Little Red

A place for the artistic folks to post their latest creations and seek feedback.

Re: Little Red

Postby NeoVid » Mon Dec 02, 2013 2:23 am

I am a geek, but I don't know that one. I can wait until you use it in your own project instead of asking for a spoiler... if I gotta.

Also, there's a simple solution for getting oxygen to the prey: swallowing air. Of course, the only preds I've heard of doing that were sadists who like it when their prey doesn't get to black out... Ah, the joys of overthinking everything. :(
Founder of the Macrophilia Overthinking Society
User avatar
NeoVid
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:18 pm

Re: Little Red

Postby kool kitty89 » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:34 am

NeoVid wrote:I am a geek, but I don't know that one. I can wait until you use it in your own project instead of asking for a spoiler... if I gotta.

Well . . . I did go through a whole "chemistry geek" phase (well, still have that as a hobby) and de facto majored in that for the first three semesters in community college. (after that first half of organic chem, I knew I didn't want to do that anymore . . . stopped being fun and interesting and started being a chore -plus, it turns out the job prospects aren't that great compared to several other options, like several branches of computer science ;))

Between school, random research binging in books and online, there's a bunch of phases/spurts of different things I learned a lot about (lots from TV and other educational media too -especially as a little kid).
peleontology (particularly tied to my dinosaur phase), geology, minerology, astronomy, aviation, millitary/weapons history/engineering, aerodynamics, ecology, anthropology, forestry, metalurgy, zoology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, and probably some I'm forgetting. (and then history mixed in all over the place throughout and beyond -and bouncing back and forth between many of those things at different times or simultaneously)

And that's not even getting into the entertainment/fantasy/philosophy-oriented intellectual stuff. (books, films, TV, video games, etc, etc . . . and my own writing, of course) Though I think I covered a lot more of that in my "early memories" ramblings. :p

Geek of all trades, and then some . . . but as the phrase goes, master of none . . . yet. :P

This also makes me extremely easily distracted when working on just about anything intellectually involving, especially anything remotely involving research. (I go on tangents so damn easily) Hell, even while writing my story, I'd do a quick search for some info about a certain animal or local history/information (stuff tied to inspiration for my setting), and I'd end up on huge tangents of stuff way beyond what I'd intended. (the upshot there is that there's still a lot of other neat things I picked up that have been useful too . . . even if it cost me . . . some undisclosed amount of time)

LIkewise it made it really tough for me to decide what to focus on in school or career planning . . . and even beyond that, still pretty damn tough to focus on that after deciding. (not that I don't have any ambition at all, but it's hard to channel that to a solid goal when I'm passionate about so many other things too) That and then trying to decide where to focus on within the general field I've chosen. (computer science is a huge, diverse web of separate and overlapping skills/fields, even if you just look at the software development end) And then beyond that, there's still a huge array of different positions/careers that any specific field of the profession would apply to. (and then actually getting in the door . . . and big company vs small -or even a new start-up, R&D/think-tank, etc, etc)

Also, there's a simple solution for getting oxygen to the prey: swallowing air. Of course, the only preds I've heard of doing that were sadists who like it when their prey doesn't get to black out... Ah, the joys of overthinking everything. :(

I was going to mention that one too . . . but, as I said, I'm trying to avoid spoilers. :p

It's definitely another thing not mentioned often enough in the context of non-fatal vore scenarios. (and really a must for anything pushing realism IMO . . . unless they can be brought back up right away . . . specific sizes involved will impact all of these things too)

Yes, overthinking has it's trade-offs, but on that end, I'm pretty well sure that I'm going to be more critical of flaws/holes in my story than most/all of my readers. (and TBH, I was getting a little frustrated with myself, but then I realized that, in spite of the implausible aspects of giants, my universe is still WAY more plausible than the majority of mainstream sci-fi/spec-fic TV/movie series around, and a huge chunk of literature too -especially any of the more adventure oriented stuff -granted, there's certainly a fair share of really detail oriented realism-centered stuff out there too) And if I can suspend my disbelief for those sorts of shows/films/books, then there's no reason I can't do that for my own stuff. (let alone readers with less intense scrutiny of such things) :p
Still, it would have been a little more plausible if I'd made the (largest) giants a bit smaller . . . but I realized it was silly to fixate on that so much, and I put a stop to anything that was legitimately sucking the fun out of it. (a lot of the realism focus and other neat/lesser-used ideas made it more fun and interesting, TBH, so keeping all that was obvious) -and, of course, I'd worked though all that conflict and mess before I actually started drafting the first chapter. ;)

Granted, there's probably only going to be limited exposure of all the backstory and explanations, but most of the stuff is already demystified to a reasonably detailed level on my end. (and largely with less than typical tropes) :p

