FA+
Shop
How to thumbnail?
Posted 5 months agoDoes anyone have experience with supplying custom thumbnails to FA?
I recently uploaded a piece that is intended to have a custom thumbnail, but FA refuses to process it, instead applying the standard thumbnail. Specifically, I am allowed to upload the file in the thumbnail slot but nothing happens, the site just applies the standard thumbnail from source file.
And for this case, I cannot allow that (if given a choice), that thumbnail is intentional to the piece.
I recently uploaded a piece that is intended to have a custom thumbnail, but FA refuses to process it, instead applying the standard thumbnail. Specifically, I am allowed to upload the file in the thumbnail slot but nothing happens, the site just applies the standard thumbnail from source file.
And for this case, I cannot allow that (if given a choice), that thumbnail is intentional to the piece.
So many ideas . . .
Posted 7 months agoYou'd think taking a week off would provide a great opportunity to actually draw more art, right?
...but that week is over now.
Welp, if it's any consolation I did come up with an idea after watching a certain movie...
There are certain stories (and also myths) where a dragon's hoard is enchanted/cursed, or otherwise capable of transforming a greedy person into a dragon (e.g. Fafnir) when they try to claim it, right?
But what if this was the actual reproductive strategy for that type of dragon? That pile of treasure may look like gold coins (and/or actually be gold coins), but the dragon's possession of it has imbued them with one sole function: to transform people into more dragons (at least, if the right conditions are met).
I already have my own idea along this line (I wrote it down at the time, to reference later), but if this sounds like a fun idea for you guys/anyone else to chase, go right ahead.
Let me know if you do something with it!
...but that week is over now.
Welp, if it's any consolation I did come up with an idea after watching a certain movie...
There are certain stories (and also myths) where a dragon's hoard is enchanted/cursed, or otherwise capable of transforming a greedy person into a dragon (e.g. Fafnir) when they try to claim it, right?
But what if this was the actual reproductive strategy for that type of dragon? That pile of treasure may look like gold coins (and/or actually be gold coins), but the dragon's possession of it has imbued them with one sole function: to transform people into more dragons (at least, if the right conditions are met).
I already have my own idea along this line (I wrote it down at the time, to reference later), but if this sounds like a fun idea for you guys/anyone else to chase, go right ahead.
Let me know if you do something with it!
Tag blocking? TAG blocking!?
Posted 10 months agoThe long-requested feature is finally here?
So of course, I immediately added "YCH" to this list.
Now I will no longer see 2.2 million YCH reminders on the Browse page.
( . . . I am not making that number up . . . )
So of course, I immediately added "YCH" to this list.
Now I will no longer see 2.2 million YCH reminders on the Browse page.
( . . . I am not making that number up . . . )
First impressions from an "odd" conversation (and a PSA.....
Posted a year agoAmong the things distracting me last week was an artist who messaged me over on dA with a question.
They were asking if it was okay to use/reference a few pieces from my gallery for a work they're doing -- a question SO far out of left field I was more confused why they were even asking than anything else. Because unless they are creating a direct study ("copy") of a specific piece, using references is free, right?
Maybe you've heard this story before?
If not, the short version is that it's called the "muse scam". Ostensible artist claims they are creating a large painting for a client, want to use a few of your pieces as reference, and are willing to credit you for it. Which (were it legit) might not be much different conceptually from when, say, Weird Al asks permission to produce a parody song based on an artist (requiring no involvement from the artist beyond simple authorization) -- but the hangup to the story is that for whatever reason their client is unable to pay them directly, and needs someone else to act as a middleman.
It was a few days of noncommittal responses before that last detail came up, but that's what finally tripped my potential-red-flag sensor ... and it only took one brief Internet search to confirm the problem.
Subsequently, I researched the handful of images they attached to one message (as "proof" of their "work") which Google traced to sites like dA, Instagram, and Tiktok. From someone who simultaneously claimed that they didn't keep an online gallery (for phobia of art thieves). Yeah, that's another red flag that I missed the first time around -- but at least I caught it the second time!
I might have mentioned more details than necessary (the ideal amount being, of course, zero) but neither did I give them any "need-to-know" / exploitable information (like a personal phone number). My last reply (as of last night) only pointed out how unusual it sounds if their client cannot just pay them directly. If this made them suspect I was starting to "crack the code" ... well, they're not wrong....
If there's a take-home lesson to all this, I guess it is: you never really know whether or not you'll identify a scam until/unless someone ACTUALLY attempts to push one on you.
They were asking if it was okay to use/reference a few pieces from my gallery for a work they're doing -- a question SO far out of left field I was more confused why they were even asking than anything else. Because unless they are creating a direct study ("copy") of a specific piece, using references is free, right?
Maybe you've heard this story before?
If not, the short version is that it's called the "muse scam". Ostensible artist claims they are creating a large painting for a client, want to use a few of your pieces as reference, and are willing to credit you for it. Which (were it legit) might not be much different conceptually from when, say, Weird Al asks permission to produce a parody song based on an artist (requiring no involvement from the artist beyond simple authorization) -- but the hangup to the story is that for whatever reason their client is unable to pay them directly, and needs someone else to act as a middleman.
It was a few days of noncommittal responses before that last detail came up, but that's what finally tripped my potential-red-flag sensor ... and it only took one brief Internet search to confirm the problem.
Subsequently, I researched the handful of images they attached to one message (as "proof" of their "work") which Google traced to sites like dA, Instagram, and Tiktok. From someone who simultaneously claimed that they didn't keep an online gallery (for phobia of art thieves). Yeah, that's another red flag that I missed the first time around -- but at least I caught it the second time!
I might have mentioned more details than necessary (the ideal amount being, of course, zero) but neither did I give them any "need-to-know" / exploitable information (like a personal phone number). My last reply (as of last night) only pointed out how unusual it sounds if their client cannot just pay them directly. If this made them suspect I was starting to "crack the code" ... well, they're not wrong....
If there's a take-home lesson to all this, I guess it is: you never really know whether or not you'll identify a scam until/unless someone ACTUALLY attempts to push one on you.
Random thoughts about "AI art"
Posted a year agoSemi-recently I had a chance to experiment with a few of those modern AI image generators, so it's high time I collect some of my thoughts on the matter.
Several conflicting thoughts on the matter, that is. They're also open to discussion and change as the topic, discourse, and overall culture/reputation evolves.
So on one hand, it's actually fascinating to see these generators work, having reached a point where they legitimately "work as advertised". Did you know that these generators can draw protogens? Various Pokemon or Digimon by name? You can literally prompt something like "sergal taur" and it will draw a -taur shape with sergal features, proving that it has "knows" what the "-taur" suffix generally implies.
On another, it is (and SHOULD BE) uncanny that these trained AI models can simulate the results of real artists, and do so in only a fraction of the same time. And there is a legitimate, worthwhile argument that because of the (ironically) timeless mindset of "time is money", commercial corporate culture will always gravitate toward the cheaper options, accepting their shortcomings as just a number cited in their budget spreadsheet, for a greater savings on the ultimate non-refundable resource: time itself.
And it must be said: there is a certain, real risk of "addiction" to the sheer convenience of these image generators. Why spend hours-to-weeks composing and producing a single piece when you can submit a like description to an AI and get a resulting image in minutes to seconds?
...Because when you make art yourself, you're in full control of your artistic process? Because it's not the end result, but the process itself that's worth your time? Because art gives back only what you actually put in?
Yeah, about that.
Despite their capabilities, current image generators still have easy-to-spot limitations, and will tend to commit errors that a human artist would be certain to get right on their first attempt. People meme about AI generators horribly misunderstanding how hands and fingers work -- yes, hands and fingers are legitimately complicated parts of the body that even human artists struggle to get right. But this is actually a subset of a broader flaw of the generator handling fine details generally (including an inability to count, which is part of why it struggles with fingers), and it also (especially!) applies to generating text. An image generator can get individual letters and glyphs right, but stringing them together to form coherent words has ZERO room for error and certain models just don't have this capability yet.
