The End of an Era

April 1st, 2011

Old Avatar

Well, after using the above image as my online avatar for years, I’ve decided it’s finally time to change. It’s nothing against you personally, Rustosaurus the Mondrian Fan… I still think you’re quite charming, actually. I just don’t feel that you really represent me all that well anymore, especially since redesigns to the website have made it more and more distant from your example. So, with a heavy heart and a sense of tradition violated, I now begin the transition to the following:

New avatar

The Rustosaurus is dead! Long live the Rustosaurus!

New studio arrangements

March 20th, 2011

New drafting table

I’ve finally taken it upon myself to upgrade my workspace in some fashion, and yesterday I assembled and set up my new drafting table. It’s bigger than the old one, and has a glass surface instead of cardboard (it originally had a wooden surface, but it was too scratched-up to use). The lamp underneath the table allows it to double as a light box, which is something I rarely use, but it will be nice to have the ability now. I also bit the bullet and ordered some more bristol board, which I will now use for Sunrise as well as Realm. That’s a new page of Sunrise you can see on the table. In summation, good improvements all around… hopefully they’ll have a positive effect on the work!

I do believe it's Pi Day!

March 14th, 2011

That means three things:

  1. Realm chapter 1 is now available to be read online.
  2. The Zarks, which I invented while drawing on a half-hour car trip, are now nine years old.
  3. The area of a circle is equal to the radius squared times 3.14159265358979323846264 . That is the extent to which I memorized it when I was in my teens. Yes, I know what Toothpaste for Dinner says. I make no apologies for the actions of my teenage self.

Tomorrow a new issue of Sunrise will begin, in honor of the ides of March I guess.

Have a Trekky Chrismas

December 24th, 2010

Picard lays aside his dislike of children for the duration of the holiday.

I bet most of you did not see this episode. Data as Scrooge

Another word which must die

December 10th, 2010

I thought I might forget one. Here it is, better late than never:

friendlily. (adverb) to act in a friendly manner. Just all-around awkward, and one that can really only be fixed by not using it at all.

Women With EMP Cannons

December 10th, 2010

As promised, here is my sociology paper on feminism in webcomics. I’ve now turned it in to my professor so I think it’d be okay for me to post it here. I’m afraid the formatting may leave something to be desired, but it is after all an eleven-page academic paper being forced onto a blog. Any sources which are online can be accessed by clicking on the in-text citation (with the exception of those for LICD,  because mentioning it here is too much encouragement as it is). Read the rest of this entry »

Five Legitimate Words Which Must Die, Preferably Now

November 27th, 2010

Anyone can hate the word moist, or hideous portmanteaus such as staycation or funemployment, but never to be outdone, I have here assembled a list of otherwise perfectly legitimate words which I humbly submit should be excised from the English language at the soonest opportunity.

In descending order, #1 being the worst:

5. Like – In either of its uses, be they I like this or So I, like, went to this, like, etc. etc. The former usage listed here is not really wrong in any sense, but I take issue with how commonly-used it is considering its shallowness. These feelings were, of course, grilled into me by four years of art professors, but regardless of my reasons, I now have a low tolerance for like. Now, of course, Facebook is exacerbating the problem by  sticking those stupid Like buttons all over the internet, encouraging us to think in meaningless binary terms of Like and Dislike. Don’t cooperate. Use more specific terms and say how you really feel about something whenever possible. When the word like is what works best, do at least elaborate on what you mean by it, because it doesn’t mean much by itself. (This is my disclaimer, I guess, since I’m currently working on a multi-part essay entitled “Why I Like Star Trek.”) ¶ The second usage listed there needs no explanation, I think. Stop doing that. Please. Just stop.

4. Boyfriend / girlfriend – Who introduced these horrible constructions into the English language? Vague, infantilizing, and cumbersome, this duo of outmoded terms has been used to describe any number of different kinds of relationships. I suggest we scrap both and replace them with about six different words (preferably gender-neutral) that will do the same thing in better ways.

3. Trafficking – Not a bad word really. Perfectly useful in many contexts. That said, can we please either reform how it’s spelled or restrict it to spoken language only? I know it wouldn’t read correctly without that K in the middle, but it looks wrong!

2. Gorgeous / Scrumptious (tied for 2nd place) – These are just plain ugly words, both of them used to describe things that are ostensibly good. They sound like they ought to describe vile space aliens rather than beautiful/delicious things.

1. Gubernatorial – Undoubtedly the ugliest word I have the misfortune of knowing. Egad. I can’t even begin to say what this word sounds like it should mean; it’s such an unholy combination of sounds that all I can think whenever I see it is ick. Let’s change this, please, and pretend it never existed.

Now, in an attempt to make this post slightly less negative, here are three words which I enjoy:

1. Idiom – Makes me laugh every time. “Stupid idioms!”

2. Bludgeon – Something about the sound of this word is very amusing to me.  blʌdʒən. Naturally it’s somewhat of a guilty pleasure considering its meaning. Ouch.

3. Defenestrate – Another guilty pleasure. I know defenestration is bad, but come on, we have an actual word which means “to throw out of a window!” What’s not to like? Heck, I’d jump at a chance to be defenestrated, assuming proper safety precautions, just so that I could use the word.

