Here’s the next page of Axe Cop Gets Married, where he takes the Water Queen on the best date ever. I was going to get someone to do a true translation on this Chinese for me, but I think it is probably funnier with Axe Cop speaking Google Translate simplified Chinese. If you can read what he is saying let me know.
I just found out that at Comic Con there will be a 57 foot Axe Cop balloon over the FOX ADHD tent! They will also be handing out posters and figurines. It is going to be pretty amazing.
Another post while my web sites remain out of commission. Here is the next page of Bearmageddon. Think of it as a montage interrupted by a yapping dog. I’m hoping we can save Bearmageddon. Axe Cop we are completely remaking, but it needed it. Bearmageddon I liked just as it was. Worst case scenario I think is we get it back but lose all the blogs and comments that were posted. That would be a bummer. I didn’t feel like Axe Cop’s blog had a real community around it, probably because it was so technically dysfunctional. Bearmageddon I really enjoyed the interactions and blogs. I guess we will wait and see what happens. Huge thans to Eric, Mike and Doug who are working like crazy to try to save Axe Cop and Bearmageddon.
Well, Axecop.com and Bearmageddon.com are still both down. We are still in the process of trying to salvage Bearmageddon. With Axe Cop I decided to do what I’ve needed to do for a while and rebuild the site. Sadly, all those old blogs and comments and stuff will be gone, but the site will be less cluttered and have a new look. Nice and clean and functional. In the meantime I will start posing episodes here on my Tumblr. Hopefully Axe Cop will be back up in time for SDCC and the TV show air date! Thanks for reading and bearing with me through this mess.
Asked by dnlhern
Sorry I didn’t realize we were out. Tell you what, if you buy something from my www.axecopwedding.com site, remind me of this conversation in the note and I will throw in a CHOP poster for free, signed.
Asked by dnlhern
Oh i didn’t even realize that! I have a whole box of them in my closet. I guess i should send more to Topatoco.
"If you keep bogies and goblins away from children they would make them up for themselves. One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg. One small child can imagine monsters too big and black to get into any picture, and give them names too unearthly and cacophonous to have occurred in the cries of any lunatic. The child, to begin with, commonly likes horrors, and he continues to indulge in them even when he does not like them. There is just as much difficulty in saying exactly where pure pain begins in his case, as there is in ours when we walk of our own free will into the torture-chamber of a great tragedy. The fear does not come from fairy tales; the fear comes from the universe of the soul."
-G.K. Chesterton, the Red Angel
The image is of a monster my little brother Malachai made up named “Shabaccus” when he was 6 (Axe Cop: Bad Guy Earth #3). He is as big as a sky scraper, shoots lava out of his feet when he flies, has giant horns, sharp claws, sharp teeth, is covered in spikes, has machine gun ears, his eyes light up, firey-orange hair and he carries a giant sword and machine gun.
"…[Syme] remembered a hornbill, which was simply a huge yellow beak with a small bird tied to it. The whole gave him a sensation, the vividness of which he could not explain, that Nature was always making mysterious jokes. Sunday had told them they would understand him when they understood the stars. He wondered whether even the archangels understood the hornbill."
-from the Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton
I already mentioned this on my web comic blogs, but I wanted to post it here because it really fits under the title “Art & Morality” well. This is a podcast interview conducted by Jason Brubaker of reMIND with Doug TenNapel and me. We went to Jason’s house and recorded it live. He put it up in two parts, nearly two hours of conversation. We cover a lot of ground and talk about things I’ve never ventured into in other interviews.
Asked by skitzoman
I gave a short answer over at Bearmageddon, but I’ll give you a more detailed answer here.
First, the reason I LOVE Chesterton is probably because the two of us have so much in common. He was an artist, even a cartoonist. He went to Art School but became a writer instead. He was a very large and jolly man (over 6ft and 300 pounds), known for his sense of humor and absent mindedness.
Chesterton wrote TONS and he wrote on just about every topic you can imagine. He was a journalist, so he write thousands of essays on topics ranging from Eugenics to the lack of the topic of cheese in poetry.