Because AIs trained from tagged images taken from across the Internet, the AI is not so much trained to understand what something "is" (on a compositional or structural level), so much as it's trained on what something "looks like" (as an end result). The AI gravitates towards certain compositions (portrait, 3/4's view, etc) not unlike a human artist does, and trying to specify an unusual composition in detail increases the likelihood that there will be certain elements the AI just can't effectively model, can't "understand", or which it seems to ignore entirely (compared to other elements in the same prompt). Every AI model is a combination of several parts, and a limitation in one element (like its text interpreter) will persist across the algorithm as a whole.
And, honestly, trying to battle/workaround these limitations is a timesink unto itself -- I could (and have!) spent literal hours experimenting with a single prompt, tweaking and iterating and refining it over and over again to minimize whatever mistakes the AI might make along the way, evaluate what compositions it picks, and even grow quite frustrated with the AI's ability to get 95% of the way there but not close out that last 5%. When in the same hours, I could have sketched, refined, inked and colored a 5x8" pencil sketch, even scanned, prepped, and uploaded!
In some ways, AI image generators are not too different conceptually from those old Flash character-creators/editors we had back in the 2000s -- remember them? I tried a few in the day, and maybe you did too. So if they're not that different fundamentally, then the remaining difference must be the sheer scale/scope of what these image generators are capable of, right? And that they may be reaching a certain tipping point or "critical mass", some trifecta of power, convenience, and accessibility that enables them to provide some real competition to real artists.
If somebody says that the AI training process (which involves analyzing images across the Internet, including both amateur and professional art, and a point of serious contention from said artists) isn't too different conceptually from a human artist studying and learning from material, well ... they're not wrong. To this day science still can't identify exactly how biological neurons physically encode knowledge and techniques in the brain, but we all (quite literally sub-consciously) enjoy the fact that "it just works". But AIs are still just a simulation with some useful correlations, even if its underlying design is wrong (much like the difference between polygonal 3D rendering, which can be calculated and displayed in real time, and 3D ray-tracing, which accurately simulates the underlying physics of light but is far more work-intensive for the same result).
But again, if the above is not too different from a real human artist, then by definition the remaining difference must be the sheer speed at which an AI models ("learns") its training data. New tools have always created an ability to do the same work faster (if not better) than a person doing it by hand, and "time is money". And for creative endeavors like art, maybe this difference in speed really IS what matters. We value human-made art because of the process and time that was spent to develop that end result; "AI art" is valued for its end result in spite of whatever process and time was spent on generating it.
On which note, remember that AI image generators are also actually a super expensive piece of kit computationally (comparable to the aforementioned 3D raytracing), and this is why most places running a generator cost some kind of a subscription fee to use it (or place other limitations, like a max # of prompts). In which regard the Stable Diffusion model is actually much more efficient than DALL-E or Midjourney, but it's still one expensive piece of work that you're unlikely to be capable of running on consumer-grade hardware.
This is not a conclusion to the topic, but it's all I have on my mind for now. I may return to update this journal with more thoughts later.
Several conflicting thoughts on the matter, that is. They're also open to discussion and change as the topic, discourse, and overall culture/reputation evolves.
So on one hand, it's actually fascinating to see these generators work, having reached a point where they legitimately "work as advertised". Did you know that these generators can draw protogens? Various Pokemon or Digimon by name? You can literally prompt something like "sergal taur" and it will draw a -taur shape with sergal features, proving that it has "knows" what the "-taur" suffix generally implies.
On another, it is (and SHOULD BE) uncanny that these trained AI models can simulate the results of real artists, and do so in only a fraction of the same time. And there is a legitimate, worthwhile argument that because of the (ironically) timeless mindset of "time is money", commercial corporate culture will always gravitate toward the cheaper options, accepting their shortcomings as just a number cited in their budget spreadsheet, for a greater savings on the ultimate non-refundable resource: time itself.
And it must be said: there is a certain, real risk of "addiction" to the sheer convenience of these image generators. Why spend hours-to-weeks composing and producing a single piece when you can submit a like description to an AI and get a resulting image in minutes to seconds?
...Because when you make art yourself, you're in full control of your artistic process? Because it's not the end result, but the process itself that's worth your time? Because art gives back only what you actually put in?
Yeah, about that.
Despite their capabilities, current image generators still have easy-to-spot limitations, and will tend to commit errors that a human artist would be certain to get right on their first attempt. People meme about AI generators horribly misunderstanding how hands and fingers work -- yes, hands and fingers are legitimately complicated parts of the body that even human artists struggle to get right. But this is actually a subset of a broader flaw of the generator handling fine details generally (including an inability to count, which is part of why it struggles with fingers), and it also (especially!) applies to generating text. An image generator can get individual letters and glyphs right, but stringing them together to form coherent words has ZERO room for error and certain models just don't have this capability yet.
Because AIs trained from tagged images taken from across the Internet, the AI is not so much trained to understand what something "is" (on a compositional or structural level), so much as it's trained on what something "looks like" (as an end result). The AI gravitates towards certain compositions (portrait, 3/4's view, etc) not unlike a human artist does, and trying to specify an unusual composition in detail increases the likelihood that there will be certain elements the AI just can't effectively model, can't "understand", or which it seems to ignore entirely (compared to other elements in the same prompt). Every AI model is a combination of several parts, and a limitation in one element (like its text interpreter) will persist across the algorithm as a whole.
And, honestly, trying to battle/workaround these limitations is a timesink unto itself -- I could (and have!) spent literal hours experimenting with a single prompt, tweaking and iterating and refining it over and over again to minimize whatever mistakes the AI might make along the way, evaluate what compositions it picks, and even grow quite frustrated with the AI's ability to get 95% of the way there but not close out that last 5%. When in the same hours, I could have sketched, refined, inked and colored a 5x8" pencil sketch, even scanned, prepped, and uploaded!
In some ways, AI image generators are not too different conceptually from those old Flash character-creators/editors we had back in the 2000s -- remember them? I tried a few in the day, and maybe you did too. So if they're not that different fundamentally, then the remaining difference must be the sheer scale/scope of what these image generators are capable of, right? And that they may be reaching a certain tipping point or "critical mass", some trifecta of power, convenience, and accessibility that enables them to provide some real competition to real artists.
If somebody says that the AI training process (which involves analyzing images across the Internet, including both amateur and professional art, and a point of serious contention from said artists) isn't too different conceptually from a human artist studying and learning from material, well ... they're not wrong. To this day science still can't identify exactly how biological neurons physically encode knowledge and techniques in the brain, but we all (quite literally sub-consciously) enjoy the fact that "it just works". But AIs are still just a simulation with some useful correlations, even if its underlying design is wrong (much like the difference between polygonal 3D rendering, which can be calculated and displayed in real time, and 3D ray-tracing, which accurately simulates the underlying physics of light but is far more work-intensive for the same result).
But again, if the above is not too different from a real human artist, then by definition the remaining difference must be the sheer speed at which an AI models ("learns") its training data. New tools have always created an ability to do the same work faster (if not better) than a person doing it by hand, and "time is money". And for creative endeavors like art, maybe this difference in speed really IS what matters. We value human-made art because of the process and time that was spent to develop that end result; "AI art" is valued for its end result in spite of whatever process and time was spent on generating it.
On which note, remember that AI image generators are also actually a super expensive piece of kit computationally (comparable to the aforementioned 3D raytracing), and this is why most places running a generator cost some kind of a subscription fee to use it (or place other limitations, like a max # of prompts). In which regard the Stable Diffusion model is actually much more efficient than DALL-E or Midjourney, but it's still one expensive piece of work that you're unlikely to be capable of running on consumer-grade hardware.
This is not a conclusion to the topic, but it's all I have on my mind for now. I may return to update this journal with more thoughts later.