That's also why you won't be seeing size-shifters of any kind in my universe. (that's just too hard to explain in remotely realistic sci-fi stuff -fun to through around in less rigid sci-fi universes though, especially if you make a joke/reference calling it out; though magic is the best usable explanation IMO, so better with settings tending towards high fantasy -or at least that aspect of it)
User avatar
kool kitty89
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:18 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Little Red

Postby TendoTwo » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:15 am

kool kitty89 wrote:peleontology (particularly tied to my dinosaur phase), geology, minerology, astronomy, aviation, millitary/weapons history/engineering, aerodynamics, ecology, anthropology, forestry, metalurgy, zoology, chemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, and probably some I'm forgetting. (and then history mixed in all over the place throughout and beyond -and bouncing back and forth between many of those things at different times or simultaneously)


.... dear.... lord... :shock:

kool kitty89 wrote:Yes, overthinking has it's trade-offs, but on that end, I'm pretty well sure that I'm going to be more critical of flaws/holes in my story than most/all of my readers. (and TBH, I was getting a little frustrated with myself, but then I realized that, in spite of the implausible aspects of giants, my universe is still WAY more plausible than the majority of mainstream sci-fi/spec-fic TV/movie series around, and a huge chunk of literature too -especially any of the more adventure oriented stuff -granted, there's certainly a fair share of really detail oriented realism-centered stuff out there too) And if I can suspend my disbelief for those sorts of shows/films/books, then there's no reason I can't do that for my own stuff. (let alone readers with less intense scrutiny of such things) :p


I am reminded one of the first well-received Spiderman games that was made during the transition from 2D sprites to 3D polygons... which many games were struggling with.

There was a developer commentary where they mentioned how much thaught they were putting into each of his powers. Just the web-slinging alone, they were calculating making you actually aim at a building, have it be close enough for the web line to actually stick, your speed and momentum effecting the angle at which you swing off of it, etc etc. All this just for one of the most basic abilities and the main method of transportation in the game.

When they stepped back and looked at it all, they realized that it was more of a Spiderman simulator than a game at that point. Sure, it was realistic (Well, as realistic as a game about a human with proportional spider-strength and other abilities can get) but it wasn't fun to play. The player had keep track of far too much just to perform some of the most basic tasks, never-mind while in the middle of a fight or running for their lives. (Yeah, I am sure a niche market might have preferred the simulator idea, but most people would have found the controls unplayable. There is a reason giant mecha games where you just push forward to move are mainstream while the ones where each button on the gamepad controls a different joint and limb are niche but fun to those who like that niche)

So they sat back and thought about how you never really see Spiderman have to think about where he is shooting his web when he swings around buildings, he just does it as if its a reflex and goes. So they redesigned the game to be like that, just a button to hold down as you swing, the webbing just shoots somewhere offscreen with the implication that its hooking onto somewhere that it's supposed to. And as I said, the game was very well received and fun to play.

Likewise, you might want to consider that approach. I am not saying go completely nuts and turn it into a Looney Tunes cartoon, but just like how they have to take some liberties with Spiderman because such powers are physically impossible no matter the origin, some liberties obviously have to be taken with micro and macro stories due to hundreds of physical implausibility reasons already discussed a million times over here. Don't worry that much about every possible tiny detail being realistic, because if you overdo it you could risk burning-out on over-thinking it or just become dissatisfied with the story over minor details that likely nobody even notices (So many artists, writers, etc constantly think their work is sub-par over others because they keep obsessing over flaws others don't even notice. You are your own worst critic after all.... well, unless you are a narcissist :P )

It's to enjoy being read so the story should be enjoyable over being as realistic as possible.

..... after all, Star Trek didn't suffer losing fans no matter how many things they revered the polarity of :wink:
TendoTwo
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Little Red

Postby kool kitty89 » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:59 am

TendoTwo wrote:Likewise, you might want to consider that approach. I am not saying go completely nuts and turn it into a Looney Tunes cartoon, but just like how they have to take some liberties with Spiderman because such powers are physically impossible no matter the origin, some liberties obviously have to be taken with micro and macro stories due to hundreds of physical implausibility reasons already discussed a million times over here. Don't worry that much about every possible tiny detail being realistic, because if you overdo it you could risk burning-out on over-thinking it or just become dissatisfied with the story over minor details that likely nobody even notices (So many artists, writers, etc constantly think their work is sub-par over others because they keep obsessing over flaws others don't even notice. You are your own worst critic after all.... well, unless you are a narcissist :P )

I can be obsessive and a bit of a perfectionist at times (albeit an inconsistent and lazy one), and over the years I've had to learn to get over myself a lot of the time, especially in writing. (been a problem since I was a little kid, and worst is always just before getting started)
-If I hadn't gotten over that, you probably wouldn't have seen my stuff in the rough form I initially released it as, either. (ie what's on the Giant's Club currently is all I'd have out there :p ) And that's ignoring other hang-ups that might have barred me from even posting anything.

