It was this point when I lost my respect for Terrie Smith when this scene originally came out in print.
If Chester is her signature character, then what does it say about her if Chester is a sickening selfish sociopath who harasses and sexually and publicly humilates his
It was this point when I lost my respect for Terrie Smith when this scene originally came out in print.
If Chester is her signature character, then what does it say about her if Chester is a selfish abuser who would stoop to sexually and publicly humiliating Chris so blatantly without a trace of conscience? In my eyes, no real love of someone would do such things to them on top of other offenses like when Chester guided that annoying cat princess to him when he knows Chris was trying to keep clear of her. It’s a cycle of abuse made so despicably destructive to me at this point that I helplessly wishing Chris would realize that and smash Chester’s muzzle. That moron’s blubbering about having the painting painted over drives his foulness home; he obviously regrets nothing about this affront, a clear mark of a nauseating sociopath. In short, I quote what one reviewer said about the artistically inept film “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” in 1967, “Laugh? I thought I’d die.”
By contrast, Terry Moore had a roughly similar story in “Strangers in Paradise” in which Katchoo made Francine the subject of a whole nude art exhibit at a gallery without her knowledge and knowing that kind of subject matter freaks her out. As a result at the exhibition’s opening, Francine is traumatized with the public humiliation and Katchoo finally realizes the line she sailed over and angrily orders the art removed, knowing what she destroyed with her artistic arrogance. That’s what happens when this kind of story is written with some humanity for a change.
What is even more galling that Terrie chose to do this garbage instead of Paul Kidd’s brilliant “Fangs of K’aath.” Seeing the test pages in Little Paw #1, I see the glorious beauty that she would created giving visual life to Kidd’s magnificent novel and she instead choose to focus on her personal reprobate.
I still kept buying the comic back then and held my tongue for over a decade. However, something died when I finally see what Terrie’s artistic priorities are with these pages and I have kept silent long enough.
Ah, this sort of thing always seems to occur in the fandom…
In the first, this is a comic, and, as much as I wish it were real, and we all could be beautiful, perfect anthropomorphic creatures… It still is not real.
IF Chester WERE all the dreadful things you said, applying your logic, it would seem that ANYONE who creates an unpleasent character is mirroring themselves.
On the contrary, it is usually done simply for ratings and sales.
However, your assessment of Chester is unfounded and indeed pernicious.
The character is designed to be at times… Often, impulsive.
He is simply doing what he thinks is amusing, or thoughtful.
I highly suggest you conduct further research into what constitutes a sociopath, and still further a psychopath, for they are closely related. Almost interchangeable.
You will find the likes of Jeffery Domer, Scott Peterson, Tom Capano, and Ted Bundy.
Chester Ringtail is simply cute, yiffy, impulsive and perhaps oftentimes out of touch with his present reality.
He is not, however a depraved and abusive sociopath.
Those are terrible, hurtful things to say, and they musn’t be said, ever.
While Chester is Terrie’s character, the story is actually written by Mark Barnard. As much as I love Havoc INC, Chester can be pretty difficult to be around sometimes, but I don’t think he’s actually a sociopath. He just doesn’t think like a responsible person. (I’ve known a couple of people in real life I would actually classify as sociopaths though, so maybe that’s why I can cut Chester some slack…)
Also: the artist is not the work or the character. If they were, it would mean Roz Gibson is a serial killer (Jack Salem), Thomas Harris is a crazy serial killer (Hannibal Lecter), George R.R. Martin likes to sleep with his sister (Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones) and Alfred Hitchcock has a split personality disorder (Norman Bates from Psycho). Creators often create difficult, troubled, or evil characters because that’s just part of the creation process. If every character was happy and cheerful and nice all the time, there wouldn’t be any story. Stories need conflict to move along.
I seem to remember back in the day that the main reason that Fangs of K’aath couldn’t be done as a comic was due to each character having insanely detailed and unique butterfly wings, each with a completely different pattern that was relevant to the story. What works well in prose doesn’t always translate well to the visual medium of comic storytelling- rather than being able to concentrate on story pages, at least 50% of the art time would have to be spent just drawing the wings and making sure they were all correct. Not to mention the nightmare that would make for editing the book- all those wings, we would have needed poster-size charts to put up on the wall! Would have been worse than trying to keep track of pony cutie marks. ^_~
Chester is something I like to call incorrigible. He never means to hurt Chris. He has a unique perspective on life that sometimes prevents him from predicting how his decisions will play out in reality.
Still, you could live lavishly for way less than what he spends on cosmetics and fashion. I consider a Cintiq a luxury, but he spends more than the cost of an automobile for some of his “treats”. What I’m getting at here is that it’s fitting his daughter’s an economist.
