same (single-)human understanding seem rather unlikely. Even if those beings were very much sympathetic to individuals' desire of justice, they'd nonetheless face major problems providing it to all humans involved in a situation simultaneously, as there are constellations where there's just no intersection between what different parties would accept as "just".
There's an entire episode of Futurama about this. Bender accidentally becomes the god of a small group of people living on his body and he tries really hard to be a good god but it ends really badly no matter what he does. I thought it was a good episode.That reminds me of a sci-fi story I read eons ago about this race of people who contact a guy in his sleep. They ask for help because this pink cylinder has been destroying their cities and it could not be destroyed. He figures out that time for them is different than time for him and that they are living between his fore-finger and index-finger knuckle, and scratching his hand is causing the destruction. He puts a band-aid on his hand and figures at the end of the week he will take it off, that 4 billion years is long enough for any race
There are several Christian and related groups who believe this. A common number for the ‘saved’ is 144,000. Not sure how this number is derived, I think by interpreting some passage in the Bible or the Apocrypha? Does anybody know? Apparently the rest of us can’t be ‘saved’, however virtuous we may be. Really doesn’t seem fair or just.
That reminds me of a sci-fi story I read eons ago about this race of people who contact a guy in his sleep. They ask for help because this pink cylinder has been destroying their cities and it could not be destroyed. He figures out that time for them is different than time for him and that they are living between his fore-finger and index-finger knuckle, and scratching his hand is causing the destruction. He puts a band-aid on his hand and figures at the end of the week he will take it off, that 4 billion years is long enough for any race
Now multiply that by a billion.I had an Evil Thought™ moments after my previous posting: Cutting down the populace to 144,000 handpicked individuals would help immensely in avoiding such dissent .......
I'd think they'd get a lot less than that; wouldn't he be responding to their pleas by cutting off all their access to light and air?If they're so small that he didn't notice them building cities on his hand, the band-aid won't prove much of a seal for air, and I'd rather not start theorizing whether the EM wavelength they see will be anywhere near the 400-800 nm range we call "visible".
I am tempted to believe that some of these people are worshipping a devil, not a god.
I'd think they'd get a lot less than that; wouldn't he be responding to their pleas by cutting off all their access to light and air?
If they're so small that he didn't notice them building cities on his hand, the band-aid won't prove much of a seal for air, and I'd rather not start theorizing whether the EM wavelength they see will be anywhere near the 400-800 nm range we call "visible".
(Not that they, given that size difference, should be able to recognize his finger as a cylinder, rather than a huge wall taking several millennia to pass overhead ...)
Not only a bad planner, but IMO an evil one.
"you destroyed my meadow, as I knew you would"?
So the lamb knew they were going to start eating each other, and deliberately set them up in a situation in which that was inevitably going to happen?
The lack of concern shown for those who got eaten, and for the damage done to the community and the survivors, is breathtaking.
The read more or spoiler tags are available by pushing the button that says Sp above (to the right of the black button with i on it). It will create the spoiler tags (spoiler) to open and (/spoiler) to close it, but with [ ] parentheses instead. Write what you want between these tags and it will be inside a spoiler.
Then Jesus is tempted by the devil (the thin wolf challenges the lamb) but overcomes him and his temptation (lamb vs wolf sword action).
lwise, that explanation does seem to make sense; or nearly (how is the returning lamb any different than the first one?).
And -- not sure how to put this -- but maybe Minna thinks her individual experience is so universal that it'll automatically make sense to readers?
And -- not sure how to put this -- but maybe Minna thinks her individual experience is so universal that it'll automatically make sense to readers?
For crying out loud, it just doesn’t… it doesn’t. I have to wonder about the theology behind the choice to make the lamb decapitate the dissident wolf.
I have to wonder about the theology behind the choice to make the lamb decapitate the dissident wolf.
Well, apparently that "might make right"... I'll have to read up one of those weekends, won't I? :-/
Thorny, I guess your last question lies in the heart of much questioning of faith. Apparently here agqin the answer is basically Because I wanted to.
We see here that the prologue is a story or legend like suggested earlier. So perhaps we can give the lamb some leeway on the basis of this being a rough cut version. Still, the message fails to fill me with desire to follow the lamb.
Possibly it might be good to read what Jesus actually said, and act on it?
Problem is, evolving as highly specialized tool users, humans are incredibly adept in interpreting anything anyone said to serve their needs. So unless someone follow Jesus words literally (which would be kinda awkward), it would still be open to interpretations.
Sadly true. Which is why I stick to being a Pagan, which requires me to act in accordance with my conscience, and to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions. Somewhere in the development of fundamentalism the concept of individual free will seems to have become lost.