And I already know that I'm probably going to be my own worst critic . . . aside from areas I might not catch as easily as others. (including some things you pointed out -big thanks there BTW)

In any case, I doubt I'll be making any more changes to the fundamental set-up I've established for my current setting. I may consider making a looser (or just one with different boundaries) universe for some unrelated works, but there's a ton I can do in the current setting without contradicting myself. (not to mention there's a number of other scenarios that should work quite well in this setting too . . . some others that might work better with a clean break though -for one, I don't want to introduce any sort of size-shifting into this current setting, in any time or place)

Really, there's no reason you can't mix light-hearted characters and goofiness with a realistic setting, especially if you're planning on adding at least a little darkness and complexity to things as well. (TBH, Radda's First Crack at This managed to do all that too . . . and, aside from a few select points, actually didn't detail much of anything that would make for obvious "this is totally impossible" sorts of distracting holes -if not actually more plausible in some areas -sheer goofy 4th wall breakages aside, the whole age regression thing was the oddest part IMO . . . the likes of Rick and Sylvia have WAY more blatant hang ups for me . . . Jack and Jill puts some heavy emphasis on some of the physical limitations of giants -especially if they had similar body compositions to normal animals- and some other neat attention to detail there too -the Titan series over on Giantessworld also goes into this, particularly on the reduced gravity trope -something I mused on quite a lot in the macro context before that one popped up, and I was rather pleasantly surprised ;) )

Really, a lot of stories don't actually detail the sticky areas enough to even make such problems materialize at all, and I'm not planning on putting any excessive emphasis on going beyond that for my story. (if some details work their way in fluidly, then it'll be a nice way to spice things up for some added immersion, but I'm not planning on forcing any more exposition if I can help it ;) )


Realistic vore tropes though . . . that's kind of its own category and something I rarely see pushed with both detail and reasonable accuracy, let alone non-fatal situation specifics. (or if there's detail that intentionally goes way off, properly expressing that it's a deviation for x reason -or just some vague reason that may or may not be demystified) Of course, plenty of cases don't go into enough detail there to get themselves into deep trouble either, and that works too. (I don't recall DTF ever having this problem, though detailed internal vore scenes are pretty scant there in general, let alone non-fatal examples -off the top of my head, I can only think of the case in the first chapter of Darwin's Revenge . . . and that worked amazingly well, TBH -on pretty much every level, technical or story/plot/character-wise)


It's to enjoy being read so the story should be enjoyable over being as realistic as possible.

..... after all, Star Trek didn't suffer losing fans no matter how many things they revered the polarity of :wink:

The crap they pulled in some episodes of Voyager were the worst though. (TOS is technically the most blatantly wrong in many areas, but that's much more forgivable)
The thing about Voyager, aside from some of the odd plot choices and hit and miss character development, was they both contradicted some of the better TNG/DS9 tech explanations and accentuated some of the holes from those previous series too, that hadn't been quite so blaringly obvious as before. (the whole warp ten thing is the most obvious/commonly cited example there, but there's tons of others)

The new movie series seems to have taken a slightly more . . . mainstream action/sci-fi approach to the whole thing, but it works for the most part, I think.

On reflection, though, I really think DS9 ended up being my favorite . . . Enterprise might have had potential if they'd gotten to the Romulan thing in time, or they'd gotten another season out, but DS9 managed to do a ton. (AND managed to survive a relatively slow early start)


Now, as far as realism . . . the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series immediately comes to mind as being way, way ahead in believability on so many levels. Sure, they mixed in some surreal/mystical stuff (a hell of a lot LESS than the likes of DS9 or many others though), but the attention to detail on the science/physics end was way beyond almost anything else I can think of in this realm of sci fi. (the emphasis on inertia, acceleration, lack of sound in a vacuum, etc were all exceptional and even used to good effect rather than dragging anything down -you'd think "lack of explosion sounds" would make it bland, but no, the subtlety and unique mix of stimuli really just made it come together so amazingly well -including the realistic use of sound from physical impact with the hull/etc as well as faint sound traveling through gases emitted by localize explosions) Then there's the emphasis on propulsion systems used, atmospheric flight differences, use of projectile based weapons rather than energy weapons (guns, missiles -conventional warhead- and nuclear weapons too -a big emphasis on the latter for ship-to-ship munitions)
The way they handled FTL "jumps" (albeit that was similar in the original series) is also much more fitting than the likes of hyperspace/subspace/warp drive. (space-folding or worm-hile generation is way closer to actual explanations -it's not that uncommon, but it compliments the rest of the realism exceptionally well)
There's more there too, including extremely complex (and nearly always dark) social commentary, but I think you get my point.