It was this point when I lost my respect for Terrie Smith when this scene originally came out in print.
If Chester is her signature character, then what does it say about her if Chester is a sickening selfish sociopath who harasses and sexually and publicly humilates his
It was this point when I lost my respect for Terrie Smith when this scene originally came out in print.
If Chester is her signature character, then what does it say about her if Chester is a selfish abuser who would stoop to sexually and publicly humiliating Chris so blatantly without a trace of conscience? In my eyes, no real love of someone would do such things to them on top of other offenses like when Chester guided that annoying cat princess to him when he knows Chris was trying to keep clear of her. It’s a cycle of abuse made so despicably destructive to me at this point that I helplessly wishing Chris would realize that and smash Chester’s muzzle. That moron’s blubbering about having the painting painted over drives his foulness home; he obviously regrets nothing about this affront, a clear mark of a nauseating sociopath. In short, I quote what one reviewer said about the artistically inept film “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” in 1967, “Laugh? I thought I’d die.”
By contrast, Terry Moore had a roughly similar story in “Strangers in Paradise” in which Katchoo made Francine the subject of a whole nude art exhibit at a gallery without her knowledge and knowing that kind of subject matter freaks her out. As a result at the exhibition’s opening, Francine is traumatized with the public humiliation and Katchoo finally realizes the line she sailed over and angrily orders the art removed, knowing what she destroyed with her artistic arrogance. That’s what happens when this kind of story is written with some humanity for a change.
What is even more galling that Terrie chose to do this garbage instead of Paul Kidd’s brilliant “Fangs of K’aath.” Seeing the test pages in Little Paw #1, I see the glorious beauty that she would created giving visual life to Kidd’s magnificent novel and she instead choose to focus on her personal reprobate.
I still kept buying the comic back then and held my tongue for over a decade. However, something died when I finally see what Terrie’s artistic priorities are with these pages and I have kept silent long enough.
Ah, this sort of thing always seems to occur in the fandom…
In the first, this is a comic, and, as much as I wish it were real, and we all could be beautiful, perfect anthropomorphic creatures… It still is not real.
IF Chester WERE all the dreadful things you said, applying your logic, it would seem that ANYONE who creates an unpleasent character is mirroring themselves.
On the contrary, it is usually done simply for ratings and sales.
However, your assessment of Chester is unfounded and indeed pernicious.
The character is designed to be at times… Often, impulsive.
He is simply doing what he thinks is amusing, or thoughtful.
I highly suggest you conduct further research into what constitutes a sociopath, and still further a psychopath, for they are closely related. Almost interchangeable.
You will find the likes of Jeffery Domer, Scott Peterson, Tom Capano, and Ted Bundy.
Chester Ringtail is simply cute, yiffy, impulsive and perhaps oftentimes out of touch with his present reality.
He is not, however a depraved and abusive sociopath.
Those are terrible, hurtful things to say, and they musn’t be said, ever.
While Chester is Terrie’s character, the story is actually written by Mark Barnard. As much as I love Havoc INC, Chester can be pretty difficult to be around sometimes, but I don’t think he’s actually a sociopath. He just doesn’t think like a responsible person. (I’ve known a couple of people in real life I would actually classify as sociopaths though, so maybe that’s why I can cut Chester some slack…)
Also: the artist is not the work or the character. If they were, it would mean Roz Gibson is a serial killer (Jack Salem), Thomas Harris is a crazy serial killer (Hannibal Lecter), George R.R. Martin likes to sleep with his sister (Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones) and Alfred Hitchcock has a split personality disorder (Norman Bates from Psycho). Creators often create difficult, troubled, or evil characters because that’s just part of the creation process. If every character was happy and cheerful and nice all the time, there wouldn’t be any story. Stories need conflict to move along.
I seem to remember back in the day that the main reason that Fangs of K’aath couldn’t be done as a comic was due to each character having insanely detailed and unique butterfly wings, each with a completely different pattern that was relevant to the story. What works well in prose doesn’t always translate well to the visual medium of comic storytelling- rather than being able to concentrate on story pages, at least 50% of the art time would have to be spent just drawing the wings and making sure they were all correct. Not to mention the nightmare that would make for editing the book- all those wings, we would have needed poster-size charts to put up on the wall! Would have been worse than trying to keep track of pony cutie marks. ^_~
Chester is something I like to call incorrigible. He never means to hurt Chris. He has a unique perspective on life that sometimes prevents him from predicting how his decisions will play out in reality.
Still, you could live lavishly for way less than what he spends on cosmetics and fashion. I consider a Cintiq a luxury, but he spends more than the cost of an automobile for some of his “treats”. What I’m getting at here is that it’s fitting his daughter’s an economist.