1. MikeyLikesIt says:

    Kind of like when I play Morrowind, since I can’t be bothered to load up the Children of Morrowind mod.

  2. Diane says:

    There seem to be a whole lot of adults, and a whole dearth of kiddies in these crowds. No babes at the hip, no toddlers in hand, no munchkins propped up on shoulders. Seems a bit odd.

    • Meghan says:

      Yeaaah… They’re there. They’ve popped up once or twice, especially at the beginning of this scene before my head got all full of keeping track of what’s happening. S’kind of like the torches that were supposed to be in there but kept getting missed out. This scene has taught me that crowd scenes are hard, and I… keep forgetting all about details like torches and kids and making certain of facial diversity. Sorry. But they’re meant to be in there. I’m just bumbling.

      • Diane says:

        It just kind of occurred to me when I was thinking of this comic the other day, I was wondering what young tikedi looked like. I remember visiting the Cincinnati Art Museum, and how really old depictions of children –especially babies and infants– are kinda creepy, because the artists didn’t know how to draw them, and so basically drew tiny adults. I was thinking about the differences in proportions seen in babies (big head, flat nose, etc.), and wondering what tikedi babies would look like. I mean, mostly I was wondering how cute they’d be. I think the question probably leaked into my mind after watching one too many cat videos.

        • Meghan says:

          Awwww I see. I’m not very good at hiding my insecurities, am I? ^^;

          There’s a sketch from a long time ago in the filler art section, with a baby Jahrd: this one here. But it’s not my best. I’d love to doodle more wee tikedi, true enough. The goal is that they’re pretty freaking adorable. 🙂

        • Diane says:

          My comment was also kind of blunt, too, though I didn’t realize until after I posted it ^^;; . I can kind of be that way, especially in text, where tone of voice, expression, and body language get stripped away. Sorry about that!

  3. Tim says:

    World-quiz time! Looking at panels 2 and 5, it seems to confirm that it’s no longer sunset and is in fact, nighttime. So, what’s lighting the festival area? Bonfires on the outskirts? Sophisticated firelight mirror spotlights? Something else?

    • Meghan says:

      It comes from me being inept at painting night scenes but not wanting to stop the story over something relatively trivial, if you want the honest truth. =P If I were more skilled at painting realistic lighting, what you’d see is speckles of torch-light in mostly darkness. My attempts at actually showing that, however, resulted in either mud colors and blackness akin to my night scenes in chapter one (blech) or, if I took the monochrome route like I did at the beginning of chapter two, we’d have scenes where everything visible is flat gold and blue monochrome that makes it too hard to differentiate between who’s who (and we need that differentiation in this complicated scene; there are just so many people).

      So I compromised for the sake of being able to effectively tell the story and we get clear colors wherever the action is with a leaning towards the gold and blue monochrome wherever the action isn’t (sometimes with faded color to give an impression of the environment; I’m muddling around a lot).

      In the last panel, there’s a torch behind one of those speech bubbles, but I’m… also still not excellent at planning my panels sometimes. In that case I thought I could get that to show, but ended up needing to sacrifice it for the sake of the words and was running up against the deadline so I had to let it go.

      tl;dr: ’cause I’m still kind of a noob. Getting better all the time, but still a noob.

      • Tim says:

        Oh! An angry mob torch. I see it now. How unsettling.
        You made the right decision, though. It works better artistically.

      • Horizon says:

        Naaah, your night scenes are great. I thought the villagers had all brought the lamps from their homes/dens to light up this happy and joyous festival.
        A bit worried about that torch being waved about, what with all that flammable looking fabric.

        • MikeyLikesIt says:

          I agree that the scenes are great. I did not even notice the backgrounds. These aren’t photographs, and I expect the artist to only bother with what is important to the story. I once saw Shakespeare’s Macbeth done by six actors quickly swapping costumes and NO backgrounds or props. Minimalist? Yes. Effective? Yes. Background details are superfluous, unless they really affect the story or the mood. That’s my opinion.

        • Meghan says:

          Pretty much. If you put too many lines on a page, things get too busy and too confusing. Paper only holds so much ink and paint before it gets muddy. You put too few and well, then you have gaps. Gaps need filling in, either by reader imagination or reader’s asking questions. So I try to reach an effective happy medium, and visually answer what questions I can preemptively, and help fill in where there are questions remaining (many of which I don’t even think of before they’re asked, which is kind of neat!).

          I do also just forget little things. That can be embarrassing but it’s all part of the joy of being one lady with a pen and a bunch of paints trying to get a complex thing out of my head, onto the page, and out to the world.

          I just always hope that for all the necessary omissions and occasional glossing over in the background details, that my meaning is still clear. Seems to be, and I take heart in that. 🙂

  4. Lazy J says:

    holy things are spinning out of control fast poor degure thought he finally got the upper hand and all it took was one person with a level enough head and being able to read to bring it all down around his head mwahahahahahahahahahaha To quote Mel Brooks “It’s good to be the king.”

  5. MikeyLikesIt says:

    Like any good revolution, the ones who start it rarely last the cycle, and others take over:
    French revolution: Started by the third estate (lower lords), subverted by Jacobian radicals, finished by Napoleon
    American revolution: started by the Boston hotheads, taken over by the Virginian landowners, finished (astonishingly) by well-educated representatives of the states & people
    Iranian Revolution: started by the crowds and intellectuals, finished by the Ayatollahs
    Russian Revolution: started by the soldiers, with liberals taking over, continued by Lenin and the Bolsheviks and eventually ended by Stalin

    That’s all massive simplification of course, but the basic point is, when a revolt breaks out, there is no telling who in the crowd will come up on top. Usually its the ones with better organization and message, not the ones (like Degur) who fan things into the revolt. Or put another way, “Never burn down a house to fix a hole in the roof . . .”