Star Gate Universe also did this quite well, actually kind of ironic as SG-1 and Atlantis were absolutely nothing like that. (in fact, the most obvious oddities in realism were throwbacks to the older series -including the "miracle english" of the lucian alliance -SG-1 and Atlantis never gave any sort of explanation as to why almost every planet they reach speaks English -it's the number one areas one needs to force suspension of disbelief IMO; no translation device, nothing, and only using language barriers where it's convenient to the plot :p -Universe broke away from all of that, and also put a much greater focus on physical realism)
User avatar
kool kitty89
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:18 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Little Red

Postby kool kitty89 » Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:27 am

Something actually semi-on-topic again:

I kept forgetting to mention this, but the whole "wet suit" gag/trope in this (and similar) giant/macro-ish contexts is always something that gets to me. I mean, I get the reference, but as someone actually somewhat familiar with (albeit very inexperienced in) diving and the like, and knowing what wet suits are actually like (and what they're useful for), it's really not a practical choice here. (and it's silly . . . but not really in the same goofy/fun way that the comic is . . . more like a plot-hole style oversight :p )

Just remember this: wet suits are for COLD water. They insulate pretty damn well and they're intended for that purpose . . . that and they absorb stuff like a sponge and become semi-water-tight once saturated, retaining a layer of liquid on the inside. (between the lining and the person's skin)
Not really a fun prospect for a situation like we see here . . . or any similar, hot and wet . . . situations.

A more typical swim suit of some description would make a hell of a lot more sense, assuming one wanted to keep some modesty. :p (and, of course, in the context of women, a once-piece would also be far less likely to suffer . . . malfunctions in this situation)


Yep, overthinking things again . . . and I guess one more area of semi-expertise you can count me in for, but once again I actually have a plausible solution rather than just criticism. (ie not saying "it's no good" just "do it a little differently" . . . or whatever)
User avatar
kool kitty89
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:18 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Little Red

Postby kool kitty89 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:31 am

Considered taking this to PM, but what the hell, others might be interested too. (and not like I'm disrupting an ongoing series like started happening with Jack and Jill ages ago XP )
Just happened upon this again by chance, and was compelled to reply, especially given some recent thoughts on the issue considering my own characters.

Regarding this post from Arbon:
viewtopic.php?p=378826#p378826


It all comes down to intrinsic personality and developmental traits/personality, that and the question of how much the latter can really change once it's been firmly established. (especially from all of childhood up into adulthood -so fully established persona for better or worse)

That, and whether there's some types of people who have the potential to be very good OR very bad (and genuinely have their nature/personality shaped as such) with developmental factors playing the key roles here. (and, of course, potential for a huge range of middle-ground between "good" and "bad" as such)
And only some of them may have the ability to really change later in life (socialization in early life is a HUGE issue that's extremely difficult to overcome later on -applies to a ton of other animals aside from humans too, though it most definitely varies based on the individual in most/all cases). That, and some sorts of bad/poor socialization are more solidly bound than others. (some cases end up closer to a gray area that makes things more malleable later in life)

Developmental sociopathy or psycopathy vs intrinsic. (I'm not THAT well versed in the reality of this, but I'm confident that there's examples of both . . . and far more of the former than the latter)
Then there's the odd case of intrinsic sociopaths/psychopaths that end up in a situation that totally maskes/mutes/prevents the dark/disturbed side of things from really manifesting. (no trigger or finding an outlet that's totally acceptable to society)
And, of course, by definition, psychopaths are more intrinsic or "born that way" while sociopaths are far more developmentally/socially driven. (though there's almost certainly some level of predisposition/potential involved -or malleability towards such . . . some more of a "blank slate" than others even)


Then there's the other area that's different and not so much the case for Amanda: genuinely liking and enjoying doing bad things but also hating one's self for liking it. (and then the branches of that: being able to resist doing said things vs not being able to resist those compulsions)
DTF did an excellent example of that with Advice. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2460411/

Amanda doesn't seem apologetic though . . . sure, she'd be sorry if she hurt someone she cared about (including emotionally -ie if they found out her secrets), but at the same time she wouldn't so much be sorry for doing those things as much as just sorry she was found out. (and that finding out hurt someone else . . . nothing to do with feeling sorry for the people she'd killed)


I really can't help but sympathize with all sides in this . . . and I honestly can't say one way or the other how much of my own personality is just me, and how much developed due to the support/socialization I got. (getting pretty deep there, I know, but Arbon's comments pretty much dug down the root of things and got me thinking across the board on the reality of all this)
Same thing for my characters: all of whom have very strong positive reinforcement as part of their childhood/history.

Then roll that all into the dichotomy of power:
Power corrupts,
and
With power comes responsibility.

And how much either of those are defined by our inherent character and how much is developmental.

