How Far Is Too Far For Crisis?

Quote :

public reception ? I don't understand ^^;

Well, most stories portray Lea as a cold, aggressive, heartless bitch, despite blatantly contradicting what we've seen and heard about her.

Compared to her, at least nine times out of ten, people nail Crisis about right.

Oh ok.. Yes you are right, I believe of all Felarya, Lea is the character that remain the most mis-used ^^;

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Monster is a relative term: We call a man-eating naga a monster, but a nagas would call a man that kills nagas for revenge a monster. (I think)

We humans kill and eat cows, chicken and lots of other animals. We do this on a large scale. Are we monsters?

I just had to comment on the fact that you put that perspective quite well.

i watched something on the t.v. that has something to do with this thread.

Fear can cause a person to kill, become a monster, and can cause vengeance.

If your scared of monsters, how do you stop the fear? One way is to become a monster yourself.

If your scared of being killed, how do you stop the fear? One way is to become the killer.


A lot of society can think this way. If people are scared of a lion eating them, they kill the lions. Maybe in Felarya if your scared of the "monsters," to survive you must become a monster yourself.

Humans hate Naga's becuase their scared, they dont want to die.

This does explain a lot of Naga/Dridder behavior in my story (WHICH I AM DOING).

Naga's kill Dridders because of fear mostly. They don't want to be killed and eaten, so they become the killer.

Or a Other example can be, a Naga see's Dridders as monsters so they become monsters, a Dridder can see Naga's as monsters so they become monsters as well. It really depends the point of view that your looking at.

But i do believe its FEAR that creates monsters.

This also describes Claire's character that hates Naga's. which I will explain more later on.
------

Edited. it really is sad. that fear can create hatred , killers, monsters.

t

You know, everyone is proving a valid point here. For example, the Salem witch trials or the vampire scares of the 19th century. We fear vampires because they have a thirst for blood. However, we must also ask ourselves if our thirst for blood is satiated. How much blood has been shed throughout history because of fear? The truth is that Count Dracula was right to label us humans as monsters because, in a sense, we are.

Karbo wrote:

Oh ok.. Yes you are right, I believe of all Felarya, Lea is the character that remain the most mis-used ^^;

I hope I'm not getting out of line with this analysis....

I think that if Lea look at her from a "natural" standpoint, this is how the story of Lea grows when she exists in that environment.

You have a woman who, factually speaking, stands and watches while Crisis eats people of Lea's own kind.

People who know of her, will exaggerate her to the point where her reputation grows far beyond what she is. So every one of those stories with Lea in it, could in fact be explained as someone's exaggeration of her based on their hatred of her acts of standing around as her own kind are eaten.

Truthfully she could be more hated than Gunther because no one knows what Gunther is doing. (Of course when someone uncovers Gunther, *whew*...)

Karbo wrote:

Oh ok.. Yes you are right, I believe of all Felarya, Lea is the character that remain the most mis-used ^^;

Just for the record
I have tried to portray Lea as the pleasant lady I feel that she is.
She's not a monster either-just emotionally detacthed. With the way people have threated her I can't blame her.

(Katrika and I are Lea fans!)

Quote :

I hope I'm not getting out of line with this analysis....

I think that if Lea look at her from a "natural" standpoint, this is how the story of Lea grows when she exists in that environment.

You have a woman who, factually speaking, stands and watches while Crisis eats people of Lea's own kind.

People who know of her, will exaggerate her to the point where her reputation grows far beyond what she is. So every one of those stories with Lea in it, could in fact be explained as someone's exaggeration of her based on their hatred of her acts of standing around as her own kind are eaten.

Truthfully she could be more hated than Gunther because no one knows what Gunther is doing. (Of course when someone uncovers Gunther, *whew*...)

That's not the problem.

The problem is the fault of the writers, not the characters.

For some reason, despite the fact that the wiki clearly describes her as sweet and cheerful - but hardened on the inside - EVERYONE and their bloody dog insists on writing her as a stuck up bitch. So far only two people I've yet read have ever written Lea in a manner that actually gave me the impression with which the wiki describes her.

