Page eight of Hereville is up. I’m running off to work. See ya later!.
Good point, Dianne. Although to my eyes panel 2 isn't necessarily rich - he could easily be working class. I…
-
there’s no reason to suppose the people in this cartoon are conservative, for instance FWIW, my impressions and/or implicit biases…
But those comments are a small minority of the comments you've left here. (Just as positive vibe comics like this…
>"Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :-p" Not quite true: I have occasionally posted comments praising your…
I think it may be more of the pot calling the teacup black. And a misunderstanding of what political cartoonists…
-
Minor niggly nit-pick: not sure I like the way the word balloon in the second panel, second row bleeds up into the first row. You wanted a nice bleed into that top panel, and a forceful balloon too big for the panel, and it’s interesting, but it clashes badly with the brick-red background; the eye sticks on it. Round the top of that balloon off and save the bleeds for stuff that’s either the background color (third panel, top row, nice!) or shades into the background color, rather than chopping off so suddenly the way the balloon-space does.
Like I said: minor. Niggly. Nit-picky.
Not being the niggly nit-picker that Kip is, and not actually seeing it as a single page (too big for my screen) I must say that this is my favorite page so far.
Thanks, Jake!
Kip, I changed the way that word balloon bleed works. Do you like it better now?
I’d prefer the line continued about the balloon–in fact, if the line were there to demarcate the balloon from the burgundy, and then not when the balloon bumped up into Zindel’s shirt, so that you retained that nice bleed with the hatching there, THAT would be the best of both worlds, I think.
But would also require some finagling with ink. For now, this works better than what went before. (The burgundy background is enough of an element that it demands some rules, I think. It reads as an element atop which the art, panels, and balloons are placed; there need to be clear demarcations to avoid the weird little cognitive dissonance that occurs when that illusion gets violated. At least, in the minds of your more fragile, neurotic readers.)
Say, do folks think the pages should be smaller?
Lord no! Don’t make them smaller. If you do, I won’t be able to see them nearly as well.
So far as I am concerned, we can’t repeat it enough: “correlation does not necessarily equal causation”. Also this oldie-but-goodie: “study design does matter”.
So would that be an argument for smaller pages or against? Perhaps it is an argument for more rigorously controlling your selection of posters to respond to the question, or a caution against claiming any significance from a self selecting respondant pool with a sample size of 1?