Musing about a random search
Posted 2 years agoSo a good rule of thumb about FA search queries is you do not talk about your FA search queries, right? Regardless, I recently did an FA search including the keyword "silhouette" and out of nearly 1000 results across the whole of FA, maybe five actually were not completely unrelated to what I was looking for.
Stranger still was how a majority of the results were in story format.
Search engines, am I right? "Relevancy" is a relative term anyway.
Stranger still was how a majority of the results were in story format.
Search engines, am I right? "Relevancy" is a relative term anyway.
Idea / Art prompt
Posted 3 years agoThis is actually derived from an art prompt somebody else posted for Halloween, but I will be tackling it this month, and after coming up with my idea, I want to share my version of the prompt for anyone else who wants one:
* In its last breaths, a dying supernatural animal/creature/monster places a curse on somebody to "replace" it -- i.e. they get possessed/transformed into that same type of creature themselves.
* HOWEVER, the person is innocent of whatever caused its death, they are not the target of the curse! They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time....
* So, uhm ... oops? Because curses (especially dying curses) cannot simply be taken back. They are like magical contracts, and will only lift when certain conditions are fulfilled.
What creature did this person get turned into, and what are the terms of their curse?
Naturally, the rest is up to you -- whether it's a "TF sequence", a "post-TF" sequence, whether it's drawn or written, if this idea sounds appealing then I'm not controlling how you should go about it. Have fun!
And just to say this in advance -- enjoy a good and safe Halloween.
* In its last breaths, a dying supernatural animal/creature/monster places a curse on somebody to "replace" it -- i.e. they get possessed/transformed into that same type of creature themselves.
* HOWEVER, the person is innocent of whatever caused its death, they are not the target of the curse! They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time....
* So, uhm ... oops? Because curses (especially dying curses) cannot simply be taken back. They are like magical contracts, and will only lift when certain conditions are fulfilled.
What creature did this person get turned into, and what are the terms of their curse?
Naturally, the rest is up to you -- whether it's a "TF sequence", a "post-TF" sequence, whether it's drawn or written, if this idea sounds appealing then I'm not controlling how you should go about it. Have fun!
And just to say this in advance -- enjoy a good and safe Halloween.
Cloudy with an occasional sunbreak
Posted 3 years ago...actually the local weather today.
But speaking of which, there was also new Monster Hunter news today!
One of the easy predictions about Lunagaron proved to be absolutely true. (No doubt there will be an increase in Lunagaron submissions here to reflect that?)
But speaking of which, there was also new Monster Hunter news today!
One of the easy predictions about Lunagaron proved to be absolutely true. (No doubt there will be an increase in Lunagaron submissions here to reflect that?)
FA Species Overhaul 2.0 ?
Posted 4 years agoWhen did this happen, two weeks ago?
I like it! It's definitely not perfect (the sheer size of it is becoming its own problem), but overall better than its last overhaul.
Protip: REVIEW YOUR OLD SUBMISSIONS & UPDATE THEIR SPECIES SETTING! If you've submitted prior artwork relating to obscure creatures that didn't have an entry of their own then, doing so now can give them new, improved visibility on the Browse page, while also informing the average viewer that "yes, these exist"!
For example, "manticore" returns over 7,000 pieces in "Search" but (as of last night) less than ten pieces in Browse. Sounds like something in desperate need of fixing, am I right?
I like it! It's definitely not perfect (the sheer size of it is becoming its own problem), but overall better than its last overhaul.
Protip: REVIEW YOUR OLD SUBMISSIONS & UPDATE THEIR SPECIES SETTING! If you've submitted prior artwork relating to obscure creatures that didn't have an entry of their own then, doing so now can give them new, improved visibility on the Browse page, while also informing the average viewer that "yes, these exist"!
For example, "manticore" returns over 7,000 pieces in "Search" but (as of last night) less than ten pieces in Browse. Sounds like something in desperate need of fixing, am I right?
So, spoiler warning...
Posted 4 years agoSora in Smash Bros.
This is not a drill. Repeat. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
This is not a drill. Repeat. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
Wow...
Posted 5 years agoSo, dropping just one artist from my Watchlist reduced the amount of "advertising" (YCH submissions, journal updates, etc.) I receive from the notifications system by over half.
One.
I'm not sorry.
One.
I'm not sorry.
New Layout?
Posted 6 years agoSo far, I like it.
TMI Tuesday (NaNoWriMo Edition!)
Posted 11 years agoI haven't mentioned that I'm doing a Nanowrimo this year? Maybe not....
Well, here are a few snippets of things that happen in my novel. I've taken the liberty of deliberately phrasing them in the most ridiculous, misleading, "but it makes sense in context!" way possible:
- In Chapter 7, my main character was attacked by a coyote while taking a shower. He didn't get injured, though; the beast was only trying to dominate him.
- In Chapter 14, a teacher deliberately peed on the ground in front of her class and then asked everyone to memorize what it smelled like.
- In Chapter 17, my character was told in so many words "your mind makes it real".
- In Chapter 19, my character was asked to tell the difference between a real and fake object by peeing on them.
The only other thing I'll say for now is no, it's not that kind of story! There's a legitimate explanation for all this somewhere....
Well, here are a few snippets of things that happen in my novel. I've taken the liberty of deliberately phrasing them in the most ridiculous, misleading, "but it makes sense in context!" way possible:
- In Chapter 7, my main character was attacked by a coyote while taking a shower. He didn't get injured, though; the beast was only trying to dominate him.
- In Chapter 14, a teacher deliberately peed on the ground in front of her class and then asked everyone to memorize what it smelled like.
- In Chapter 17, my character was told in so many words "your mind makes it real".
- In Chapter 19, my character was asked to tell the difference between a real and fake object by peeing on them.
The only other thing I'll say for now is no, it's not that kind of story! There's a legitimate explanation for all this somewhere....
Memetic Monday
Posted 11 years agoStumbled across this today and while it's remarkably similar to the one I tore apart last time, I'll play along and offer my answers faithfully....
Also note that apparently this template is over a year old. Does make me wonder what the latest version of it looks like... it's tempting to create my own some day (and if I do, it will be deep).
THE 50-QUESTION TF MEME
(answer key: 0=no/never - 5=yes/always)
That scale is 0 to 5 inclusive, correct? Then logically this is a six-value scale, with no answer for 'middle/undecided'. Sure, there's a a "slightly below middle" (e.g. 40%) and "slightly above middle" (60%), but no actual middle (50%) value.
General interests:
1 - Do you like TF art? - (1 / 5)
- While there are some pieces I do like, Sturgeon's Law applies here (just as it does to everything else) and most of the time I end up thinking "well, there's two minutes of my life I'm never getting back..."
2 - Do you like like TF stories? - (2 / 5)
- Depends on what role the TF plays in the story. Is the TF part of a larger whole? Or is the whole point of the story just to showcase some TF sequence? But I will say that I find written TF art less unpalatable than visual TF art. Maybe it's because it's easier to skim/tune out the unwanted/unnecessary parts?
3 - Are you a TF artist? - (1 / 5)
- For visual art, I have precisely one TF piece in my history, from about 2005-ish, and I've since artistically disowned it (I've probably even destroyed the original). It exists out there somewhere in digital format, but for the sake of this meme shall remain anonymous.
4 - Are you a TF writer - (2 / 5)
- See question #2. A TF element of some kind seems to crop up every time I do a Nanowrimo novel, without exception.
5 - Do you like to roleplay TF? - (0 / 5)
- Never roleplayed to begin with. Though I have attempted some communal writing games (which are also sometimes called roleplaying) in my history . . . but they fizzled out too quickly to go anywhere, and I always regarded them with some distance/impartiality, like the narrator over a setting, never visualizing myself (or my character) personally in the setting.