And if the lamb is both able to and going to magically change everybody's minds/hearts now, why not just make them the way it wanted them in the first place?
Just thought about a truly devious plot twist - that Lamb actually symbolize the Devil, who tempted animals with easy path to false salvation, and is actually symbolized Jesus, who died trying to ensure they stay on hard and tedious but right path) THAT would be really interesting)
Just thought about a truly devious plot twist - that Lamb actually symbolize the Devil, who tempted animals with easy path to false salvation, and is actually symbolized Jesus, who died trying to ensure they stay on hard and tedious but right path) THAT would be really interesting)
Not to mention the fact that the bunnies are apparently children of a wolf(?) and a hyena, who also have a child who is a fox.
I think the bunnies are supposedly slow because of being young, and the short legs are just their excuse. On the other hand I also think none of this makes sense.
Furthermore the god who created the dachshund has a (another instance) of interesting morality. Most dachshunds suffer from back deformities. A god would know this, but apparently they don’t care?
The river has other features than salinity too. They are supposed to be going upstream, so the river flows from this desert up the mountains and down the waterfall they start at. Ok there’s a river gorge visible when they are looking down towards the desert station, but I still don’t think geography works like this.
Oh and now the animals are carnivores and herbivores. So earlier the ones who were eating other animals were truly doing it out of the badness of their hearts?
It’s actually in the bible, both with mentions of fertility goddesses and also the incident of the golden calf. And their god does say: “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”, not “There are no other gods”. Doesn’t even insist on exclusivity, just primacy.
Humm, I need to catch up with this story and with this thread...
Anyway, their use of human-made and designed gear makes no sense at all (for instance, how would they use buckles without opposing fingers?).
On that I just call it artistic license and move on... :)
So are they going to keep marching uphill for years, all the young ones growing up, nobody getting to do anything with their lives other than keep marching, only to find that Rational Horse was right and eventually they get to the ice zone? and how long will the comic take to do this?I seem to remember Minna wrote somewhere that this was supposed to be a mid-length comic. (about 2 years..) That's a lot of slogging...
They are distantly related, but are different species. About as different from one another as are sheep and goats.
This makes even less sense than previously. I don’t even have anything to say.
In one of the drawings the "not-plain" side is black with an X and four dots.
One rabbit that size wouldn't make a meal for that pack, anyway. It would be swallowed by the one who caught it; or, just maybe, taken home to cubs if the pack has small ones. And neither the coin business, nor the throwing off a bridge, makes any sense for a hunt.
But then, that's not a plain side of the coin (token? badge??), either. It's got an X on it, and a batch of dots. Maybe the other side has a more complicated decoration?
BirchTree, some of the freshwater algae are edible for us too.
Intriguing new pages. I agree that this looks more like something of a ritual than a normal hunt? Maybe the wolves are meant to depict some sort of pagans who practice sacrifices to their gods o_O
But the side that lands up in the coin toss has an X with 4 dots. And the wolves say that's the plain side.
At least, unless coin tosses work the other way around in that world.
I was thinking plain is no color and not plain is color. (Or Minna forgot what she wanted)
Because it's running uphill, onto rough rocky ground with lots of crevices to hide in, instead of downhill into what appears to be open ground? That makes no sense.
Rabbits don't dodge hunters by running in a straight line! they do it by being able to switch directions faster than the larger predator; and then going to ground as fast as possible.
And it would make no sense whatsoever for the rabbits to run all in a group like that. They're not buffalo, defending the weaker ones by keeping them in the herd; none of them are big enough for that to work. They'd go veering and switchbacking off in as many directions as there are rabbits.
But then, I suspect Minna's not thinking in any real way of her creatures in this story being of any species other than human; I think they're just supposed to be standins for Timid Humans, Predatory Humans, and so on.
(Which also explains all the gear they haven't the hands to make or use, and also the wolves treating their pack member as one of the nastier sorts of human king; complete with having two of them stand there and fan him.) This is definitely a style of Talking Animal Writing; it just happens to be one that I strongly dislike. I'm in favor of humans putting other species in their/our writings: but they ought to be, as much as we can manage, actual other species, whether they speak human languages or not. If not at least trying to pull that off, IMO, just make them humans.
The only possible explanation I could come with, is that wolves aren't actually hunting, and actually performing some kind of ritual - i.e. they aren't actually interested in prey, but in the process of hunting.
I suspect, Minna just knew very little about animals & their behavior. And didn't bother to do research.
* Squirrel/fox/whatever is a worst prophet ever. Really, she/he basically could not open its mouth without offending someone. Celestial Lamb clearly should hire better televangelist to preach "let's go uphill!"