The phrase "children are basically sociopaths" also comes to mind, which is not universally true, but still applicable. (and the general context to that quote is "sociopaths until their parents and society teach them otherwise" -except, lacking that, you've only got your life experiences to go with)
But at very least, there's varying degrees of potential for sociopathy. (which is itself generally guided by developmental factors)

And as far as macro fiction goes, let alone seriously detailed/fleshed out characters, you've got cases where redemption is possible, sometimes only partially possible (either conflicted over it or simply continuing to like it without reservations -aside from friends/family- as with Amanda), or totally impossible (again could be conflicted/reluctant but still unable to change/resist, or could be totally free of guilt/shame).

Arilin is probably the classic example here, and Berserker's characters (namely Fiela and -recently- Seranna) are directly inspired by her. However, none of those characters were as far gone or as traumatized as Amanda, or Cissy for that matter, and also not heavily indoctrinated by others (and reinforced by their own behavior) as Darla seems to have been. (or Umbra in First Crack at This -and as Nina may have been on the way to becoming as well)
Arilin and Seranna both had more apathy/neglect examples for their problematic socialization, not sure about Fiela though (seems more like basic predatory nature combined with lack of socialization one way or the other in regards to micros -combined with them acting as pests, perhaps even aggressive pests -and even then she wasn't as sadistic as Arilin, let alone Darla . . . for that matter Amanda isn't particularly sadistic either, most just playful+predatory and amoral -AFIK she doesn't really care too much for sadistic torture on the level implied by Darla, or for that matter, implied regarding Umbra and Nina . . . like tearing people apart while they're still alive).
Additionally, Amanda and Cissy are different even from Darla in that they live in a world/society where what they do is not remotely socially acceptable by macro standards and is totally illegal as well, so they HAD the benefit of the social norm potentially guiding them to the "normal" and "legitimate" path much more so than the others. (less so for Amanda, granted, but Cissy grew up in a first world country . . . sure, worst cases within that can still be pretty terrible, but also a VERY different context than the actively predatory and/or apathetic societies in the other examples -even in Arilin's case it would have been more frowned upon than outright illegal . . . or more on the level of animal cruelty at worst -granted, she never defined the formal laws of the Rha or Liliren, so it might have been a bit worse than that too)
Plus, being size-shifters, Cissy and Amanda can litterally see things from the point of view of of normals (or even micros), for what that's worth.

It's also not clear what might have happened to those characters that DO reform had events done gone the way they had. (would Arilin, Fiela, or Nina have continued -or deepened- in their abuse/exploitive/destructive behavior if things had continued they way they'd been, or would they have grown out of it on their own?)
Not quite sure where Neopuc's Natalya would fit in, but I'm pretty sure she's damn close to Amanda. (maybe a different backstory -or just less fleshed out- but still very prone to not having any regrets for killing . . . though making exceptions for those she finds "interesting" . . . sometimes -and becoming genuinely loving/close to those she's bonded with and really connected to, so not technically incapable of love . . . also like Amanda)

I get the feeling that Cissy is a bit more jaded than Amanda too, and there's something else going on, but still tons of similarities.
Fiela showed genuine signs of sympathy, compassion and change

Seranna . . . for one lives in a society where predation is normal (if not necessary) and apparently at least somewhat akin to Kusa's CAS universe. However, the acknowledgement of and respect for intelligence is a rather interesting note there that's not often that drawn upon . . . and something that's kind of dicey in its own sense. (ie are stupid people less people . . . and if animals with basically -or close to- normal animal level intelligence, yet with the ability -or limited ability- to speak be any more people than they otherwise would be?)
--I'm sure this issue is going to come up between Arbon and Christy in Tight Living :P
(Jacktherabbit over on eka's portal did something rather like this, albeit with normal/feral animals in a furry/anthro setting -some animals like fish and bugs are totally normal, many others like most birds, mammals, and reptiles have some level of speech and sentience beyond the IRL counterparts . . . some only barely so, others more or less fully sapient, so it gets pretty damn confusing and interesting -including in regions where sapient predation is outlawed)



And now down to a few specific points on Arbon's actual post:
arbon wrote:From what I can tell, this ISN’T kidding, and if ever caught in a situation where Amanda could eat me with no repercussions, social or otherwise, she would do so without any hesitation and a smile on her face. Acting the part of a monster for the sake of appearances is one thing, but when you act like a monster when there isn’t any reason to, then you simply /are/ a monster. I seem to remember reading that Amanda would murder her own allies while growing up in the military. Or rather, it was written that a number of soldiers would ‘disappear’ mysteriously and left it up to the reader to imagine their fate. Sort of makes me wonder just what happens to Kali’s friends if and when they ever /stop/ being friends. And would that ‘dedicated mother’ bit turn to a rather sour note if Kali got into a bad argument with someone and they showed up at the house to apologize, only to find Amanda answering the door instead.