Personal questions:
6 - Has TF always been an interest to you? - (4 / 5)
- I grew up on Transformers and Voltron (but mostly Transformers). There were also the Go-Bots and MASK (and if you know what that last one is, you are awesome). Granted, these were all vehicular/mecha based TF's, but still.
7 - Do you share your TF interest with real life friends? - (2 / 5)
- See question #4. I've regularly discussed things relating to my Nanowrimo novels, and how TF applies to them, but as for TF in general . . . nope, not really.
8 - Do you wish TF was possible in real life? - (1 / 5)
- Considering what happens with it in fiction (and especially what kinds of stuff the furdom produces), well . . . real life is genuinely better off without it. Not that it's unfun to dream about or anything.
9 - If you could TF yourself into anything in real life, would you, and what kind? - (3 / 5)
- If the context was 'TF as a voluntary power or ability', then yes it would be cool. I'd probably turn into all my favorite animals just to see the world through their eyes -- flying as a bird would be especially awesome.
10 - If TF was possible (and reversible), would you want to try it? Even if it would be a painful process? - (2 / 5)
- So, obviously we'd be talking about you being 'stuck' in that form for awhile and couldn't necessarily just change yourself back on a whim. Then, while it might be fun, I'd definitely be more cautious and hesitant about volunteering/undergoing the process at all.
11 - If TF was possible but NOT reversible, would you want to try it? E.g. you could be turned into any form that you've always wanted, but can never go back.... - (1 / 5)
- Sure the prospect might still cross my mind from time to time, but in this case, nope, I'd rather stay as I am than come to regret it later.
12 - Do you find TF sexually arousing? - (1 / 5)
- Well, 'disturbing' and 'arousing' are oddly related emotions.
13 - Have you had TF based dreams? - (1 / 5)
- Probably, but none that I can specifically remember.
14 - Do you daydream about TF? - (3 / 5)
- Not TF specifically, but I do think/daydream about my Nanowrimo novels a lot, including any TF elements.
Favorite changes:
15 - Do you like seeing yourself (or your character) as a subject/victim of a TF? - (1 / 5)
- No, with possible exception depending on the individual context and treatment.
16 - Do you like watching someone else (or their character) undergo a TF? - (2 / 5)
- See question #1. Again, it depends on the context and treatment.
17 - Do you like TFs into animals? - (3 / 5)
- This also varies on a case-by-case basis, but I do find animal-based TFs to be the least unpalatable. Humans are a kind of animal already....
18 - What about anthros? - (2 / 5)
- The more you drift away from pure animals into anthropomorphics, the harder it becomes to justify the TF.
19 - What about transgender TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Though I might find an exception here or there, there is way too much 'First Law of Gender Bending' (not to mention Sturgeon's Law) going on. Kill it with fire, that.
20 - What about inanimate TFs? - (0 / 5)
- Now you're talking Fridge Logic territory. Wouldn't turning their body into something inanimate effectively kill them? How is that in any way appealing?
21 - What about latex/rubber-based TFs? - (0 / 5)
- And this is drifting too far into fetish territory.
22 - What about TFs into monsters? - (1 / 5)
- As in 'generic beastly monstrosities'? Which are more likely to be played for drama and horror, you know.
23 - What about TFs into cartoon characters (MLP, Pokémon, etc.)? (3 / 5)
- Since now we're talking about a recognizable, realistic-albeit-fiction animal/creature design, I'd probably file it the same category as recognizable real-life animals.
24 - Do you like size-changing TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Not really. That's a hard aspect to justify, but there are exceptions.
25 - What about tail growth during the TF? - (1 / 5)
- No, but there is room for an occasional exception. Depends on the context.
26 - What about the change in the subject's body covering (fur/plumage/etc.)? - (1 / 5)
- Again, nope, but depends on the context.
27 - Do you have a favorite body part to see described during a TF? - (0 / 5)
- What kind of question is that, exactly? On the other hand, my least favorite part to see the change in is definitely the subject's face.
28 - Are there other types of changes you like? - (2 / 5)
- Probably that retrospective (post-TF) "wtf just happened to me?" look on the character's face. That's a perfectly natural reaction to an unexpected TF, is it not?
Favorite triggers:
29 - Do you like magic-based TFs? - (3 / 5)
- It's a lot easier to simply claim/accept that A Wizard Did It (metaphorically if not literally) than try to come up with a believable explanation. The more explanation the artist provides, the more the audience can scrutinize it, and if it doesn't hold up, suspension of disbelief can come crashing down hard.
30 - What about science-based TFs? - (1 / 5)
- The very nature of science encourages explanation and scrutiny, the justification for which is more likely to fall apart under analysis and criticism. (Case in point: The sheer complexity of a living body.)
31 - What about goo-based TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Nope, though I'm aware it is sometimes the mechanism for a posession-based TF, which can be done well.
32 - What about hypnosis/mind-control TFs? - (0 / 5)
- Kill it with fire! If you're going to just erase/supplant a character's identity with whatever they've been turned into, they are effectively not the same character anymore, and the TF is tantamount to murder. I would rather see the character merely imprisoned/suppressed somewhere inside the TF than overwritten completely.
33 - What about pleasure-inducing (or pleasure-induced) TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Too often this crosses over into the previous question (or the below question), so it's a lose-lose proposition. Vice versa (TFs induced by current mood) has some potential ... but that's an exception, not the rule.
34 - What about sex-based TFs? - (0 / 5)
- (off-topic: I reorganized the quiz to make this question #34 for a reason.)
35 - What about any other methods of TF? - (3 / 5)
- I have a strong "tl/dr" tendency when it comes to the actual sequence/method of TF. I literally skip/skim over the actual TF sequence in a majority of ones I see.
Favorite process:
36 - Do you like 'quick' (e.g. five-minutes-or-less) TF sequences? - (3 / 5)
- The faster, the better. Note there is a huge distinction between actual time elapsed and perceived time, with the latter dictated primarily by the number of words (or panels/pages) the author allocates to the sequence. It also hinges on whose POV the sequence is narrated from to begin with, and what purpose the TF sequence serves in the surrounding narrative.
37 - Do you like longer (slow/gradual) TF sequences? - (1 / 5)
- No, but I'm willing to make exception for ones that are well-executed and serve a larger role in the surrounding context.
38 - Do you like heterogenous (piece-by-piece) transformations? - (1 / 5)
- Depends on how it's executed and treated by the author. Transformations that "creep" across the subject's body can make sense in certain contexts, but otherwise it makes more sense for a transformation to occur homogenously, from the inside-out.
39 - Do you like forced/compelled TFs? - (1 / 5)
- No, though this does logically include posession-based TFs.
40 - Do you like to see the subject resisting/disliking their TF? - (2 / 5)
- I can't say I enjoy it any, but it does make a certain logical sense that "resistance is futile" and whatever initiated the transformation process will be occuring at a sub-conscious level to the subject. They may as well be a slice of buttered toast trying not to hit the floor after it's been knocked off the table (and no, the buttered-cat-principle is NOT in play here).
41 - Do you like consensual TFs? - (2 / 5)
- Who the hell does consensual TFs? Yes, I'm exaggerating, but my point is that there's no conflict, no drama to be hand in a character agreeing to a TF and being TF'ed exactly as agreed -- there will always (always!) be some kind of malfunction/surprise along the way, because that sparks reader interest.
42 - Do you like painful TF sequences? - (1 / 5)
- While it makes certain sense for the process to be painful, I would rather it be mental pain than physical. Bonus points if it causes the character to black out early in the sequence and come around later (after they're fully TF'ed).
43 - Do you like pleasureable TF sequences? - (0 / 5)
- (Didn't question #33 already ask this?)
44 - Do you enjoy the subject losing their (human) mind during the TF? - (1 / 5)
- Is this a repeat of question #32? See, the underlying matter is whether they feel like the same character, the same identity before vs. after....
45 - Do you like permanent TFs? - (3 / 5)
- It is logical to assume that a given TF will be permanent unless established otherwise. It's a great way to introduce a character to the reader, too (e.g. Disney's Beauty and the Beast).