The main categories of his books you will find I would categorize like this: fiction novels, detective stories, Christian philosophy, and essay collections.
He is best known in the church for Orthodoxy, which is his personal defense and explanation of his own faith. It’s one of the most beautifully written books I have ever read. If that is something you like to read about, I recommend it, but I will tell you, if you are not accustomed to the style of writing Chesterton can be a little hard to digest at first.
If you think the fiction sounds more up your alley he is probably better known for The Man Who Was Thursday and the Father Brown Mysteries. I have admittedly read only a handful of Father Brown (sort of like Priest Columbo but more intellectual). I love the Man Who Was Thursday and want to turn it into a graphic novel some day.
If you just want to get your toes wet, look up his essays and read the title. He has a book called “the Defendant” where he writes a bunch of articles defending different things. If it sounds like a topic that interests you, check out what he has to say about it.
My favorite essay of his is the introduction to Tremendous Trifles (which is another collection of essays about the complexity and wonder of things we normally think of as mundane). This essay really sums up Chesterton very well, and I think it is pretty funny. Again, some day I will illustrate this work (it includes a fairy tale about two boys and a magic milk man).
I hope that helps. Once you read a few, let me know how you liked it. I love spreading GK!
P.S. Thanks so much, I really enjoyed that interview. Doug and Jason are two great dudes.
I have a pet peeve, and the internet as far as I understand was invented solely for lonesome fat guys like me to vent all things that annoy them and transmit that whining to the entire world with the click of a mouse. I have been blessed with the gift of complaining and I’ll be glad to throw another one on the digital heap before you.
I love debate, and I love people. I mean this truthfully. I love the idea that I could come toe to toe with someone of a totally opposing view from mine and the two of us could hash out our differences, and though never coming to any agreement, stand firm on the common ground of our own humanity and friendship. To see each other as “fellow travelers to the grave” as Scrooge’s nephew put it to him on Christmas Eve. To share the jovial relationship of Chesterton and Shaw.
To live in a country where people could be as polarized as we are and not be at war I do not see as tragic, I see it as miraculous. There is something in human nature that has been overcome when literally two societies can share this giant continent and not begin poking bayonets into their rivals. I think, next time someone on the internet really rubs you the wrong way, you should smile at the great fortune you have that neither you nor he has a police force, a spy next door or a great leader who is on its way to turn you into ashes for opposing the thoughts of such a mighty group.
You should smile, but you should also not be naive. You should shed a tear for the tragic degradation of the use of language in common argument. Real argument is hard, hard work. It requires so much of each party. It requires seeking to understand before seeking to be understood, researching ideas you despise, and honoring a person whose views you consider, literally, the root of all evil and the key to the majority of human suffering. Most people do not have it in them, and in the internet culture we don’t even have a conversation in us.
The internet has scraped away the truth about what we really want to do in an argument. We prefer to say some short, witty jab then be done with it, never having to deal with a response. 144 characters should suffice. Any more than that and you are probably one of those obnoxious ideologues.
Another popular form of argument is to post a picture of words. It is the digital equivalent of a giant bumper sticker. Often when a van drives by (and it is almost always a van) covered in bumper stickers, most people quietly, or not-so-quietly comment that the person must be a bit crazy and probably not incredibly pleasant. But our Facebook pages and our Twitter feeds are vans, and we have all become crazy bumper sticker covered eccentrics who love to silently shout at with decals any stranger who happens by without having to deal with their response.
Even more annoying is that very often these quips and jabs, while often presented as very clever are about as close to being completely meaningless as a Lady Gaga lyric. They claim to say something, and they act as if they are being very bold, but in the end all that has been presented is a sentiment that could only make sense in the context of the times. Take for instance the idea of minorities. Most of the time when the word minority is used it is used to invoke sympathy. Of course it is rarely answered a minority of what? Take another example, the 1%. Who is the 1%? A minority. But we do not call them that because while 1% invokes rage, minority invokes outrage at the majority (again, whoever that is). We have transferred our indignation from real acts of evil to trivial percentages of nameless, faceless groups.