This is completely true: she DID kill her allies iirc (in fact the rebels thanked her for that, thinking she was one of them when they witnessed the carnage).

As to eating YOU or anyone specifically though, it would also seem to depend on the mood and whether you could make yourself seem amusing, intriguing, or otherwise interesting enough to merit being kept around. (except with her forming a more solid structure of family and friends, and her more limited availability of . . . victims -let alone the liability of leaving any witnesses- it might actually be LESS likely to achieve this goal than in her old days . . . and more traditional begging/pleading would likely be totally ineffective)

On one hand it’s great fetish material, on the other hand I’m supposed to sympathize with Amanda in other works and actually laugh when the murders are treated as a joke. It’s not really a joke if she WOULD kill you, it feels more like lulling you into a false sense of security so she can strike when you least expect it.

Beyond fetish material, I still find the whole thing rather fascinating, and for similar reasons that I find those sorts of dark characters interesting in more mainstream genres. ;) (aside from that, there's also something charming about Amanda that I can't shake and can't help but sympathize with her on some level -at the same time I kind of hate myself for that, but I won't deny it's there . . . part of my own broad/malleable personality, I guess, that and being overly sympathetic in general -beyond being compassionate, really, and it's both strange and unsettling, but also fascinating)

I would love to see some downtrodden criminal, mob boss, serial rapist, ect … end up captured by Kat and gifted to Amanda as a delectable present. But realistically those are the type of people who would PAY an assassin, and the most common victim of a professional hit-man(girl?) would be the rape victims or eye-witnesses who were brave enough to testify, because someone with money wants them dead before they can get to the trial. Political assassinations are a possibility, and the only thing I’ve actually seen of Kat’s work, but anyone who would pay to have the competition eliminated in such a way is more likely to cause mass harm then prevent it. Kat has been /described/ before as doing pseudo-vigilante work, but it hasn’t been shown anywhere I can see, and it’d be very hard to actually make money unless she worked for some really weird, top secret government branch that outsources to keep their hands clean.

Kat is more complex than this, and different from Amanda in that way. She's cold at times, and detached, but I also got the impression she was more the "killer assassin with a heart of gold" type . . . maybe with a bit of her own twist on what designates an "acceptable" target as such, but there is the whole point that she RAN AWAY from a life as a government-controlled bio/genetically-engineered supersoldier and wanted nothing to do with being forced/coerced into killing people for reasons she didn't know or fully understand. (though there's a lot more to it than that, and it's kind of gray, but I got the impression that she was/is a genuinely decent person by comparison -hence a big part of why she keeps Amanda in check even when there might easily be no real repercussions -and why Amanda keeps her "stash" secret from Kat as well)

Kat's is (frustratingly) similar to that of Dark Angel . . . not related, but ironically released/created at very near the same time. ;) Similar character, similar premise, maybe a fair bit darker than that show, but also a good deal of similarities. (Kat had more of an amnesia thing going on though, so that complicated things)

Hmm, actually, I'm positive that someone else posted a story like this with a snake/reptile anthro of some sort on macrophile a few years back. (experienced assassin -might have been a sleeper cell- that experienced some physical trauma/amnesia, but the programming still held for the assassination, and then it kind of got left unfinished iirc)

Kat is most definitely the type who wouldn't hesitate to kill if she believed it was necessary though, but she has far more scruples than Amanda and the like. (and doesn't get the same sort of satisfaction out of it either)
Under the right conditions, she'd also likely become the avenging angel type, but I'm not sure if that's happened yet or not. (and now I'm thinking of Rogue's Lyell character from the Kenya's Heroine trilogy . . . almost a hybrid of Amanda and Kat in that sense, but warmer/more sympathetic than either . . . and better socialized . . . at least IMO . . . and going by the limited characterization from those 3 stories -most definitely the vengeful angel or punisher type, though . . . a dark superhero sort of persona, perhaps . . . Kat boarders a little more on antihero, but not quite)


Amanda would come across as selfish, conniving, and cruel for the fact she’ll actively support letting the children of other parents die in a horrible manner, yet the moment her own child is at stake she’s out for revenge.

This is really just a more extreme take on a far more common trope (or even a far more common real-world personality trait) that places individual and family (or friends) on a pedestal far, far beyond strangers or passing acquaintances (let alone enemies or rivals). I'd go as far to say that it's part of human nature, but obviously a twisted case when taken to such extremes. (fairly classic sociopathic murderer behavior though . . . normal life, good parent, good neighbor, but secretly a compulsive and/or bloodthirsty and/or sadistic killer)

In Case Studies it was made abundantly clear, multiple times, that Amanda didn’t care who was in the box and wouldn’t pay attention to any of them. It’s rather hard to notice white fur and odd eye color when you are so adamant against paying attention to your victims that you can barely remember what species you just swallowed. It was also made clear that Amanda’s background had absolutely nothing to do with her bloodlust, she does this because she /likes it/ and for no other underlying reason. It doesn’t really matter how infrequent the murders are when she isn’t selective about who she goes after, and her focus is more on a reason why NOT to kill you, because the fact she already wants to is where you start out in her mind.

