at 24 Mar 2009: 11:03
Because people don't because of mostly the incest in better days but thats it. correct me if im wrong. (I pay for his artwork and love better days).
at 24 Mar 2009: 11:24
if you do care to learn the reality of things here http://www.clawcast.com/podcasts/naylorspecial.mp3" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http//www.podtrac./... - Interview starts at 9:30
at 24 Mar 2009: 13:46
Jay Naylor is a relatively talented artist but his stories are not that good because he lets his objectivism get in the way all the time.
at 24 Mar 2009: 13:53
personally i like jay naylor's works, they are deep. in a good way, he lets his characters be different from his own ideas
Deatzh at 24 Mar 2009: 14:55
If I disliked Naylor, which I may or may not, it wouldn't be because he put incest in his comic.
Sen at 25 Mar 2009: 00:52
I don't like Naylor because he uses his comic not to entertain, but to really just push his beliefs on people and thinly veil it to look like he's not.
at 25 Mar 2009: 17:26
Yes, mostly because he draws the most incredible furry asses ever.
Mr Swede at 25 Mar 2009: 17:48
What that guy said, basically.
I'm only in it for the chicks.
Benevolent Fur#k1AxCj2ffk at 25 Mar 2009: 19:43
I have to agree with these guys. Or girls. One can never tell these things. At least I can't.
But yeah, Naylor does tend to push his own beliefs into his comics, and while many people will disagree with them, they are his comics. Bioshock pushed Objectivism, Individudalism, and anti-stem cell topics. Doesn't make it any less of a game.
at 25 Mar 2009: 19:44
Naylor's political views are hardly a secret, and there's no subliminal messages in Better Days. Personally I agree with a lot of his views, so I don't care. If you don't, that's fine, but whoever wrote that page is either a complete moron or just has WAY too much free time.
You'd be hard pressed to find a story that doesn't work the creator's personal viewpoint and agenda into the story somehow.
at 25 Mar 2009: 19:54
What? I thought Bioshock was against Objectivism.
Sen at 26 Mar 2009: 01:01
It was, essentially.
The society in the city of Rapture in Bioshock was based around Objectivism, and it was a ruined, dying world because of it.
at 26 Mar 2009: 20:46
>>10 i agree completley
klokwrkblu at 27 Mar 2009: 01:55
I thought it started out ok, but after a while (around the time he had the falling out with Matt Sherer) the ideas began to run out.
at this point, either hes just generating filler in preparation of some epic plot twist, Or he's completly flip flopped and seized loving his work.
I don't know, ask him if hes got a surprise for us (depending on how long hes gonna keep it rolling),
or just wait and see.
its a dead url
at 27 Mar 2009: 07:02
>>6 Whoever wrote that article needs to reboot their brain.
at 27 Mar 2009: 21:33
I didn't know most people didn't like JN. Even if he does present his ideas, like >>10 said, everyone does that. I can tell you when ever in any kind of media, book, show, movie, whatever, if a character normally presented as intelligent presents an idea, it's the writers ideas getting into his work. And by idea I mean view on politics, behavior or the like.
Sen at 28 Mar 2009: 01:25
It's not that he presents his ideas. It's that he presents his ideas and then acts like an egotistical self-righteous jerk about it, and uses his creation to push his ideas on us in an environment of his creation, where he's always right.
It's fairly narcissistic if you ask me.
at 28 Mar 2009: 12:46
This. Great as he is at drawing asses, this ruins it.
