We didn't need entertainment to be violent back then.

It's more prevalent now because of our mentality.

The violence in Fred Savage or any comic like my commissioned "First Mission" and Eggplantman's Zodiac can do both enhance and desensitize depending on our thinking and what we value.

I mean graphic violence that is.

You mean the upcoming massacre of a busload of civilians that's coming up in the comic? I dunno, I can see why you'd want to depict that; it's an authentic representation of the horrific ethnic strife that forms a part of African culture even today. Just look at the Rwandan Genocides or the Sierra Leon Civil War, for example. It's not glorifying violence or depicting violence for its own sake. All it is is a reminder that life in Africa sucks ass and probably isn't that far removed from the brutal depiction of the street fighting between the Army and rebel forces that we've seen earlier. Plus I have every expectation that you'll treat this subject with the respect and austere truthfulness that the topic deserves.

At the same time, however, I can also see why you'd find such a depiction difficult to draw, and this is probably a good thing. I'd be more worried if you weren't bothered by drawing the slaughter of innocents. God knows I'd find the subject difficult as well. However perhaps that's the point in showing these things; we need to be reminded of it and how wrong it is. We can't hide our heads under the sand and pretend it doesn't happen. And the fact is, stuff like that did and does happen, and not just in Africa. Imagine, for example, if Schindler's List censored scenes depicting Nazi atrocities against the Jews and other minorities in Germany, or if Amistad censored scenes depicting how slaves were treated by slavers during the early 19th c. Wouldn't this in some way belittle what happened and encourage us to think that, maybe, things weren't as bad as they said it was?

Certainly I can see that in other ways we depict violence in cinema today. It tends to be bloodless and painless -- a man is shot, he falls down and that's the end of it. Or he gets shot in the arm, winces and can still run around and do action-y stuff as always. That doesn't happen. Getting shot is a bloody, painful and messy affair. If you get shot in the arm then you're going down, largely because you'll go into shock and start bleeding out if a major artery is ruptured. Compare Arnold Schwarzenegger action films with Saving Private Ryan, or the Lord of the Rings with A Game of Thrones. The former encourages us to think that violence isn't all that bad, maybe even glamorous or good, while the latter reminds us that violence is far from clean and should not be celebrated. This, I think, should be the Crux of the issue.

TL;DR:

Violence for the sake of glamour or entertainment desensitises us to it and be held questionable. Violence for the sake of education or reminders of reality are more praiseworthy and should not be censored.

It may not be more apparent yet, but I hope to make a depiction of African conflict in general that brings better comprehension to what caused, and what continues to cause them. We too often look at conflicts abroad as random, unintelligible, inscrutable symptoms of alien cultures obsessed with violence when in reality the people involved have powerful personal motivations that should be considered.

Of course, to do that I suppose I've got to keep drawing! I just got back from a trip, so I suppose it's back to the pencil for me.

"the pornography of violence"

im going to have nightmares...

How so?

1. You are creating a coimic series witha mercenary as a main character. Violence is boiund to come up.
2. Mercenary's are usually work for someone interested in a war zone.
3. Most of todays war zones are bad places
4. At least those were major countries don't have an interest in
5. I can't see Fred workin in a country were countrie's like the USA, GUS, Great Britain, France or the UN have troops

Which brings me to the conclusion, that violence, even ultraviolence is bound to come up now and then. It would be unrealistic if it never came up, even if it was just the local news as background.

My two cents.

This is what I can honestly say I love about the comic-- it's fans! I didn't embark upon this comic to simply satisfy a bloodlust, but rather to do something a little more complex or provocative, and I have to say I'm delighted to see so many readers looking at the comic in such a way. I don't know if I've done much to change anyone's philosophies or expectations of furry literature or anything lofty like that, but it's good to have the support of people who seem to get what I'm trying to do here.

I thank you!

My pleasure.

I think you are right to do what you are doing. You are showing a face of the planet that a lot in the first world just want to pretend doesn't happen. What is sad to me however is the fact that most in the first world will likely see that as an "other". What I mean by that is, they don't relate because of how different that world is. I feel the same when there is a live action movie about violence in Africa; I feel as if people are able to shrug it off with the fact that its "Africa" as if its an alien planet, and they are less uncomfortable because of it; whereas if that same movie massacre that took place in Africa, took place instead in a known American city, and women and children were killed, then suddenly they relate. I am largely speculating, I know; I am mostly basing this on how Hollywood portrays "others", and also I think about the way people particularly in the US belittle the genocide that took place on this continent by the hands of their beloved "country", again making Indian people to be "others". I wish however that people of the first world were more able to put themselves in someone else's shoes; like those in the comic you are drawing.