GREGOLE wrote:

That's not the problem.

The problem is the fault of the writers, not the characters.

For some reason, despite the fact that the wiki clearly describes her as sweet and cheerful - but hardened on the inside - EVERYONE and their bloody dog insists on writing her as a stuck up bitch. So far only two people I've yet read have ever written Lea in a manner that actually gave me the impression with which the wiki describes her.

Hopefully I'm one of the two. I try my best. You haven't seen much of Lea yet but you will. I can promise you that.

Okay, I think I'll try saying what Lea really is toward other humans. I don't think she'll be stuck up, a bitch, or anything. I just thing that she'll only be minding her own business. I think she might reply, but won't be aggressive or anything. I think she'll still be nice, but that's it. Even though she will talk to you politely, she'll only be minding her own business. You have to, just like Crisis, prove to Lea that you're not like any of the other zillion humans who died digested. I think her two categories would be the Nobody category, where you are just like any other typical prey for predators, and the Somebody category, where you are someone special and don't deserve to be eaten.

If I made some mistakes in all those statements, point them to me, so I can learn from them.

Quote :

Okay, I think I'll try saying what Lea really is toward other humans. I don't think she'll be stuck up, a bitch, or anything. I just thing that she'll only be minding her own business. I think she might reply, but won't be aggressive or anything. I think she'll still be nice, but that's it. Even though she will talk to you politely, she'll only be minding her own business. You have to, just like Crisis, prove to Lea that you're not like any of the other zillion humans who died digested. I think her two categories would be the Nobody category, where you are just like any other typical prey for predators, and the Somebody category, where you are someone special and don't deserve to be eaten.

If I made some mistakes in all those statements, point them to me, so I can learn from them.

That's more or less the impression I got from reading her bio.

I can't help but feel in the minority there, though. >>

Quote :

Hopefully I'm one of the two. I try my best. You haven't seen much of Lea yet but you will. I can promise you that.

Admittedly, I haven't read much of your stuff yet, so I can't judge.

dlausactor6373 wrote:

You know, everyone is proving a valid point here. For example, the Salem witch trials or the vampire scares of the 19th century. We fear vampires because they have a thirst for blood. However, we must also ask ourselves if our thirst for blood is satiated. How much blood has been shed throughout history because of fear? The truth is that Count Dracula was right to label us humans as monsters because, in a sense, we are.

Salem witch trials aren't the best excuse. If being a witch was a harmless thing, then yes, the murder would be cruel. In fact, the many deaths were cruel. However, it was done because the alternative (If they in fact WERE witches) would be much worse. The deaths were done because it was believed to be aiding society, not out of plain hate.

Vampires, meanwhile, work a little better. Often times the kills are only to survive. However, the same could then be used for hunting most animals (Provided the human was hungry at the time of the kill), murder in self-defense would always be legal, etc.

And there actually hasn't been THAT MUCH fear shed blood. Anger, yes. Revenge, most definitely, though fear will rarely (if ever) start a war.

What I meant was the paranoia associated with the Salem witch trials. Many innocent people were thought to be witches and were burned as a result. Sacrificing many innocent lives for the sake of fighting evil; isn't that humankind in a nutshell?

dlausactor6373 wrote:

GREGOLE wrote:

That's not the problem.

The problem is the fault of the writers, not the characters.

For some reason, despite the fact that the wiki clearly describes her as sweet and cheerful - but hardened on the inside - EVERYONE and their bloody dog insists on writing her as a stuck up bitch. So far only two people I've yet read have ever written Lea in a manner that actually gave me the impression with which the wiki describes her.

Hopefully I'm one of the two. I try my best. You haven't seen much of Lea yet but you will. I can promise you that.

But my point is, if she existed in real life, that is how people would distort her.

People who know Lea, would hate her. Just for the fact that she stands there while others of her kind get eaten. They would make up all kinds of twisted stuff about her. It isn't politically correct to say that on here but if someone like that existed, tales of her would be told, and in a highly distorted way. I can show you countless examples of how this has been done, including a few examples of people who stood around watching while "others of their kind" got killed/eaten/etc.