at 28 Mar 2009: 13:30
Oh no! You mean he puts thoughts and ideas into his comics that are different from your own!??! You even disagree with some of them!?!?!? That evil bastard! How dare he make a character that isn't the same as the other five gazillion characters in furry comics. How dare he put a small amount of his own ideas into a few of his characters! </sarcasm> Seriously, you guys have got to get over yourselves. Yeah, he's kind of conservative. Is that not allowed in the furry fandom? Yeah by nature the fandom leans quite a bit more to the left but that doesn't mean that anyone who shows up with conservative ideas is "push[ing] his ideas on us". His characters have more depth to them than a lot that I've seen and I commend him for that. You guys all seem to be thinking waaaaaay too hard about the stuff that his characters say, because most of the complaints I hear about it are things that people have slanted, twisted, spun, blown way out of proportion, taken out of context, or just plain made up. The reason that he seems like an "egotistical self-righteous jerk" is because he actually has reasons for thinking and believing what he does, so if you try to debate something with him it's hard to win.
tl;dr version: stfu
at 28 Mar 2009: 16:47
He puts "a small amount" of his ideas into "a few" of his characters? The only characters that oppose his viewpoints in any way are either designated antagonists or routinely put down for their beliefs, and usually both. In his works, you either agree with Jay or are wrong. It has nothing to do with his conservative views and everything to do with the manner in which he pushes them.
OK... maybe that's not entirely true. I find his apparent notion that people with a cock are never at fault to be very distasteful.
Oh, and by the way, it's "hard to win" a debate with him because he only debates in venues where he has total control and bans anyone who makes a point that he cannot counter.
at 28 Mar 2009: 17:07
he's kind of conservative
at 28 Mar 2009: 20:53
>>20 Liberal artists do the same damn thing, and are a hell of a lot less subtle about it than he is. People don't like him simply for the fact that he's on the right side of some issues.
at 28 Mar 2009: 21:56
Indeed, and this is precisely the reason I don't read furry comics. Or webcomics, for that matter. Silverone annoys me as much as Naylor does.
Sen at 29 Mar 2009: 02:03
This isn't a conservative vs liberal thing though. It's an atrocious practice regardless of the ideas being presented.
Honestly, if this were about a liberal artist doing the same thing, I'd have the same reaction. Stories are particularly boring when the main character is every time all the time. Flaws make a character more than their strengths and abilities do.
Sen at 29 Mar 2009: 02:04
"when the main character is RIGHT every time all the time" was what I meant to put there. Whoops.
at 29 Mar 2009: 04:26
anoying isnt it when you miss print.
at 29 Mar 2009: 16:52
Let's see why never got to read the entire comic.
a) Too long to catch up if didn't start reading it when the series started.
b) Too much politics, ideology and other shit everybody has enough of it IRL.
c) Brother-sister incest (for that redneck felling - though I really cant tell, didn't read it, just heard about it)
d) Boring, main caracter and plot (father died in Vietnam, mother was a slult, sister was retarded - give me a break I can find plenty of that (again) IRL.) - don't get me wrong i don't have anything against realistic plots that want to represent reality but why make then make it whit antromorphic characters which only end up representing human characters.
Other than that I guess its OK, and Jay Nayor said he will end it soon and start another webcomic.
at 29 Mar 2009: 17:44
>>27 >>why then make it with anthropomorphic characters which only end up representing human characters?
What else are they supposed to represent? Not real animals, one would expect. Their world is clearly meant to be just like our own, only with animal-headed cartoon people. If he's using the metaphor at all well, the characters' animal identities ought to reflect their personalities.
at 29 Mar 2009: 18:46
I think that in his world different species represent different nationalities and/or races.
at 29 Mar 2009: 22:21
Dude you cant really bash the comic until you have read it
Sen at 29 Mar 2009: 22:41
That's BS and you know it.
at 30 Mar 2009: 00:40
I really don't see what the big deal is. Obviously if he presents his ideas, he isn't going to have arguments against them. The point is that "here's what I think, here's why I'm right". Yes, if overdone this can make for annoying reading, but Better Days doesn't really have all that much of it.
Also, Better Days is the only place I can recall offhand ever reading anything remotely resembling political or social ideologies. Considering that it's something of a social commentary, that's almost expected. If you like the way Naylor draws ass, read one of his many porno comics which don't contain any of the commentary. I don't understand how not agreeing with his political ideas means you can't enjoy his porn.
at 30 Mar 2009: 22:00
at 30 Mar 2009: 22:11
"...doesn't really have all that much of it"? Are we talking about different comics? Or did you just fail to notice everything that wasn't clearly spelled out as an ideological exposition? (Your comment that Better Days is the only thing you've read with sociopolitical themes strongly suggests the latter.)