Zombies Are Stupid

October 31st, 2010

Hahaha, zombies are like sooo awesome, amiright? Zombie invasion OMG!

As you can probably guess by the above burst of interwebspeak sarcasm, I am growing very tired of the zombie meme. Why? Well, there’s one simple reason: Zombies are stupid.

zombies_stupid

They’re stupid because they’re one of the most implausible threats I’ve ever seen contrived, and their bizarre blend of bad science and reliance on hacky magic leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Zombies are not, of course, the first popular doomsday scenario to encompass both bad science and magic; see 2012 for another example. My problem with zombies, though, is that for some reason I cannot begin to understand, they’ve been embraced by the “smart people” crowd as a cultural touchstone of sorts. ThinkGeek, the quintessential “stuff for smart masses” site, carries endless amounts of zombie-related kitsch (second only to “pop culture junk” in my list of things that have reduced my esteem of ThinkGeek). The zombie invasion has already begun, starting on the internet and spreading out into the real world, despite the fact that zombies are an absolutely incredible threat and anyone who can think should know better.

Allow me to explain.

First, a word of background on zombies. According to the Skeptic’s Dictionary, zombies originate in Haitian voodoo traditions, in which a voodoo practitioner would poison a victim with a pufferfish extract; resulting in a temporary death-like state followed by brain damage after revival. These people were called zombies, and were used as slaves by the voodoo practitioner.

The zombies prevalent in our culture today, however, are literal corpses, slouching around and moaning in a very un-corpselike manner. Here’s why that’s stupid: by their very definition, corpses can’t do anything.

Death follows a number of predictable stages, none of which are particularly conducive to zombieism. The first is pallor mortis, in which blood circulation effectively ends. Our bodies rely on blood to function, without blood nothing works.
Soon after the pallor mortis, mere hours after death, rigor mortis occurs. This involves chemical changes in the muscles which cause them to become stiff and immobile. After a few days rigor mortis subsides, but that’s because the muscles begin to break down. It is very difficult to lurch around without any usable muscles.
Decomposition begins swiftly. Living organisms enter the body and begin to break it down. (Eyes are always among the first things to go, though zombies are nearly always depicted with eyes for some reason.) Decomposition means that a body is falling apart, and though depictions of zombies usually do acknowledge this, they seem to assume that the body can continue to function while it’s decaying, which any amount of thought should be able to discredit.

To account for these problems, one must assume that zombies are animated by magic. How else could a decaying body be animated? Puppet strings? Stop motion? And yet a common trope of zombie fiction is that zombies are caused by some sort of pathogen. Furthermore, in many cases zombies can be killed by traditional projectile weapons, which generally work by the destruction of flesh–and as I think we’ve established, zombies are falling apart already and seem to have no particular problem with it.

I don’t have any problem with fictional doomsday scenarios on principle. They can be fun to imagine, and can make for some exciting stories. Zombies, however, just strike me as so implausible and contradictory that I don’t have any patience for them. I don’t know why ThinkGeek and other normally-rational people have become so enthusiastic about them, but I highly recommend that we leave the zombies to the writers of terrible horror movies and come up with our own doomsday scenarios for smart people. Bring back the nanomachines, gamma-ray bursts, and evil space aliens!

Zombies want your brain. Don’t let them get it.

Why People Didn't Like the Star Wars Prequels

September 30th, 2010

(Aside from the obvious, that is.)

I recently finished reading a book about fandom, Textual Poachers by Henry Jenkins. It was published in 1992. It examines various aspects of the fan community, and in a section about how fans interpret material by re-watching it, I found this choice quote:

“Each time I see [Star Wars], a new level or idea about something in it shows itself. [Part of the fun is] piecing together from the few clues what the Old Republic was actually like, who the Jedi were, what Han’s background was, … what the Clone Wars were[.]” (Roberta Brown qtd. in Jenkins 1992, 73)

That’s the entire fan controversy in a nutshell, right there. Fans watched the original movies and came up with their own theories about the background material. By keeping the background in a liminal, undefined state, it was alive and exciting. By solidifying his own version of the past in the form of the prequels, George Lucas effectively killed the fans’ grounds for speculation. That, more than the shortcomings of the films themselves, is what inspired fans’ ire.

Bonus: A moral for writers of fiction. Gaps in stories are not necessarily meant to be filled. Interesting background is often more exciting when it’s undefined; when we see the trappings but don’t necessarily know what’s behind them. This is a rocky road to tread (background still has to at least appear to have a reason to exist, you can’t just make things up at random), but it pays to remember that some things are better off unexplained. Bill Watterson never defined what “The Noodle Incident” was, and you can bet if he had, it wouldn’t be as absurd as you imagined it.

It's Like a Dream Come True

September 24th, 2010

I have cited Star Trek fansite Ex Astris Sciencia in an academic paper:

For example, Star Trek fan Bernd Schneider has attempted to accurately calculate the size of the USS Enterprise as depicted in recent film Star Trek (2009), but his calculations diverge from official figures, which has made him the subject of outspokenly hostile criticism (Schneider 2010:n.p.).

(The paper is a critique of Textual Poachers by Henry Jenkins. This makes sense in context.)