46 - What about temporary TFs? - (2 / 5)
- Definition of "temporary" pending....
47 - Do you like bondage during a TF? - (0 / 5)
- For sake of sanity I will assume that "bondage" means only that the subject has been restrained prior to the TF sequence for (their and/or others') safety.
48 - What about ripping of clothes during a TF? - (1 / 5)
- Well, it is logical to assume that if a character is turned into something not of smaller stature that any clothing not voluntarily removed may end up contorted or destroyed. But I don't enjoy it.
49 - What about sex during/after a TF? - (0 / 5)
- (Isn't this a duplicate of question #34?)
50 - What about group (as opposed to individual) TF sequences? - (0 / 5)
- I think it's safe to say that a TF sequence featuring a group of characters will end up a dogpile of horrifying chaos (in addition to the chaos of the TFs individually).
51 - What about TF sequences that occur in front of other characters? - (2 / 5)
- Are these "other characters" uninvolved bystanders or is their presence related to the TF taking place (fellow TF'ed subjects, culprit(s)/cause of the TF, etc.) ? Both answers have their uses.
Bonus question:
52 - Have you knowingly lied or withheld information about any of the above questions? - (1 / 5)
- Maybe. But what if this is the question I'm lying about? (Then again, you guys lied about this being the "50-question" meme; I clearly counted 51)
Also note that apparently this template is over a year old. Does make me wonder what the latest version of it looks like... it's tempting to create my own some day (and if I do, it will be deep).
THE 50-QUESTION TF MEME
(answer key: 0=no/never - 5=yes/always)
That scale is 0 to 5 inclusive, correct? Then logically this is a six-value scale, with no answer for 'middle/undecided'. Sure, there's a a "slightly below middle" (e.g. 40%) and "slightly above middle" (60%), but no actual middle (50%) value.
General interests:
1 - Do you like TF art? - (1 / 5)
- While there are some pieces I do like, Sturgeon's Law applies here (just as it does to everything else) and most of the time I end up thinking "well, there's two minutes of my life I'm never getting back..."
2 - Do you like like TF stories? - (2 / 5)
- Depends on what role the TF plays in the story. Is the TF part of a larger whole? Or is the whole point of the story just to showcase some TF sequence? But I will say that I find written TF art less unpalatable than visual TF art. Maybe it's because it's easier to skim/tune out the unwanted/unnecessary parts?
3 - Are you a TF artist? - (1 / 5)
- For visual art, I have precisely one TF piece in my history, from about 2005-ish, and I've since artistically disowned it (I've probably even destroyed the original). It exists out there somewhere in digital format, but for the sake of this meme shall remain anonymous.
4 - Are you a TF writer - (2 / 5)
- See question #2. A TF element of some kind seems to crop up every time I do a Nanowrimo novel, without exception.
5 - Do you like to roleplay TF? - (0 / 5)
- Never roleplayed to begin with. Though I have attempted some communal writing games (which are also sometimes called roleplaying) in my history . . . but they fizzled out too quickly to go anywhere, and I always regarded them with some distance/impartiality, like the narrator over a setting, never visualizing myself (or my character) personally in the setting.
Personal questions:
6 - Has TF always been an interest to you? - (4 / 5)
- I grew up on Transformers and Voltron (but mostly Transformers). There were also the Go-Bots and MASK (and if you know what that last one is, you are awesome). Granted, these were all vehicular/mecha based TF's, but still.
7 - Do you share your TF interest with real life friends? - (2 / 5)
- See question #4. I've regularly discussed things relating to my Nanowrimo novels, and how TF applies to them, but as for TF in general . . . nope, not really.
8 - Do you wish TF was possible in real life? - (1 / 5)
- Considering what happens with it in fiction (and especially what kinds of stuff the furdom produces), well . . . real life is genuinely better off without it. Not that it's unfun to dream about or anything.
9 - If you could TF yourself into anything in real life, would you, and what kind? - (3 / 5)
- If the context was 'TF as a voluntary power or ability', then yes it would be cool. I'd probably turn into all my favorite animals just to see the world through their eyes -- flying as a bird would be especially awesome.
10 - If TF was possible (and reversible), would you want to try it? Even if it would be a painful process? - (2 / 5)
- So, obviously we'd be talking about you being 'stuck' in that form for awhile and couldn't necessarily just change yourself back on a whim. Then, while it might be fun, I'd definitely be more cautious and hesitant about volunteering/undergoing the process at all.
11 - If TF was possible but NOT reversible, would you want to try it? E.g. you could be turned into any form that you've always wanted, but can never go back.... - (1 / 5)
- Sure the prospect might still cross my mind from time to time, but in this case, nope, I'd rather stay as I am than come to regret it later.
12 - Do you find TF sexually arousing? - (1 / 5)
- Well, 'disturbing' and 'arousing' are oddly related emotions.
13 - Have you had TF based dreams? - (1 / 5)
- Probably, but none that I can specifically remember.
14 - Do you daydream about TF? - (3 / 5)
- Not TF specifically, but I do think/daydream about my Nanowrimo novels a lot, including any TF elements.
Favorite changes:
15 - Do you like seeing yourself (or your character) as a subject/victim of a TF? - (1 / 5)
- No, with possible exception depending on the individual context and treatment.
16 - Do you like watching someone else (or their character) undergo a TF? - (2 / 5)
- See question #1. Again, it depends on the context and treatment.
17 - Do you like TFs into animals? - (3 / 5)
- This also varies on a case-by-case basis, but I do find animal-based TFs to be the least unpalatable. Humans are a kind of animal already....
18 - What about anthros? - (2 / 5)
- The more you drift away from pure animals into anthropomorphics, the harder it becomes to justify the TF.
19 - What about transgender TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Though I might find an exception here or there, there is way too much 'First Law of Gender Bending' (not to mention Sturgeon's Law) going on. Kill it with fire, that.
20 - What about inanimate TFs? - (0 / 5)
- Now you're talking Fridge Logic territory. Wouldn't turning their body into something inanimate effectively kill them? How is that in any way appealing?
21 - What about latex/rubber-based TFs? - (0 / 5)
- And this is drifting too far into fetish territory.
22 - What about TFs into monsters? - (1 / 5)
- As in 'generic beastly monstrosities'? Which are more likely to be played for drama and horror, you know.
23 - What about TFs into cartoon characters (MLP, Pokémon, etc.)? (3 / 5)
- Since now we're talking about a recognizable, realistic-albeit-fiction animal/creature design, I'd probably file it the same category as recognizable real-life animals.
24 - Do you like size-changing TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Not really. That's a hard aspect to justify, but there are exceptions.
25 - What about tail growth during the TF? - (1 / 5)
- No, but there is room for an occasional exception. Depends on the context.
26 - What about the change in the subject's body covering (fur/plumage/etc.)? - (1 / 5)
- Again, nope, but depends on the context.
27 - Do you have a favorite body part to see described during a TF? - (0 / 5)
- What kind of question is that, exactly? On the other hand, my least favorite part to see the change in is definitely the subject's face.
28 - Are there other types of changes you like? - (2 / 5)
- Probably that retrospective (post-TF) "wtf just happened to me?" look on the character's face. That's a perfectly natural reaction to an unexpected TF, is it not?
Favorite triggers:
29 - Do you like magic-based TFs? - (3 / 5)
- It's a lot easier to simply claim/accept that A Wizard Did It (metaphorically if not literally) than try to come up with a believable explanation. The more explanation the artist provides, the more the audience can scrutinize it, and if it doesn't hold up, suspension of disbelief can come crashing down hard.
30 - What about science-based TFs? - (1 / 5)
- The very nature of science encourages explanation and scrutiny, the justification for which is more likely to fall apart under analysis and criticism. (Case in point: The sheer complexity of a living body.)