I like Lea.

She seems a nice young lady to me who has been treated VERY badly by people. I can understand why she keeps herself emotionally distant from the people Crisis eats. I don't think Lea is unfriendly-I just believe she thinks you aren't going to be around long enough to be worth knowing. Not once Crisis sees you anyway!

Katrika-"I find Lea to be very nice! She's my very first human friend and fun to be with! She's a good friend to Anna and Subeta too!"

*coils protectively around a very surprised Lea*

My first post in this Forum! Hi@all and thanks to Karbo for drawing all this wonderful pictures!

But I'm posting for a good reason besides saying "hello", because I think I have found a solution for the Baby-Eating-Problematic with Crisis. Beware; I need to explain my thoughts in greater detail so it's gonna be a bit long. -> ->

----------

At first: From all I know, I seriously doubt that Crisis is just a snake that happens to have boobs. I see her as an individual being with own emotions, thoughts and ideals.


Now, what could happen, when Crisis suddenly comes across a baby? (I let the mother out of the calculation for now)

Possibility 1. She could just put it into her mouth without a second thought as soon as she's seeing the baby, especially when she's hungry. This may be tragic, but it wouldn't make her contemptible or evil, because such a behavior would just be an affect and, as such, has nothing to do with morality. She's just like that and you simply can't blame her for being a giant human-eating naga. It's just unlucky for the child.

Possibility 2. As soon as she interacts with the baby in any way imaginable, even when she just looks at it for a few seconds, I'm pretty sure some "mother instinct" would come up. With "mother instinct", I am referring to this habit of females, you definitely know about. As soon as something small and cute pops up, it's like "Awww, this is so cute! Can I hold it for a moment?". The interesting thing about the "mother instinct" is, that it works in relative independence to the race the baby belongs to. Therefore baby-koala bear, elephant or ice bear can release the same feelings as a human baby (but, of course, not in the same intensity). Hell, there are even dogs raising baby-cats that got abandoned by their mothers.
However, if this alone isn't enough to put the baby into Crisis' people-category (who would kill, what one wants to care for?), it should at least be enough distraction for Crisis to prevent the baby from getting eaten, until the baby gets in the people-category.

So, the final question is: Has Crisis got such a "mother instinct"?
Of course, only Karbo can give us the answer. But judging from Crisis past und her "anatomy", I would highly doubt she hasn't any. Come on, she was raised by elves, how could this happen, if not through the compassion some elves felt, when they saved the poor little Crisis? I assume it wasn't just a sick plan to make Crisis their personal rottweiler. However, I don't feel, the elves would teach Crisis to have no mercy with some random babies.

----------

That’s it. I hope I did not go to far trying to characterize Crisis, because it's easy to get lost if you are thinking too much around the same theme. (Well, just shows how long I thought about Crisis and co. and proves how great this little universe of Felarya is) As I didn't read every single story, I just tried to get to a logic conclusion from Karbos pictures. Feel free to correct me!

Thanks for reading!

undersde wrote:

Welcome to the forum.

undersde wrote:

At first: From all I know, I seriously doubt that Crisis is just a snake that happens to have boobs. I see her as an individual being with own emotions, thoughts and ideals.

Kill it, it has an opinion!

undersde wrote:

Thanks for reading!

Nice read, and odds are if she found a lone baby she WOULD be nice to it. At the very least, not eating it (It'd be roughly the same as a human seeing a peanut on the ground, going "I'm Hungry", and eating it) would be pretty likely.

Question is if she would raise it, pass it on to Lea and ask her what to do, hand it off to some random mooks, etc.

undersde wrote:

[b]So, the final question is: Has Crisis got such a "mother instinct"?
Of course, only Karbo can give us the answer. But judging from Crisis past und her "anatomy", I would highly doubt she hasn't any. Come on, she was raised by elves, how could this happen, if not through the compassion some elves felt, when they saved the poor little Crisis? I assume it wasn't just a sick plan to make Crisis their personal rottweiler. However, I don't feel, the elves would teach Crisis to have no mercy with some random babies.