* The wolf leader is essentially the only characters around, with whom I could sympathise. He is calm, intelligent, and knew when to fold it. I wish he eat the annoying squirrel in finale)
P.S. It would be utterly hilarious, if the next comics would be like that: squirrel, assuming himself/herself/whatever safe, praise the Celestial Lamb... and then wolves return with beavers in company)
(though in the drawings it looks like a bunny...)
And does that squirrel, or whatever it is, actually think -- or rather, does Minna actually think that the squirrel gave the wolves any reason to follow the squirrel, or to go uphill, or anything else? It's just 'come with me' and no reasons why. And why would wolves want to "walk in the light"? They're mostly nocturnal. That's a disincentive, not an incentive.
Oh, and squirrels get moisture from dew and from their food, as well as from drinking from pools of it. If there's plenty to eat in that tree, then there's water in the leaves and in the food, and probably dew on the leaves in the morning. I suppose that without the flood (is that flood supposed to be divine intervention?) a squirrel stuck up in a tree might eventually die of thirst, but it would take quite a long time if it happened at all.
Okay i'm still kinda confused on why people keep trying to apply realism to this comic, it was pretty obvious from the opening chapter this is going to be a story about ideas and heavily allegorical, realistic animals are being used because they provide useful short-hand and are visually interesting
I suspect Minna's not thinking in any real way of her creatures in this story being of any species other than human; I think they're just supposed to be standins for Timid Humans, Predatory Humans, and so on. (Which also explains all the gear they haven't the hands to make or use, and also the wolves treating their pack member as one of the nastier sorts of human king; complete with having two of them stand there and fan him.) This is definitely a style of Talking Animal Writing; it just happens to be one that I strongly dislike. I'm in favor of humans putting other species in their/our writings: but they ought to be, as much as we can manage, actual other species, whether they speak human languages or not. If not at least trying to pull that off, IMO, just make them humans.
Okay i'm still kinda confused on why people keep trying to apply realism to this comic, it was pretty obvious from the opening chapter this is going to be a story about ideas and heavily allegorical, realistic animals are being used because they provide useful short-hand and are visually interesting(as well I've noticed that Minnas' back-catalogue of work consists mostly of animals drawn in a similar style).
I think the only reason people are thinking this way is because in SSSS there was some thought put into how it's world works(less in some areas than others) and didn't really try to explore much in the way of themes or ideas, it was a very literal story. Personally I don't the realistic animals detract that much from the message, it reminds me a lot of fables, but I do think the kinds of animals don't really tie in that much to what they represent(outside of the celestial lamb) but it's still early and I feel it might become more thematically important later, who knows.
I don't see the fact that carnivores eat non-sapient sea food as some kind of inconsistency because humans only eat non-sapient animals as well, it singles out what happened in the flashback AS cannibalism (or even a stand in for other kinds of evil).
Dilandu I am curious about what your expectations for this comic were, you seem to think realism is the most important part of this piece of fiction.
Oh please you came into this with the intent to hate it, post here with the intent to troll, and worst of all the only gotchas you have are "This piece of fiction is unrealistic, how dare they 0/10"
I haven't been following Minna in any fashion which lets me know when new pages are out, and have been relying on Dilandu to let me know. Are they still permitted to post when the next installment's up, and/or to comment on it in normal fashion? I'd think that would still qualify as taking a break "for a while", as there's usually a significant delay before Minna posts the next batch of pages.
I'm not asking about comment on Minna's site, I'm asking about comment here.I apologize, I misunderstood.
Disclaimer: Other than Lovely People I have not read Ms. Sundberg's christian comics. I'm getting my info on these from these forum threads.
I've found the commentary about the problems of using animals as the characters in this story to be very interesting.
So, thinking aloud, I wonder if using Furries/Anthromorphs in place of real animal species could have avoided many of these technical problems?
Yes, I'm speaking as an unrepentant Furry. ;)
On the religious works, coming to them from the outside of the SSSS fandom and simultaneously as an insider, if you will, as a Christian, your views are definitely very different than e.g. mine. For me the clumsy metaphors of both LP and JU are just flat.
My own objections were to Minna’s attitude of believing that she was totally and unarguably right, and that everyone who believed otherwise was doomed and damned to hell. And to the level of condescension and discourtesy with which that view was presented.
Two full rounds of melodrama. To be, most likely, followed by another.
And if that's supposed to convert that wolf, I don't believe a bit of it. If he gets out of there, he's a lot more likely to try to kill the witness to his pleading.
I appreciate the attempt at "deeply" representing human cognition, though.
Since LP was intentionally fanciful, I see no reason to criticize LP for its art-style or world-building