31 - What about goo-based TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Nope, though I'm aware it is sometimes the mechanism for a posession-based TF, which can be done well.
32 - What about hypnosis/mind-control TFs? - (0 / 5)
- Kill it with fire! If you're going to just erase/supplant a character's identity with whatever they've been turned into, they are effectively not the same character anymore, and the TF is tantamount to murder. I would rather see the character merely imprisoned/suppressed somewhere inside the TF than overwritten completely.
33 - What about pleasure-inducing (or pleasure-induced) TFs? - (1 / 5)
- Too often this crosses over into the previous question (or the below question), so it's a lose-lose proposition. Vice versa (TFs induced by current mood) has some potential ... but that's an exception, not the rule.
34 - What about sex-based TFs? - (0 / 5)
- (off-topic: I reorganized the quiz to make this question #34 for a reason.)
35 - What about any other methods of TF? - (3 / 5)
- I have a strong "tl/dr" tendency when it comes to the actual sequence/method of TF. I literally skip/skim over the actual TF sequence in a majority of ones I see.
Favorite process:
36 - Do you like 'quick' (e.g. five-minutes-or-less) TF sequences? - (3 / 5)
- The faster, the better. Note there is a huge distinction between actual time elapsed and perceived time, with the latter dictated primarily by the number of words (or panels/pages) the author allocates to the sequence. It also hinges on whose POV the sequence is narrated from to begin with, and what purpose the TF sequence serves in the surrounding narrative.
37 - Do you like longer (slow/gradual) TF sequences? - (1 / 5)
- No, but I'm willing to make exception for ones that are well-executed and serve a larger role in the surrounding context.
38 - Do you like heterogenous (piece-by-piece) transformations? - (1 / 5)
- Depends on how it's executed and treated by the author. Transformations that "creep" across the subject's body can make sense in certain contexts, but otherwise it makes more sense for a transformation to occur homogenously, from the inside-out.
39 - Do you like forced/compelled TFs? - (1 / 5)
- No, though this does logically include posession-based TFs.
40 - Do you like to see the subject resisting/disliking their TF? - (2 / 5)
- I can't say I enjoy it any, but it does make a certain logical sense that "resistance is futile" and whatever initiated the transformation process will be occuring at a sub-conscious level to the subject. They may as well be a slice of buttered toast trying not to hit the floor after it's been knocked off the table (and no, the buttered-cat-principle is NOT in play here).
41 - Do you like consensual TFs? - (2 / 5)
- Who the hell does consensual TFs? Yes, I'm exaggerating, but my point is that there's no conflict, no drama to be hand in a character agreeing to a TF and being TF'ed exactly as agreed -- there will always (always!) be some kind of malfunction/surprise along the way, because that sparks reader interest.
42 - Do you like painful TF sequences? - (1 / 5)
- While it makes certain sense for the process to be painful, I would rather it be mental pain than physical. Bonus points if it causes the character to black out early in the sequence and come around later (after they're fully TF'ed).
43 - Do you like pleasureable TF sequences? - (0 / 5)
- (Didn't question #33 already ask this?)
44 - Do you enjoy the subject losing their (human) mind during the TF? - (1 / 5)
- Is this a repeat of question #32? See, the underlying matter is whether they feel like the same character, the same identity before vs. after....
45 - Do you like permanent TFs? - (3 / 5)
- It is logical to assume that a given TF will be permanent unless established otherwise. It's a great way to introduce a character to the reader, too (e.g. Disney's Beauty and the Beast).
46 - What about temporary TFs? - (2 / 5)
- Definition of "temporary" pending....
47 - Do you like bondage during a TF? - (0 / 5)
- For sake of sanity I will assume that "bondage" means only that the subject has been restrained prior to the TF sequence for (their and/or others') safety.
48 - What about ripping of clothes during a TF? - (1 / 5)
- Well, it is logical to assume that if a character is turned into something not of smaller stature that any clothing not voluntarily removed may end up contorted or destroyed. But I don't enjoy it.
49 - What about sex during/after a TF? - (0 / 5)
- (Isn't this a duplicate of question #34?)
50 - What about group (as opposed to individual) TF sequences? - (0 / 5)
- I think it's safe to say that a TF sequence featuring a group of characters will end up a dogpile of horrifying chaos (in addition to the chaos of the TFs individually).
51 - What about TF sequences that occur in front of other characters? - (2 / 5)
- Are these "other characters" uninvolved bystanders or is their presence related to the TF taking place (fellow TF'ed subjects, culprit(s)/cause of the TF, etc.) ? Both answers have their uses.
Bonus question:
52 - Have you knowingly lied or withheld information about any of the above questions? - (1 / 5)
- Maybe. But what if this is the question I'm lying about? (Then again, you guys lied about this being the "50-question" meme; I clearly counted 51)
Uploading again!
Posted 12 years agoMaybe you've noticed, but I've decided to share my 2013 Nanowrimo novel here. The draft is raw and unedited, but it doesn't have any major skips like last year did.
Check it out when you have time :) Always dying for feedback....
Check it out when you have time :) Always dying for feedback....
That genre again....
Posted 12 years agoTime for another genre rant (or something like that).
He grabbed the item, but that proved to be a mistake as it lit up his hand in a sensation of fiery pain, as if he'd just grabbed a hot coal from a campfire. Ow! He dropped it as quickly as he'd touched it, and he could see his hand was blackened from contact with whatever it was.
But that wasn't ash or soot that burned into his hand as he inspected the injury. That was fur, and claws.
"What the heck!?"
The stinging sensation burned its way up his arm like a flame consuming a wood match and his mind exploded in a headache of stinging fire as it finally reached his chest and proceeded to radiate everywhere from the inside out. He was aware of his body hitting the ground before his vision blacked out; the burning consumed all his senses as it coursed freely in his veins, from his hands and arms down to his lower body and into his legs, culminating in a long, black tail and an incredible, nauseating pain that probably made him throw up everything he ate before what thoughts were left in his mind finally checked out of him.
Is this about the shortest TF sequence ever? You don't get to "see" anything, you don't get any of those "bits" of limbs or organs stretching and shifting around into their new shape or size or location. No, my narrator is basically locked inside the main character's head at this point, so all you get to know is what the character does: That something's happening to him, it's happening fast, and boy does it hurt.
Now while I'm under (personal) obligation to not post the whole story, I can nonetheless assure you that once he wakes up, he does get a few minutes to look his (post-TF) body over and go "what the fuck?" alongside a full physical description of what kind of animal he was turned into.
So why did I keep the TF sequence itself so short? Because the surrounding story is not even really a "TF story" in the first place, just a "story that happens to utilize a TF element". Sure, that TF does play a key role in resolving the central (internal) conflict, but in terms of wordcount it occupies just less than 1% of the total writing.
And that's how I view the genre as a whole. There are tons of TF stories in the category listing, but any time I skim one of them, once I get to the point of the actual transformation scene I basically just mentally tune it out. "Oh, he could feel his body blah blah blah, and blah blah blah, then yada yada yada, and more blah blah blah, until finally yada yada yada." Sure, 'whatever floats your boat' people say, but mine it doesn't. Even if I have to Pagedown several times, I prefer to skip these details rather than read them; the "bits" just aren't important to the story.
Rant mode off. What say you?
He grabbed the item, but that proved to be a mistake as it lit up his hand in a sensation of fiery pain, as if he'd just grabbed a hot coal from a campfire. Ow! He dropped it as quickly as he'd touched it, and he could see his hand was blackened from contact with whatever it was.
But that wasn't ash or soot that burned into his hand as he inspected the injury. That was fur, and claws.
"What the heck!?"
The stinging sensation burned its way up his arm like a flame consuming a wood match and his mind exploded in a headache of stinging fire as it finally reached his chest and proceeded to radiate everywhere from the inside out. He was aware of his body hitting the ground before his vision blacked out; the burning consumed all his senses as it coursed freely in his veins, from his hands and arms down to his lower body and into his legs, culminating in a long, black tail and an incredible, nauseating pain that probably made him throw up everything he ate before what thoughts were left in his mind finally checked out of him.
