Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
FAWSTIN

This is Bosch Fawstin

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Bosch,

I've seen your website before, and I like it what you've got up there. I'm usually adverse to buying graphic novels, though: too little story for too much money. (I'm a more verbal than visual person, I guess.) How much do you expect it to sell for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bosch,

I've seen your website before, and I like it what you've got up there.  I'm usually adverse to buying graphic novels, though: too little story for too much money.  (I'm a more verbal than visual person, I guess.)  How much do you expect it to sell for?

It's $9.95 for 88 pgs, squarebound format.

I'm curious, how did you see or hear of my website before I wrote about it here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so Matt, you have no problem with the hero using the word "fucker" twice in a handful of preview panes, nor with the discussion of the villain having "sex" with the hero's mother because she's "one hot bitch"? I don't see how any of that language is necessary in order to tell a story. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bosch,

I might have been intrigued, but the foul language was a real turnoff.   :D

I have to agree with Amy.

Having your hero call the antagonist a "f---er" just seems like lazy dialogue (at best). And it hardly contributes to his portrait as an individualist. If it were only the villains talking like that, it would be slightly more understandable (but still not ideal).

Being an individualist doesn't mean using obscene language just to shock "polite society," particularly given how trendy that's become today. And also given that that's the kind of dialogue that has become standard for your chosen medium, it seems like the truly individualistic thing to do would be to have your characters express themselves in a classier, wittier, more eloquent manner.

(I could also criticize your response to Amy's criticism along these same lines. You seem to have a mistaken conception of an individualist as one who just goes around offending people because he sees everyone else as being a bunch of stupid sheep.)

That said, a lot of your artwork is quite good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, so Matt, you have no problem with the hero using the word "fucker" twice in a handful of preview panes, nor with the discussion of the villain having "sex" with the hero's mother because she's "one hot bitch"?  I don't see how any of that language is necessary in order to tell a story. :angry:

I can't argue the merits of my story with someone who has such fragile sensibilities. So stay clear of my book, lest your hands get dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably not necessary, but I don't see that it detracts from it. Maybe I'm just less offended than others here by foul language... dunno.

What grabbed me the first time was the part on preview three:

"What's between you and that lady?"

"Everything."

Maybe I'm jumping the gun on this, not knowing the plot context, but that strikes me as an amazingly efficient piece of dialogue. It's enough to make me want to read the rest of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Amy.

Having your hero call the antagonist a "f---er" just seems like lazy dialogue (at best). And it hardly contributes to his portrait as an individualist. If it were only the villains talking like that, it would be slightly more understandable (but still not ideal).

Being an individualist doesn't mean using obscene language just to shock "polite society," particularly given how trendy that's become today. And also given that that's the kind of dialogue that has become standard for your chosen medium, it seems like the truly individualistic thing to do would be to have your characters express themselves in a classier, wittier, more eloquent manner.

(I could also criticize your response to Amy's criticism along these same lines. You seem to have a mistaken conception of an individualist as one who just goes around offending people because he sees everyone else as being a bunch of stupid sheep.)

That said, a lot of your artwork is quite good.

So only villains should use profanity.

Question: Do You use profanity?

Do the people around you use profanity? Do the shows and films you watch use profanity?

I've found that in art, we have to push a little more than we do in real life, hence the language I've chosen to use in this Particular story.

You can have the Sacred and the Profane in the same story, believe it or not.

There are many lowlife rats in my story, so having them express themselves in a 'classier, wittier, more eloquent manner' wouldn't be true to who they are or to the story. But be my guest, attempt to write lowlifes who speak eloquently and you'll reach an oddity that stinks of dishonesty.

And your assumptions of what my conceptions of what it means to be an individualist are so limited and so off, I'd stop if I were you before I embarrass you with a rebuttal.

Thank you for noticing my good artwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's probably not necessary, but I don't see that it detracts from it.  Maybe I'm just less offended than others here by foul language... dunno.

What grabbed me the first time was the part on preview three:

"What's between you and that lady?"

"Everything."

Maybe I'm jumping the gun on this, not knowing the plot context, but that strikes me as an amazingly efficient piece of dialogue.  It's enough to make me want to read the rest of it.

