Etc.

I am actually working on comics, btw, for all it might seem I've been seduced by the pleasures of MATLAB programming and tracking (what are hopefully) dyneins. The Captain Hamish prologue is halfway through final inking before I scan it in and add the words and some finishing touches. I think I've also come close to working out the style I'll be using for 'The Oligarchs' (though that's the easy part, tbh. Let's see if I can keep it) which was more time-consuming than I'd care to admit. Currently toying about with printing a couple of pages in the student newspaper, but I'll just have to wait and see what the new editors would like for the newspaper comicswise before I get all excited.

REDESIGN!

Oh yeah. This time, it's The Man who's going under reconstruction. Here are some general sketches I did trying to settle on a look for the new semester:




And here is the new look for The Man! I'm really digging it. Planning to go down a very inky, dark look to the comic, something more like 'Payne's Grey' and also something that just suits my general mood about these sort of things. I'm at the angry age.

NSFW

Some people will find this rather NSFW (and I say some because I don't personally, but you never know who might traverse across this page on the world wide web). And with rubbish inking too, but there you go. In my defense, I claim extreme anger and liberal self-righteousness.


******************





NSFW





******************






And for anyone behind the youtube zeitgeist, here is the remixed version (you will just have to find the original yourselves):

The return of the man... again!

This comic made me feel kind of dirty though, as the article its for is based on a sliiight misunderstanding of a statement made by his googliness, the third grand Mugwump of Britain, Dr(Prof?) David Starkey on Question Time. In the article, the writer attacks his moniker of 'feral children' as symptomatic of his bourgeois elitism and general not so endearing old-fashioned rather wanky bluntness. However, having actually watched the episode in question... Prof Starkey didn't demonise these so-called 'feral' children. He even described the moniker as a horrible one, one that reflects British attitudes to children as much as the state of the yoof today.

Now I'm a huge Starkey fangirl - he's pretty much the white, atheist, gay version of my father and I do love my father, even if he can be an annoying **** sometimes (hey, I'm not hatin'! I got that gene too!) - and I also freely admit that he's just plain wrong about a lot of things (it could all be an act, but as a blue-stocking type feminist, even humorous misogyny is aggravating and as a humanist, the perhaps-ironic mild flavoured middle-class bigotry gets tedious, you know?) but in this case, he actually wasn't as bad as everyone seems to think he was (even on the show, there seemed to be a weird effect where some people jumped on his comments attacking him for saying something... that he didn't. Very odd. Chinese whispers is one thing, but I thought the ability to completely miscontrue something you heard barely a few seconds ago was a talent reserved for philosophers, theologians and Nigerian parents). But then, as he also said, this is part of his background. For all he usually sounds like he's more clued up on the Britain of yore than that of today, he's not completely lacking in compassion.

He's just drawn that way.