Thanks for reading!

Actually she was raised by fairies ^^ and intresting theory, maybe.

I actually has a filler in mind featuring how much Crisis has mother instincts. It features my baby dridder Misty.

Whoa, already found one to read my text.

Malahite wrote:

undersde wrote:

At first: From all I know, I seriously doubt that Crisis is just a snake that happens to have boobs. I see her as an individual being with own emotions, thoughts and ideals.

Kill it, it has an opinion!

Okay... *BANG*

Quote :

Question is if she would raise it, pass it on to Lea and ask her what to do, hand it off to some random mooks, etc.

Well, it would be interesting to know, but I tried to concentrate on the eating helpless babies thing and the cruelty.

The reason, why this question bothers me so much is just; some stories tend to force characters to be, like the writer wants them to be. As a joke, this can be great, of course (Felarya - Scary Movie Style), but not in the background of "I shit on you feelings, I'm doing what I want" (Felarya - Uwe Boll Style).

And to be honest, I don't like thinking of Crisis being the Paris Hilton of Vore. She deserves better.

I tend to sound more serious than I actualy am, but that’s how I feel. Oh, and I am not referring to anybody who posted in this thread, so no need to feel offended!

Again, thanks for reading!

Since nagas raise their young, it goes without saying that they have maternal instincts. If that's true, and Crisis came across a baby without a tasty mother to distract her with the prospect of food, it stands to reason that she at least might consider not eating it.

However, baby-eating is something that was clearly not intended to be a focal point for Crisis' character, and if you want my honest opinion, after not one but four instances of her eating babies/children in the novel, I kinda not only felt that it was being rubbed into my face, but gave me a real animosity towards the character that took forever to wear off. It felt like it was TRYING to make the reader dislike Crisis, with no real purpose in mind save to taunt me.
I wouldn't advise writing that sort of thing.

I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up, but expecting non-humans to have human moral values is one of the things that makes us human to begin with. So when it comes right down to it, if someone would expect Crisis to share human moral values, one would assume Crisis to be "human in nature". We know this as not true so to continue to dwell on it will only distract you from your own personal safety, if you know what I mean.

GREGOLE wrote:

Since nagas raise their young, it goes without saying that they have maternal instincts. If that's true, and Crisis came across a baby without a tasty mother to distract her with the prospect of food, it stands to reason that she at least might consider not eating it.

However, baby-eating is something that was clearly not intended to be a focal point for Crisis' character, and if you want my honest opinion, after not one but four instances of her eating babies/children in that one story, I kinda not only felt that it was being rubbed into my face, but gave me a real animosity towards the character that took forever to wear off. It felt like it was TRYING to make the reader dislike Crisis, with no real purpose in mind save to taunt me.
I wouldn't advise writing that sort of thing.

I've studied this and other threads backwards and forwards, and I just had a '42' moment...

<heresy>Maybe it's better to let Karbo's characters (ESPECIALLY his top main characters) be written about by Karbo alone?</heresy>

Regardless of my feelings about Lea, it's clear beyond any reasonable doubt that her character is constantly distorted by writers, and by what you have said, Crisis also gets gratuitously distorted. I sincerely doubt Karbo would have envisioned Crisis or Lea or other main characters being portrayed like this.

I really am not sure how anyone but Karbo can write Crisis or Lea, especially those two... given all this controversy maybe he should be the one to decide? Just a thought.

Raveolution wrote:

<heresy>Maybe it's better to let Karbo's characters (ESPECIALLY his top main characters) be written about by Karbo alone?</heresy>

Treason! Thinking the unthinkable! Speaking the unspeakable! Villain!

Raveolution wrote:

Regardless of my feelings about Lea, it's clear beyond any reasonable doubt that her character is constantly distorted by writers, and by what you have said, Crisis also gets gratuitously distorted. I sincerely doubt Karbo would have envisioned Crisis or Lea or other main characters being portrayed like this.