As for his porn, he even occasionally feels the need to proselytize there, as well. And sometimes he feels the need to get all "art-y", reducing what might otherwise be hot into an unfappable mess.
The thing is, there are three artistic roles to be played in the creation of a comic: illustrator, writer, and director. Of these aspects, Jay Naylor is skilled in the first, horrible in the second, and probably doesn't even think about the third (few people do). He refuses to acknowledge that these shortcomings exist, which means that any comic he creates his fatally weak in one area and inconsistent-at-best in another. It's pretty much impossible to create works of quality under such conditions, and that's why people don't like his stuff.
Sen at 31 Mar 2009: 07:47
Elaboration: I can bash anything I want regardless of my information on the topic. The bashing will, in fact, be real, as it would be in existence.
But to be a little less sarcastic, I dislike Better Days based on what I've heard and read, because I've been pointed to evidence of the things in the comic that I dislike. I never sat down and read the comic itself, I haven't even visited the page once in my lifetime; I didn't have to. I formed my opinion by taking in the evidence presented, and the opinions of said evidence put forth.
So I haven't read the comic, but I'm bashing it.
And for a last example, I never once saw the Catwoman movie, but I heard it sucked, and thought the trailers looked stupid, so I formed the opinion that the movie sucks, without actually watching the movie.
TLDR: I don't have to partake of something in order to think that I don't like it.
at 31 Mar 2009: 09:10
>>35 So basically you're forming a strong opinion based on the opinions of others. Try reading it and forming your own opinions. Then you can bash it and the ideas you're presenting will actually be yours, and you'll actually have reasons for thinking that way. I tend to find that other peoples opinions of things very rarely match my own. Hell, some people even think that Dane Cook is funny...
Sen at 31 Mar 2009: 21:20
I fail to see how it's my own opinion. I read what I read, and came up with the thought processes in my own head. These thought processes led to the conclusions I have made myself, and thus, formed my opinion.
Saying that I have to form my own opinions implies that I agreed 100% with what I had read, and that's not true.
Believe me, you don't have to fully experience something to know you're not going to like it. There are so many horrible things that happen on this planet on a daily basis that I don't want to take part in, and to be technical, I've only heard about those things from other sources. Even if they're news sources, according to your logic, I'm not forming my own opinion because I'm not actually going through it.
Sen at 31 Mar 2009: 21:25
..."fail to see how it's NOT my own opinion"
Man, every time I write something I miss ONE key word and only notice it past the point of no return. :/
at 31 Mar 2009: 21:43
Yes, and you have successfully broken a large amount of logical rules. forming a generalization or even one's own opinion from bias information is not logical and therefore, in lack of a better word, wrong. also it is concerning that you placed your strong and bias opinion on this board
Sen at 31 Mar 2009: 22:00
Saying that you don't agree with my opinions is a more proper way to put it.
Saying that I'm wrong is your opinion, which is based on the opinions I presented here, which falls back into the argument you just presented.
Opinions aren't based on logic alone. They're also based on emotions and ethics, so saying that I broke logical rules with my opinions doesn't hold a lot of water. And besides, you don't know where I got my "biased information" from, because you don't know for certain what I've actually read, seen, and experienced about the comic Better Days. That article I linked earlier is one, but I've also read others, heard about it from others, been linked to examples of things I dislike about it, and things that I do like about it.
I honestly wish somebody would say what it seems like they're trying to say. "You should at least read the comic, you might actually like it." Because I'll be honest, this statement is true. My opinion -might- change if I actually sit down and read the comic.
I wouldn't have spoken up against that, I was speaking up against the notion that I have to read the comic to actually bash it, which just isn't true.
||This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.|