Is this about the shortest TF sequence ever? You don't get to "see" anything, you don't get any of those "bits" of limbs or organs stretching and shifting around into their new shape or size or location. No, my narrator is basically locked inside the main character's head at this point, so all you get to know is what the character does: That something's happening to him, it's happening fast, and boy does it hurt.
Now while I'm under (personal) obligation to not post the whole story, I can nonetheless assure you that once he wakes up, he does get a few minutes to look his (post-TF) body over and go "what the fuck?" alongside a full physical description of what kind of animal he was turned into.
So why did I keep the TF sequence itself so short? Because the surrounding story is not even really a "TF story" in the first place, just a "story that happens to utilize a TF element". Sure, that TF does play a key role in resolving the central (internal) conflict, but in terms of wordcount it occupies just less than 1% of the total writing.
And that's how I view the genre as a whole. There are tons of TF stories in the category listing, but any time I skim one of them, once I get to the point of the actual transformation scene I basically just mentally tune it out. "Oh, he could feel his body blah blah blah, and blah blah blah, then yada yada yada, and more blah blah blah, until finally yada yada yada." Sure, 'whatever floats your boat' people say, but mine it doesn't. Even if I have to Pagedown several times, I prefer to skip these details rather than read them; the "bits" just aren't important to the story.
Rant mode off. What say you?
How's That Pokemon?
Posted 13 years agoIt's been almost precisely one week since Nintendo's announcement; how do FA's Pokemon submissions stack up?
Fennekin - 540 (438 General / 35 Mature / 37 porn)
Chespin - 252 (211 / 11 / 30)
Froakie - 234 (194 / 15 / 25)
Yveltal - 42 (33 / 4 / 5)
Xerneas - 15 (12 / 1 / 2)
Fennekin - 540 (438 General / 35 Mature / 37 porn)
Chespin - 252 (211 / 11 / 30)
Froakie - 234 (194 / 15 / 25)
Yveltal - 42 (33 / 4 / 5)
Xerneas - 15 (12 / 1 / 2)
Pokemon 6th Gen!?
Posted 13 years agoOkay, we've all heard the news, seen the video, drawn fanart of the upcoming Pokemon games (yes, including those inevitable Rule 34s), so what do I think?
First, a shared sentiment:
"If Fennekin becomes another Fire/Fighting type, I'll throw my 3DS out the window."
- IGN news blogger
Yes, I know Fighting is a useful offensive type to pair it up with (no more vulnerability to Rock, for one), but the vulnerabilities to Psychic and Flying can be quite crippling, and of the five generations, so far, we've had Fire+Fighting starters for three of them . . . IN A ROW! This trend has worn out its welcome and needs some changing up.
Some people speculate that Fennekin might become part Psychic (like Victini), as that most definitely looked like a Confusion it used in the trailer. (On the other hand, it could also be the effect of a Copycat or Me First against Kirlia's own Confusion...)
rose even suggested that perhaps all the starters acquire secondary types, along the Psychic-Dark-Fighting triangle. We already saw Chespin using Night Slash and Froakie using ... something (new?), and making the starter triangle go both ways would really change things up, especially since that triangle doesn't interfere with the Grass-Fire-Water interactions (remember how Empoleon lost resistance to Fire? Or Torterra to Water and Grass?). Is Chespin's family Grass+Dark, like Nuzleaf? Is Froakie's family Water+Fighting, like Poliwrath?
On the other hand, Game Freak's considered alternate starter triangles before but always ultimately chose with Grass-Fire-Water for a reason ... I would be perfectly content if Fennekin simply stays single-typed, like Cyndaquil did back in Gen 2.
And which 6th gen starter would I pick? Not sure -- I feel a little divided between Fennekin and Chespin. Historically I've always picked the fastest starter in every generation (and on the first try, even before learning their stats!) and it would be nice to continue that tradition.
First, a shared sentiment:
"If Fennekin becomes another Fire/Fighting type, I'll throw my 3DS out the window."
- IGN news blogger
Yes, I know Fighting is a useful offensive type to pair it up with (no more vulnerability to Rock, for one), but the vulnerabilities to Psychic and Flying can be quite crippling, and of the five generations, so far, we've had Fire+Fighting starters for three of them . . . IN A ROW! This trend has worn out its welcome and needs some changing up.
Some people speculate that Fennekin might become part Psychic (like Victini), as that most definitely looked like a Confusion it used in the trailer. (On the other hand, it could also be the effect of a Copycat or Me First against Kirlia's own Confusion...)
rose even suggested that perhaps all the starters acquire secondary types, along the Psychic-Dark-Fighting triangle. We already saw Chespin using Night Slash and Froakie using ... something (new?), and making the starter triangle go both ways would really change things up, especially since that triangle doesn't interfere with the Grass-Fire-Water interactions (remember how Empoleon lost resistance to Fire? Or Torterra to Water and Grass?). Is Chespin's family Grass+Dark, like Nuzleaf? Is Froakie's family Water+Fighting, like Poliwrath?
On the other hand, Game Freak's considered alternate starter triangles before but always ultimately chose with Grass-Fire-Water for a reason ... I would be perfectly content if Fennekin simply stays single-typed, like Cyndaquil did back in Gen 2.
And which 6th gen starter would I pick? Not sure -- I feel a little divided between Fennekin and Chespin. Historically I've always picked the fastest starter in every generation (and on the first try, even before learning their stats!) and it would be nice to continue that tradition.
"Censored" or "Uncensored"?
Posted 13 years agoThis is not about the subject of clean vs. mature content in general.
I'm thinking about about what you do if you've created both clean (censored) and mature (uncensored) versions of otherwise the same piece. (Pieces where the mature content is easy to snip out, of course.) Specifically, do you tag one of them as the "clean" or "censored" version, do you tag the other as the "mature" or "uncensored" version, or do you tag them both?
Not naming specific pieces or arts where this is the case (though this post was nonetheless inspired by one). Maybe I just hate the word "censored", more specifically all that connotational baggage associated with it.
I'm thinking about about what you do if you've created both clean (censored) and mature (uncensored) versions of otherwise the same piece. (Pieces where the mature content is easy to snip out, of course.) Specifically, do you tag one of them as the "clean" or "censored" version, do you tag the other as the "mature" or "uncensored" version, or do you tag them both?
Not naming specific pieces or arts where this is the case (though this post was nonetheless inspired by one). Maybe I just hate the word "censored", more specifically all that connotational baggage associated with it.
Show me . . .
Posted 13 years agoShow me a story about a group of wolves...
...that doesn't use the P-word.
Or Greek letters.
Because those are terms invented by humans. What language might they use to describe their culture, their social units?
...that doesn't use the P-word.
Or Greek letters.
Because those are terms invented by humans. What language might they use to describe their culture, their social units?
[Deconstructed] TF meme
Posted 13 years agoApparently this has been going around for awhile. TF is a genre I have some interest in, so let's tear it up!
(Which I mean in a "I'm really not in the target audience for this meme" way.)
I Like TF Art - 2/5
Depends. I can certainly appreciate TF when it's done well, but Sturgeon's Law says....
I Like TF Stories - 1/5.
Does the TF serve a larger purpose to the narrative it appears in, or is the whole story basically just a TF sequence in written form? Please, count me OUT of the latter.
I like to roleplay TF - (N/A)
Do not roleplay. Next!
I've had TF dreams while sleeping - 1/5
I think maybe once I had a dream that was Transformers-themed but not TF themed in general.
I wish TF was possible in real life - 1/5
All things considered I will simply say "no" and leave it at that. Perhaps that's what makes it so interesting, the fact that it's not actually possible.