I've never been offended by profanity in fiction myself, so long as the story was good.

I really appreciate the compliment on that short exchange between the main character and his foil. When the 'everything' response sprung to mind, I knew It was the Perfect one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It encapsulates in one word an entire dramatic conflict that I don't even know anything about. That's impressive. Have you published any other writing?

By the way, reread what Ash wrote. He wasn't so much talking about the villains as about the hero. And yes, you can have eloquent scumbags: Toohey. for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily offended by profanity, but the context determines whether or not its use is appropriate. (There are a few words the use of which I think is pretty much never appropriate.) So I guess whether you want to use dirty words or not depends on what you want your work to be. In timeless literature, contemporary vulgarities (and any kind of slang, really) are completely inappropriate. But if you want your work to be simply mindless entertainment meant to be read only by a contemporary audience and then fade away into obscurity, go ahead and cuss your heart out.

Also, your arguments to the effect that "everybody uses dirty language in real life" are completely invalid if you understand the stylizing/essentializing purpose of art--and I would say that you do understand it, at least implicitly, if only based upon your drawings.

Regarding this:

But be my guest, attempt to write lowlifes who speak eloquently and you'll reach an oddity that stinks of dishonesty.

I will attempt to write such lowlifes, because it does not necessarily "stink of dishonesty." What it achieves is the exact opposite: great literary quality. For instance, see Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead. Honestly, can you even imagine Howard Roark and Toohey engaging in the kind of dialogue you give to your characters? It would be absurd.

You're right, Matt, that that one piece of dialogue was quite good, but I'd have to see more previews with more such gems to convince me to spend my money on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, Matt beat me to the Toohey punch. :angry:

Although one can come up with lots more examples of the same thing. Almost any villain from pre-20th century Romantic literature. Heck, almost any villain from pre-20th century literature, period.

Edited by AshRyan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It encapsulates in one word an entire dramatic conflict that I don't even know anything about.  That's impressive.  Have you published any other writing?

By the way, reread what Ash wrote.  He wasn't so much talking about the villains as about the hero.  And yes, you can have eloquent scumbags: Toohey. for example.

Thanks again for the excellent praise for that succinct line, which I'm really pleased about, becuase that was the response I was hoping to get.

No, this is the first work I've published, self-published to be exact, under my Mainspring imprint.

I read what Ash wrote, but his assumptions about what I think an individual is

is as dismissive of me as I now am of him.

And there's one thing in this story, the hero is always under attack for all the wrong reasons, and his righteousness takes form in hitting them harder with words than they hit him. I've found that we sometimes have to use the words that are 'beneath us' to be understood clearly by those 'beneath' us.

Yes, there are eloquent scumbags, but not in my story. And to be precise, I don't think of Toohey so much as a lowlife or scumbag, but more as the most complex portrait of evil I've read. He had an air of sophistication that he had a need to keep at all times. But even Toohey had his moments with profanity when he told Keating to 'Bitch it up!' about an architectual project of his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points. And Ash, it'd be worth considering that there's a middle-ground between timeless works of art and trash. True, slang limits the ability of a piece of writing to hold up over time, but it doesn't automatically make it "mindless".

Fawstin, before I step out of this crossfire, one question: if you decide at some point to put more previews online, would you post an update? I like what I've seen, but it's not enough to convince me to buy it. If I can offer some unsolicited advice, you'd do better if you put up previews that illustrated a bit more about the plot. The first and fourth previews, in particular, might mean a lot in the book, but they don't mean much by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points.  And Ash, it'd be worth considering that there's a middle-ground between timeless works of art and trash.  True, slang limits the ability of a piece of writing to hold up over time, but it doesn't automatically make it "mindless".

Fawstin, before I step out of this crossfire, one question: if you decide at some point to put more previews online, would you post an update?  I like what I've seen, but it's not enough to convince me to buy it.  If I can offer some unsolicited advice, you'd do better if you put up previews that illustrated a bit more about the plot.  The first and fourth previews, in particular, might mean a lot in the book, but they don't mean much by themselves.