I hope my comment made sense; I am not always the best at expressing myself.

I think that people don't normally dismiss genocides in foreign countries because of racial or even ethnic stereotyping. I think they dismiss them because they do not understand why it's happening, they see the violence as completely random, as a symptom of a deeply flawed and fundamentally alien kind of society. I hope that, at least in the coming pages, I can turn that common misconception on its head. It still doesn't change the fact that the violence is completely unnecessary, however.

It depends on context and what you're trying to do with the story.

I don't know if you ever heard about the deleted "spider attack" scene from the original King Kong. When they screened the movie in front of a test audience, there was a scene where King Kong shakes some sailors off a log into a canyon, where giant spiders come out and eat them. The scene was so horrific people either walked out of the movie, or were so grossed out that's all they talked about for the rest of the screening. The director himself went in and took the scene out the next day because it stopped the movie dead in it's tracks. As an unrelated note, that lost spider attack scene is one of the most sought-after vanished film clips ever. To date no one has found it, and it may not still exist.

So-- if you're doing a horror torture snuff comic, then make it as bad as you want.

If you're doing a comic to shock people and raise political awareness of this issue, make it graphic so people will remember it.

If you're doing this mainly for enertainment purposes, cut down on the graphicness or people will be so grossed out or turned off they'll have no interest in looking at the rest of it, or won't remember anything else except that scene. There's plenty of ways to show the forthcoming bus massacre without lingering on the gore (if you want some suggestions, feel free to note me.)

Hmm... I have some ideas on how to soften the following scenes without really sanitizing them. As with the first issue, I could have chosen to depict the slaying of a child in a much more grotesque way, but in the end I opted for a more symbolic, character-driven approach partly because of my own misgivings but mostly because that's how I see good storytellers approaching such sensitive material.

Seems like the less that we're exposed to either one of those that were most likely to play out our own fantasies. Maybe there shouldn't be so much censor or negative views on looking at those things. It might desensitize us on a whole, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we'll be more prone to actually acting on those fantasies.

I only hope that it makes us less prone to acting on those fantasies... but there's about as much proof of that as the opposite.

In the western democracies we live in some of the least violent societies that have ever existed; I don't think violent entertainment is even in the top 10 for things that are giving us problems.

I can understand your squeamishness though. After the last page, I'm dreading what's to come. I don't feel desensitized at all.

It's true. It's also proof that as much as we verbally condemn it, humans as a species are drawn toward conflict. Maybe not violence especially, but conflict in general. Even if a conflict is very far away and unlikely to affect us, we are still often drawn to it-- the conflict rubs off on us.

Your journal is bringing up enough topics to write a half dozen academic papers.

I was thinking about this issue as well, especially after the shooting in Aurora. I'm not a stranger, nor am squeamish of, violence in fiction. Lately though my perspective has shifted, mainly along the lines of what you mentioned; what role does violence play in the story, is it justifiable, and at what level? Desensitization is a serious problem, if for no other reason than the fact that it scares away readers, and in my case, started scaring me, the writer! It can become a drain on the soul, and this is no different than the "mean world" effect, which is brought on by constant media exposure. Constantly seeing extreme violence, nihilism, and cruelty, can easily create a pessimistic world view, even if violence is only actually a tiny, tiny part of human behavior even in the worst of times. In a nutshell, it is easy to over exaggerate violence, while attempting to be "realistic", or showing "action" that will turn heads (Gears of War is a stupendous example). In the case your story, I think you've kept a good balance between realism (violence), idealism (Savage's crippled, but still present humanity) and aesthetic taste (not making the violence excessive, and including less than subtle contrasts on some of the pages, like the one page that had the kids playing in the street). I can go on with my observations, but I will just close by saying that I think Tolgron said it best.

I like that you brought up Fred's humanity, and the fact that it's kind of under siege. At the advent of creating his character and the comic, such a concept was kind of radical, even heretical. I believed that, despite the vocal minority, furry fans do not invest their money on comics and stories to defy humanity. They invest their attention, trust, and money because of the humanity of the characters. Anatomical differences aside, we want to see some of ourselves and our own ambivalence in fictional characters.

My answer in context with the Fred Savage Comic and its plotline is this:

Fred is indeed a mercenary; death for material gain is a rather interesting topic of discussion seeing as most people will say they will not do it but put under the right circumstances they might. The fact of the matter is; on one knows whether or not they're capable of such a act for their own gains becuase most have never been put in such situations or under such circumstances. It is a topic that is hard to find answers for because most do not know the experience of such a way of life. But I might have gotten off topic.