SHE makes it clear, but you assume SHE understands herself.

She's a sociopath, and just because she LIKES it now and without qualms even, doesn't mean that she was born that way or that her childhood/past didn't mold her into what she is (even irreversibly so). That's a big part of what makes the classic sociopath. (the fact that she also has predatory compulsions/instincts and had her personality mold around to feeding those desires/compulsions just made it all the more tightly bound to her final personality -rather than the opposite case with the very same primal instincts and tastes, yet socialized in such a way that one would never consider seriously acting upon such things and would be totally disgusted with one's self if they did . . . and outright horrified if they acted upon it -more muted extensions of this are seen in Kali and Tia's compulsion to tease/play with/chase little/vulnerable things, but complemented by also being genuinely sympathetic and even protective of them . . . likewise with Christy except a bit more aggressively playful and also the whole . . . hunting normal small prey animals thing -in fact, it's the control/restraint/compassion complementing those instincts and raw power that make for some of the most powerful aspects of the macro/pred genre -and many similar cases of supernatual/superhuman fiction too)

To make Amanda kill someone she already knows and deeply cares for, all you’d need to do is cut off their voice and disguise their appearance.

Which almost happened to Jack . . . and would/could apply to many other situations too, granted, heavily depending on the universe. (cases where predation is not common, and all anthros are indeed sapient would be a factor to be sure -granted, that covers most cases . . . what Mannoth did with Comfort Food is rather uncommon in general with the intelligence element in there -ie if mice were normally of full/average sapient intellect, the context of that story would have been very different)

But yes, getting Amanda to willingly kill someone she cared about (well, willingly accidentally kill someone . . . ugh, mincing words there) would be easier to manage than many other cases, but still not totally black and white compared to more normal/compassionate/sympathetic characters doing effectively the same thing. (any predatory character would apply there -so I'm NOT talking about fully unaware examples where the victims are hidden within something else entirely . . . or transformed into something inanimate . . . or some animal normally not regarded as a person -and the latter goes ALL over the place throughout high fantasy and sci-fi works, classic stuff, really)

Actually, that's an interesting question: DOES Amanda regard her victims as people or not? The "people" category seems to be a touchy subject for a lot of predatory characters if not all of them . . . and there's those with (sometimes sociopathic) definitions of "people" and others that do regard what/who they eat as real people and either don't care or learn to accept it as unavoidable. (either necessary -or close to it- or compulsory)

Gang members disappear off the streets all the time. As do runaways, abuse victims, prostitutes (a particular favorite for psychopaths because they have no legal protection) people who wore the wrong shirt, people who wore the wrong hat, people who walked down the wrong street at an inopportune moment, people who weren’t looking behind them and didn’t notice anything until chloroform was shoved in their face, pretty much anyone, anywhere, who happens to be an easy target at the wrong moment. Easy target usually means the exact OPOSITE of gang members, as those people are more paranoid, more willing to fight, and won’t be taken off-guard if someone tries to mess with them. If she’s still an active serial killer and still cares so little for any of the victims, then it doesn’t seem like she’s actually CHANGED.

Indeed, and it would take a special kind of sociopath (or maybe not even a sociopath) to exclusively target those they felt were bad/evil or close enough to it to be fair game. In the "sociopath" case, you'd have cases more like Dexter as in a compulsion that's channeled into more or less vigilantism. The other case would be a physical need of some sort . . . more the case in some pred/prey-verses and also certain supernatural creatures that can't survive without feeding on living people in a lethal manner. (and thus, targeting the genuinely bad -or near as can be found- is the best of an impossible situation -certain reluctant/compassionate predators come to mind here, but I'm immediately reminded of the "kitsune" character Amy from Supernatural . . . not sure how many here follow that though ;) -in any case, those are among the most tragic characters of all in this)

And that's aside from the vigilante killer type who does it more out of some sense of duty to rid the world of said people and/or protect the innocent in the best way they know how. (even if it's a twisted form of justice) With any predatory aspect being more of an added quirk or perhaps making it a bit easier to swallow (no pun intended) rather than a true compulsion/need that needs some form of release.

Being a role model for Kali isn’t her having some miraculous change of heart, it’s simply a new potential consequence for murderous actions that she would like to avoid. Unless you’re telling me that if Amanda could eat some random person with NO possibility of any of her friends or family finding out, that she would hold off just on principle? Or would she jump at the treat that much more eagerly, because it’s now a rarity that she still heartily enjoys.