    • Meghan says:

      Pretty much. We’ve been in this kind of mess before, and we’ll be back in this mess again.

      And now I have some history to read up on! The Russian Revolution is the one out of those that I know the best, but it really does occur to me how vague my knowledge is on some of the rest.

      • MikeyLikesIt says:

        Well reading is always good, especially if you enjoy learning things. I got a masters in history because I liked reading and talking about this stuff. Of course, once you dive into any topic like these, you find out just how much there is to debate, and how many of the “facts” are open to interpretation. And like I said, I massively simplified these.

        For example, what I mentioned about the American Revolution is actually a “hook” that teachers often use to get kids to dig into the details and debate them. It actually goes something like this:
        Was the American Revolution a true revolution or only a revolt?
        * A true revolution sees a full “turning of the wheel,” from one type of dictatorship to another (Ergo, the word “revolution”, what goes around comes back around).
        * A revolt sees a government challenged, and maybe removed from power.
        Example Positions to Argue:
        – Yes, a Revolution!: When the event began, Colonial society was controlled by a few rich people, most of whom were rich land owners. When it was over, the new nation was still controlled by a few rich people, most of whom were rich land owners. The constitution of England had merely been replaced by the written constitution of the United States, the king was replaced by a president, and only part of the original landowners, the nobles and pro-English Tories, had been driven out. In fact, some landowners, like the Washingtons and Jeffersons had not been changed at all. Finally, those landowners encoded their control into the constitution with rules that are still with us today: the electoral college (which is a check on popular vote), the senate (which dilutes popular vote), and a Bill of Rights that does not mention the really inflammatory words of the Declaration of Independence (“inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”). In other words, American democracy is a limited sham that hides the fact that part of the original power group displaced others, but remained in place and fundamentally in control.
        – No, a Revolt!: Democracy and the constitution in America are not a sham and proof that real change occurred. Before the “revolution” the colonists were shut out of government, and even the limited democracy enjoyed by their supposed peers in England. Colonists did not have a voice in Parliament and consequently suffered “taxation without representation.” They were more under the direct control of the king and his authoritarian governors than other “citizens” of Great Britain. In rebelling, they cut the social and governmental ties that linked them to a crown and legislature on another continent, and brought control and representation to their own. The democratic republic they created is not perfect democracy (nothing is), but the new government was closer to their control than the constitutional monarchy and colonial despotism they had broken and replaced. Rich landowners may have had a disproportionate share in the new system, but the ability to vote for state and national bodies gave citizens a piece of the power which previously was beyond them. So the American “Revolution” was not a revolution, but a successful revolt against foreign overlord-ship; and a real change–not the full turn of a true revolutionary wheel. It was not a Czar replaced by a Stalin or a Shah replaced by an Ayatollah. It was real societal change, made in what really was a civil war. “American Revolution” is a total misnomer.

        I went into a bit of detail there, so that we can then consider what is going on in Oros. Will it be a revolution? A revolt? A civil war? Something less? Something more? Dun, dun, duuuuuuuun!

      • Werew says:

        So… Degur has instigated unrest, only to have it turn against him? It seems like the crowd is against him AND the kantreska right now? But that’s about all I got. And who’s that yelling in the last panel?
        I feel like I might have the general idea but no details 😛

        • Meghan says:

          I’d say you got the picture pretty well, honestly. The crowd’s been listening to Degur harp on about Jacind while not exactly endearing himself to anyone either, and the end result is this one so-far-nameless fellow in the crowd who’s decided to speak for the people and point out that both Degur and Jacind would be better off removed. It’s the nameless fellow (who I’ve been calling Mr. Voice of the Mob in my notes) who’s giving his speech in the last panel there. And it appears he’s right, more or less. As Calterra pointed out earlier, everyone’s in a rather negative, unhappy mood thanks to Degur, they’d love to take it out on someone, and now this one fellow from the crowd has just given them a target. Two targets! Even better.

          A lot of the details that’ve been angering Degur are either the events of chapter one, or they’re not entirely explained as of yet: namely if Degur’s really that ticked about Yaren leaving a few years before or if there’s more to his grudge. We also still need to understand exactly what’s motivating Kirie to act the way she does.

    • Meghan says:

      Calterra’s not so much “in on it” (this was definitely not planned, just… a steady descent into chaos) as she is able to read the temperature of the crowd the longer this went on, but yeah, it looks like Degur’s method of riling everyone to focus on flaws and unhappiness was a good way to gain favor, but a bad way to keep it.

      • Horizon says:

        Oops, and here I thought she was plotting Yaren’s revenge. I thought she seemed a bit too forgiving about the expulsion, but then there could have been other stuff going on behind the scenes I guess.

        • Divergance says:

          Nahhh, her’s and Yaren’s relationship haven’t ended well. I don’t think that she’s into revenge for his sake.

    • Meghan says:

      A 100% literacy rate’s not likely, no, but this guy seems to be good with the words, whoever he is. I think he’s the first we’ve seen outside of the elders and their family.

      They’ve got a temporary shit disturber finally, at least. I can bet he’s been stewing for a while. I can bet they’ve all been.

Comments are closed.