Matt, I don't think there's anything I can say or do to convince you to buy the book, if you're still not sure about buying it. Now, you can argue that I could have made the preview more cohesive, but I chose a different route, one that capitalizes on this visual medium by posting pages that I found to be visually appealing without giving away the plot. The preview is meant to spark interest, Peroid. I think it's worked just fine for me.

And for the record, if you think that the exchange between the hero and the foil was 'an amazingly efficient piece of dialogue'.... 'enough to make (you) want to read the rest of it', ....... there's far more where that came from.

TABLEOT1A.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good points.  And Ash, it'd be worth considering that there's a middle-ground between timeless works of art and trash.  True, slang limits the ability of a piece of writing to hold up over time, but it doesn't automatically make it "mindless".

Matt,

I agree that there is a place for entertainment that is not "great art." I enjoy some pop music, films, etc. But the fact that slang is not "timeless" is not my only complaint about this graphic novel--I merely mentioned it to see if the artist was aware of it, and to see exactly what he intended his work to be.

I find the aspect of his work under discussion objectionable for many other reasons (some of which I have already mentioned), and I also find some of his behavior objectionable (he says I am wrong in my assumptions about his view of individualism, but almost every post he makes is further evidence that my "assumption" is correct). But he clearly has some skill, and hopefully in time, if he continues to develop his philosophical understanding, he will grow up and see what is truly important in life. I am speaking as someone who has been there. I look forward to seeing some truly great work from him in the future.

But, as I've already said, I'd need to see more before I'd consider buying the current work even as "mindless entertainment," even if it does incorporate some Objectivist themes (and I have some concerns about whether it does so correctly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Coincidentally, a cafe that I sometimes study at just sectioned off part of their space as a comic book store. I may place an order for the graphic novel when it comes out. (Yeah, I was really borderline on it, and now that I wouldn't have to pay for shipping...) ;)

So if I do, I'll be glad to give you a review, if you're interested. It'll be interesting to see what dominates the book as a whole. If most of the dialogue is fucker this, fucker that, it'll bore me to death; but if it turns out that the "everything" line is more representative, it will have been worth the money. We shall see.

(Incidentally, we really need a winky face that doesn't look like it's trying to seduce somebody.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt,

I agree that there is a place for entertainment that is not "great art." I enjoy some pop music, films, etc. But the fact that slang is not "timeless" is not my only complaint about this graphic novel--I merely mentioned it to see if the artist was aware of it, and to see exactly what he intended his work to be.

I find the aspect of his work under discussion objectionable for many other reasons (some of which I have already mentioned), and I also find some of his behavior objectionable (he says I am wrong in my assumptions about his view of individualism, but almost every post he makes is further evidence that my "assumption" is correct). But he clearly has some skill, and hopefully in time, if he continues to develop his philosophical understanding, he will grow up and see what is truly important in life. I am speaking as someone who has been there. I look forward to seeing some truly great work from him in the future.

But, as I've already said, I'd need to see more before I'd consider buying the current work even as "mindless entertainment," even if it does incorporate some Objectivist themes (and I have some concerns about whether it does so correctly).

'Being an individualist doesn't mean using obscene language just to shock "polite society," -AshRyan

As if you had to write that. That you did is very condescending. And it's the whole tone of your critique against my work, which you find objectionable on many levels(?), a work which you haven't read, I have to add.

But as I wrote to 'Alp':

I can't argue the merits of my story with someone who has such fragile sensibilities. So stay clear of my book, lest your hands get dirty.

And for the record, profanity is not 'obscene language' unless you're a prude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I do, I'll be glad to give you a review, if you're interested.  It'll be interesting to see what dominates the book as a whole.  If most of the dialogue is fucker this, fucker that, it'll bore me to death; but if it turns out that the "everything" line is more representative, it will have been worth the money.  We shall see.

Yes, I'd like to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And for the record, profanity is not 'obscene language' unless you're a prude.

There is a possible implication here that nothing is obscene (represented by this use of the word "prude" as a package-deal). But if you acknowledge that some ideas are morally obscene, then you must acknowledge that words can certainly be obscene by virtue of the ideas they represent. Words have specific meanings, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

By the way, the above quote does not represent a valid argument. Rather, it's an instance of the fallacy known as the argument by intimidation, and it won't work here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×