Back to Fred; violence is a common aspect of his life that is going to follow him wherever he goes. That being said, mercenaries aren't always emotionless; as you've already injected into the story, and can suffer from past experiences. A human is a human; therefore emotional issues are always present even in the employmeny of proffessional killers. Violence is the extremest form of emotion that humans are capable of. I'm not saying that we feel violence; but violence is an emotional outlet; it allows us to justify to do what we want when we want it and for whatever reasons that we see are fit for the moment.

In the case of Fred Savage: he kills in the first issue to end a life but makes a turn around in the end and by the second issue is killing for the survival of life. The whole sotry revolves around the cat and mouse chase of survival vs. death. The backstory to the African country in question hasn't been fully disclosed but from what I can gather there is a ruling tribe that is a minority and a majority that is being exploited and terrorized by those that are ruling. This is; i believe, where this whole topic began emminating though I'm sure the comic itself is a topic starter on its own.

Violence based upon tribal differences is indeed a problem in Africa no matter what time frame you look at it. However, the past one hundred years have indeed made the violence seem to rather dramatically increase. Rawanda, Seirra Leone; these are places that violence is divided upon simply tribal divides and the violence is quite horrific to say the least. However, this violence is based upon hatred, not simply violence for violent sake.

Colonial powers like the British Empire, Portugal, Belgium, and the more modern colonial superpowers that were the USA and USSR made such hatred reach new levels when they elevated those that were firendly to their home governments, normally tribal minorities; at the almost complete exclusion of the tribal majorities of the region.

From what I can gather; you've indeed inserted this divide and... well I'll just say that I can see where it is going and what will happen. You could of course change that but I trust it shall follow along a rather displeasing path for those that do not enjoy violence. I see it as not only a neccassary evil for this story; but a vital component of the story to make further awareness of the darkest portions of violence are as seen over the course of history.

As mentioned earlier: Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Amistad, Game of Thrones; these are films depicting violence artistically but indeed in a realistic manner. They are making awareness of the excess of violence both on and off the battlefield. Violence is hardly as cut and dry as much the hollywood of pre-Veitnam made it out to be (excluding films such as All Quiet on the Western Front, The Steel Helmet, and all those critical of war however they still weren't as graphic as later films would be). It is messy, it is painful, it is all around bad for everyone involved, and it extends beyond the boundaries of the battlefield.

Mercenaries are indeed thrown into battlezones but that does not mean that they're necassarily fighting for and getting said violent experience out of personal pleasure.

As you put in your first issue; Fred turns down the assassination contract of the four colonels because it will spurn more violence and in essence solve nothing. That is the perk of being in business for yourself as a hired gun. For every mercenary that is inside a warzone there must be; since I myself do not know, several which would shy away from such an opportunity out in front of them.
Getting back to the mercenaries in conflict zones; mercenaries may be proffessional killers but theirs is a profession based on material gain and personal beliefs based on race, religion, society, politics, allegiances, these aren't necassarily apart of the mercenaries thought process; material gain and self survival is all that matters. Along that line of thought; mercenaries therefore do not kill along said spectrum of personal beliefs. Therefore, atrocities made in war zones are made by those that aren't working for another pay check but by those that hate along the asforementioned beliefs.

I don't know what else to say beyond: Violence is one of the core extremes of emotion that a person is capable of experiencing. It is apart of us no matter whether we like it or not. It cannot be controlled at times and indeed is rather excessive when in conjunction with hate. All we can do is make sure there is an awareness of the terrors of violence without glorifying it.

What differentiates Fred Savage from films like Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and Amistad is that it isn't actually depicting a true-to-history telling of events from a real place. True, I incorporated a pastiche of real events and combined them to create the situation in Nouveau Cotentan, but the fictional nature of the setting does make violence and gore seem more exhibitionistic rather than historically accurate. Still, as A Game of Thrones does prove in a way, a realistic depiction of violence even in a fictional setting isn't just a kind of blood sport-- it can pull a fictional setting closer to reality and make it seem more intimate.

I suppose a part of the second issue is also to display the fact that African conflicts are much more microscopic than people give them credit for, and that they are far less random than they appear to outside perspectives. While never directly implied in the comic, I personally think that the "Pan-Africanism" that people engage in, that is to say, examining Africa more as a nation-state and less like a complex continent filled with different nations and geopolitical nuances, is inherently flawed. More relevant to the topic is that post-colonialism, tribalism, distribution of resources, isolation, education, and so on all affect conflicts in Africa, and that many nations face daunting and disadvantageous odds when trying to build a stable state.