I think this is true . . . unless something more recent has happened to actually make her change deep down and rethink her actual respect for fellow living things . . . or at least sapient ones. (hmm, actually, I wonder if she ever considered . . . non-people "substitutes" there)
She might never change completely, but I'm not really sure where that leaves her, especially after Kalie found out.


I can fully respect not wanting to put the characters through that sort of ordeal, but it seems more like you’d rather Kali live her entire life without ever discovering the truth. And the idea that someone like her could live for so long being lied to and deceived so readily by the two people she trusts most is just heart-breaking.

Remember, Kat is being lied to as well through much of this, she's NOT enabling Amanda AFIK, though may know SOME of her cases of slipping/reverting. (I got the impression that she doesn't know how regularly Amanda still . . . indulges as such, though I'm not sure if she's actually ever been fooled into thinking Amanda had really changed on that level to the point of not WANTING to do those things anymore)


Taking a side-note so it doesn’t seem like I’m overly criticizing things, I’d like to make it clear that I really did like this update, and I can’t help but notice a little bunny down next to the dinosaur. Is that one of the Jennys? Or someone else.

Yeah, I think I’m accidentally ruining everyone’s fun by overthinking things. Sorry.

Heh, it's the kind of thing I think about ALL the time with this stuff . . . I just usually don't discuss it and am pretty good at just forcing suspension of disbelief and detaching myself. (though it does mean I'm able to sympathize with the people that just accept the darkly comical/comedic/cartoony stuff as fantasy AND those that take it seriously and get genuinely upset on the issues . . . and also means I kind of get upset with myself for actually having morbid fascinations in the stuff -fettish or not- in spite of constantly taking it seriously too -then again, the STRONG likes/preferences towards these genres are all in the genuinely positive/uplifting/gentle scenarios including those where character genuinely ARE able to change and avoid tragic or just dark/nasty endings . . . or, of course, those that never went full dark in the first place, and learned to control/embrace/manage any darker aspects of themselves very early in their lives -granted, the latter doesn't apply to all character types or scenarios)
User avatar
kool kitty89
Extinction Level Event
Extinction Level Event
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:18 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Little Red

Postby macrokat » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:03 pm

Ahem... just gonna...


quietly drop...


this here...



*sneaks away*
Attachments
Little Red 021.jpg
Little Red 021.jpg (280.31 KiB) Viewed 1221 times
o..o ~squeak~
(\/)S
User avatar
macrokat
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8784
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:15 pm
Location: Oregon USA

Re: Little Red

Postby littlepeople » Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:41 am

quickly logs in in order to post a reply.... on tippy toes approaches page 13....scans the page. Oh look..my fave Kat. What's she doing? Oh yeah!! That story from a looooooonnnnnnnggggggg time ago. Little Red. Red Riding Hood is one of my favorite fairytales. Intently reads the text and enjoys seeing Kat again. Wait a minute!!!! Where's the rest of it?? Grrrrrr..... I would put some of this in here %$#@@%$ but I am a lady. I know I must be patient. Goes to sit down, stares at computer screen, legs crossed, tapping one toe on the floor. Sighs. I'll be back. Later. Some day. Every day. hmm :lol:
Know the fear..do it anyway/never let 'em see you sweat
User avatar
littlepeople
Attack of the 50ft
Attack of the 50ft
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Little Red

Postby littlepeople » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:10 pm

[color=#FFFF00]"Not exactly ruining everybody's fun, but the point where you might be putting extensive thought into a panthers actions and motives in a fairytale parody comic to a point where you suspect that you might be disturbing the enjoyment of other viewers etc is probably a good sign to tell you to chill and enjoy the fun and hyjinks :D"[/color]

Well I wasn't going to mention it... I am usually the Queen of Overthinkers. But even I can appreciate this entertaining comic at face value. No hidden meanings, just good fun with delightful characters. It's not real, man!! :wink:
Know the fear..do it anyway/never let 'em see you sweat
User avatar
littlepeople
Attack of the 50ft
Attack of the 50ft
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Oregon

Re: Little Red

Postby macrokat » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:16 am

Another page, the story finally ACTUALLY continues.

But first, a little bonus, Amanda in color with her mani-pedi tools ready to make up for that little, tiny oopsy that really wasn't even a big deal in the first place right? I mean, come on, just a really deep kiss is all.
Attachments
Amandapedicure.jpg
Amandapedicure.jpg (140.57 KiB) Viewed 1166 times
Little Red 022.jpg
Little Red 022.jpg (295 KiB) Viewed 1167 times
o..o ~squeak~
(\/)S
User avatar
macrokat
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8784
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:15 pm
Location: Oregon USA

PreviousNext

Return to Macro Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Usage of this site is goverend by the AUP
phpBB skin developed by: Abdul Turan & MPFans
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
© 1997-2012, Crescendo Communications