It does make arguing simpler. If someone says something you don’t like, you tell them they need to open their mind. Of course it is never stated why the opening of a mind is in itself a good thing, it is only stated that if you do not open your mind in such a way as you are told, you are closed minded and therefore bad (unless you close your mind around the concept of openness, in which case your head will explode).
But the terms good and bad, right, wrong, evil, holy…. those are all avoided, because if you use any of those obnoxiously absolute terms you run the risk of having to begin defining things. Clarity is a chore. Thought, consideration, reason… these are things that the whole history of human disagreement has worked hard to minimize. To regress into the exhaustive labor of listening to your opposition would simply be anti-progress. Progress of course is code for good, but defining what we are progressing toward is frowned upon.
So we trade stark and final terms like “wicked” for open and flexible terms like “hateful”. We have tossed out truth claims and clung to sentiments alone. Hate is code for evil, though we are called to hate the hateful, we are also called to not acknowledge that the evil of hatred is determined by where the hatred is aimed.
We even have shied away from positive concepts that leave us no wiggle room to flash our open-mind badge. We like to celebrate change, revel in hope and do the happy dance of free thought. It’s all OK to celebrate as long as we don’t say what we will change into, what we really hope for or if the free thoughts are good or bad. Somehow, change is a virtue and any thought, no matter how vile, is virtuous because it was freely thunk.
As I have said, I believe that mankind has, voluntarily or not, created its own vast conspiracy against the dangers of too much thinking. The intellects of our time much more often seem to teach us what to think, rather than how to constructively think for ourselves. They provide us a nice speedy route to ultimate wisdom and the convenient luxury of condemnation of our opposition without all the messy build up. When you make an argument that is inherently meaningless you get all the perks of feeling like you have fought a battle without ever stepping onto the battlefield.
So we have evolved from the old nitpicking habit of trying to separate the noble entrepreneur from the greedy cheat, to the much more refined and slimline term “the rich”. When you add “the” to “rich” you almost always are not about to say something nice. You are about to take part in the old practice of condemning evil, but without using the term evil, you are going to lump all people who happen to have made a relative amount of money more than the rest into one giant loaf of rotten death. This is what we call nuanced thought, and we manage to do it with a straight face.
The simple position I try to take (that we should condemn acts of evil and praise the upright) turns out to not be so simple. I am accused of being simplistic, but I am only honest. For all the groups, sects, percentages and popular terms we use to avoid saying “right” or “wrong” all really mean one of those two things. Hope means right, the rich means wrong, the 1% means evil, the 99% means good. The advantage you have when you avoid using words that admit an absolute morality, is that in admitting that a good exists, you now you must define, defend and begin to do that giant chore of trying to unlock the very universe, the meaning of life and the purpose of man. Let’s not get all filthy digging into that. Let’s stick with calling people racist any time the argument gets a little too murky. Slinging dirt in your opponents eyes to disable them has always been considered bad form, but it has now become good form to, in the heat of opposition, empty a dump truck of feces on their entire person.
Again, racist is code for evil. You do not argue with evil, you vanquish it. You do not argue with a racist, they don’t deserve the honor. It’ a convenient label to toss around and any time you can use it you won’t have to engage in the obnoxious practice of defending your position.
Where do I conclude? Perhaps all I can do is beg you, the one or two people who read this, to not only honor your enemies, but honor the very idea of truth by doing the dirty work of knowing why you believe what you believe and seeking to understand your opposition. It will be an undertaking to last a lifetime, but it is right. Don’t settle for sentiment, for sentiment on its own is hollow. Look at the words on your digital bumper sticker. Do they really mean anything, or are they just words made to cut a gash in those you despise? Fight the redefinition of words that make communication impossible and polarity inevitable. Let your battle of ideas be a gentleman’s duel, not a terrorist bombing. Do your part to make the internet a little less vapid.
Together, if we believe, we can open our minds and unify around change and make a difference towards progress.