I really am not sure how anyone but Karbo can write Crisis or Lea, especially those two... given all this controversy maybe he should be the one to decide? Just a thought.

Here's how I see it.
There are two general ways to write a story/create a universe. The first way is the standard single-creator way, where the creator has to create everything themselves, but they have total control. The second way is the many-creators way, where many people work together (in some way) to create a story that is a composite of all their ideas. This lessens the amount of creative work each creator needs to do, at the cost of less control for any particular creator over the overall story.

Karbo has setup a basis for a universe and let others write stories in it, fleshing out parts of the universe he didn't explicitly write about. This is clearly a "many-creators way" of writing a story, and of course one of the problems is that people have different ideas about how parts of the universe works, how the characters should act, and so on. Other groups have had this problem before, and so if we just use their system it ought to "fix" our problem as well. The system is like this: the creator of a character defines how that character acts, and their writings are "canon" in regards to that character. Anyone else who writes about that character generates "pseudo-canon" in regards to that character. Generally "pseudo-canon" is accepted unless it contradicts "canon" or seems to go against the "feel" of the character, and may become invalid in the future if the original author writes something "canon" that contradicts it. Typically, if there is a single creator of the entire setting/universe, their writings about the universe are generally "super-canon", superceding even "canon" in the rare cases that a change to the universe causes a "canon" character to become invalid.

In our specific case, Crisis is Karbo's character, so anything he writes/draws about her is "canon". Anything I write about my character "Strawman" (made up on the spot ) is "canon". If I were to write that Crisis doesn't use shampoo, then that would be "pseudo-canon" because it doesn't conflict with "canon" (I don't think Karbo has ever written anything about Crisis's showering habits) and it also doesn't conflict with the "feel" of the character (she's a naga living in the wilds, where is she going to get shampoo, much less find a shower to use it in?).

On the other hand, were I to write that Crisis doesn't eat people, or bathes in the blood of the innocent, then that would not be acceptable "pseudo-canon" as the first conflicts with "canon" and the second conflicts with the general "feel" of the character. Were I to write that Strawman can't be touched and always wins any fight, that would be invalid "canon" because it goes against the "feel" of the Felaryan universe (which is that nobody save the Guardians is anything close to unbeatable). Were I to write that Strawman can walk freely among the fairies because fairies don't like the taste of straw, that *might* be acceptable "canon" (it tends to go against the "feel" of the world though). Were the "super-canon" to be later changed so that Fairies like the taste of straw, then Strawman's "canon" would become invalid and I would have to make retroactive changes (retcon), such as making him out of moldy straw.

Oldman40k2003 wrote:

Raveolution wrote:

<heresy>Maybe it's better to let Karbo's characters (ESPECIALLY his top main characters) be written about by Karbo alone?</heresy>

Treason! Thinking the unthinkable! Speaking the unspeakable! Villain!


(snip rest)

Indeed, your idea of what it is to be canon, non-canon, pseudo-canon and retconning, matches how I see things. The hairs that need splitting are too small to bother with.

I just happened to come to believe that maybe what was written about Lea and Crisis were too distorted, and fell into unacceptable attempts at pseudo-canon, by right of being contradictory. I can concede that the line is quite blurred at that point, but I got the feeling that the line of non-acceptable pseudo-canon was crossed when Karbo found himself saying things like

"Oh ok.. Yes you are right, I believe of all Felarya, Lea is the character that remain the most mis-used ^^;"

and I got the feeling that when he implies many people mis-use that character, then that's when I write what I wrote above.

I think it is okay to write a story of how a certain character mis-tells the tale of Lea to make her look distorted, because that is what people would do, but as a writer, if Karbo said I'm mis-using one of his characters, I would delete the story and change it until he says she is not being mis-used.

But that's just my opinion.

I prefer to respect the artist's vision, even if, I will admit, I would be off the green light like a Bugatti Veyron 16.4 if Karbo ever said "name brand Preds can die in alternative story lines".