If TF was possible in real life and reversible, I'd want to try it regardless of how painful it could ever be - 3/5
Given the condition that it was reversible then it could be fun to "experiment" with it, knowing that unless something catastrophic happens you can still return to the 'you' you were beforehand.
If TF was possible into the form that I've always wanted, but I knew I could never go back, I'd take it - (No)
I think the appeal in nonhuman "forms" lies in the inescapable fact that we will never truly know what it's like to call them our own. Say whatever you will about what you believe yourself to be "on the inside", but you were born in a human body, you will die in it too.
If I could turn into any animal in real life, it would be...
A bird. Who wouldn't want to be able to fly solely by their own arms?
I daydream about TF when there is downtime - 1/5
I may daydream about a lot of things, but TF generally isn't one of them.
I like goo-based/latex/inanimate TF - 1/5
I can't see any worthwhile difference between any of these details so I'm just going to lump them together and rate them as a whole.
I like animal TF - 3/5
I like anthro TF - 2/5
I have to give a very slight nod to full-animal transformations as opposed to anthropomorphic ones, even though the choice of target species doesn't actually factor very much into whether I like or hate a given TF sequence.
I like TG (no)
Except for this. Enough with all those damned Gender Benders already.
TF has always been an interest for as long as I can remember (yes)
I grew up as a Transformers kid, so I've always had a spot for transforming robots, at least.
TF is instead an interest a friend/community brought me to
(N/A)
Favorite Parts (Tail growth, head, hands/feet, skin, wings, size) - 1/5
My favorite part of a TF isn't a "part" at all. In fact, all the "part"-y details bore (and too often, just plain disgust) me.
I like group TF
I like TF that occurs in front of people
I like when the person transforming is resisting/not enjoying it
I like when the victim loses his human mind
I like FORCED TF
Answer for all the above: Like I even need anything else to bring back memories of the first time I saw Willow... you never look at something quite the same way again after it scares the living crap out of you.
I like clothing restraint in a TF
I like blood in a TF
I like bondage during a TF
No commentary for any of these fetishy details, moving on.
I like TF that occurs in less than 5 minutes - 3/5
More like "five seconds". Less harrowing and angst, more "what the heck just happened to me?"
I like TF that takes much longer - 1/5
Please, get it over with. Stop milking the angst cow, time to grind it up for that backyard summer angstburger barbecue already.
I like magic-based TF - 4/5
All things considered, "a wizard did it" is far and away the cleanest trigger you have out there. It's also a plus if it's a recurring ability, e.g. the character is a shapeshifter - where the TF is simply one facet of their overall identity, and it isn't a big deal.
I like injection-based TF - 1/5
I like other TF methods - 2/5
I'm going to award the "other" category a free point for having the benefit of doubt.
I don't care how a TF is started - 5/5
I couldn't agree more. It is not really the sequence itself I care for, so much as the surrounding context and purpose for which it occured. Which means...
There are too many questions - 4/5
Not only that, but it's missing a really key question, too: What happens after the TF is said and done. What kind of consequences (shown or implied) does it pose to the individual. Ninety-nine percent of TF sequences are standalone events with no beginning or end, no other reason for the TF to exist than ... having a TF in the first place. Food for the fetish genre and nothing for general audiences.
- - -
I am a TF artist
No, but ...
I am a TF writer
Oddly, all of my five Nanowrimo novels have some degree of a TF theme in them somewhere. 2007 (and the 2011 sequel) focus on a race of symbiotes who view their fusion as a transformation of sorts; 2010 was Pokemon themed (and Pokemon metamorphose into different forms as they grow); 2009 was based on Final Fantasy 6 (though I never actually got to the part where Terra gets turned into an Esper), and 2008 saw the MC getting turned into an animal as its central premise. In addition, I have ideas for a Nano based on my playthrough of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon (which, you may know, involves the MC being a human turned into a Pokemon). So yeah....
(Which I mean in a "I'm really not in the target audience for this meme" way.)
I Like TF Art - 2/5
Depends. I can certainly appreciate TF when it's done well, but Sturgeon's Law says....
I Like TF Stories - 1/5.
Does the TF serve a larger purpose to the narrative it appears in, or is the whole story basically just a TF sequence in written form? Please, count me OUT of the latter.
I like to roleplay TF - (N/A)
Do not roleplay. Next!
I've had TF dreams while sleeping - 1/5
I think maybe once I had a dream that was Transformers-themed but not TF themed in general.
I wish TF was possible in real life - 1/5
All things considered I will simply say "no" and leave it at that. Perhaps that's what makes it so interesting, the fact that it's not actually possible.
If TF was possible in real life and reversible, I'd want to try it regardless of how painful it could ever be - 3/5
Given the condition that it was reversible then it could be fun to "experiment" with it, knowing that unless something catastrophic happens you can still return to the 'you' you were beforehand.
If TF was possible into the form that I've always wanted, but I knew I could never go back, I'd take it - (No)
I think the appeal in nonhuman "forms" lies in the inescapable fact that we will never truly know what it's like to call them our own. Say whatever you will about what you believe yourself to be "on the inside", but you were born in a human body, you will die in it too.
If I could turn into any animal in real life, it would be...
A bird. Who wouldn't want to be able to fly solely by their own arms?
I daydream about TF when there is downtime - 1/5
I may daydream about a lot of things, but TF generally isn't one of them.
I like goo-based/latex/inanimate TF - 1/5
I can't see any worthwhile difference between any of these details so I'm just going to lump them together and rate them as a whole.
I like animal TF - 3/5
I like anthro TF - 2/5
I have to give a very slight nod to full-animal transformations as opposed to anthropomorphic ones, even though the choice of target species doesn't actually factor very much into whether I like or hate a given TF sequence.
I like TG (no)
Except for this. Enough with all those damned Gender Benders already.
TF has always been an interest for as long as I can remember (yes)
I grew up as a Transformers kid, so I've always had a spot for transforming robots, at least.
TF is instead an interest a friend/community brought me to
(N/A)
Favorite Parts (Tail growth, head, hands/feet, skin, wings, size) - 1/5
My favorite part of a TF isn't a "part" at all. In fact, all the "part"-y details bore (and too often, just plain disgust) me.
I like group TF
I like TF that occurs in front of people
I like when the person transforming is resisting/not enjoying it
I like when the victim loses his human mind
I like FORCED TF
Answer for all the above: Like I even need anything else to bring back memories of the first time I saw Willow... you never look at something quite the same way again after it scares the living crap out of you.
I like clothing restraint in a TF
I like blood in a TF
I like bondage during a TF
No commentary for any of these fetishy details, moving on.
I like TF that occurs in less than 5 minutes - 3/5
More like "five seconds". Less harrowing and angst, more "what the heck just happened to me?"
I like TF that takes much longer - 1/5
Please, get it over with. Stop milking the angst cow, time to grind it up for that backyard summer angstburger barbecue already.
I like magic-based TF - 4/5
All things considered, "a wizard did it" is far and away the cleanest trigger you have out there. It's also a plus if it's a recurring ability, e.g. the character is a shapeshifter - where the TF is simply one facet of their overall identity, and it isn't a big deal.
I like injection-based TF - 1/5
I like other TF methods - 2/5
I'm going to award the "other" category a free point for having the benefit of doubt.
I don't care how a TF is started - 5/5
I couldn't agree more. It is not really the sequence itself I care for, so much as the surrounding context and purpose for which it occured. Which means...
There are too many questions - 4/5
Not only that, but it's missing a really key question, too: What happens after the TF is said and done. What kind of consequences (shown or implied) does it pose to the individual. Ninety-nine percent of TF sequences are standalone events with no beginning or end, no other reason for the TF to exist than ... having a TF in the first place. Food for the fetish genre and nothing for general audiences.
- - -
I am a TF artist
No, but ...
I am a TF writer
Oddly, all of my five Nanowrimo novels have some degree of a TF theme in them somewhere. 2007 (and the 2011 sequel) focus on a race of symbiotes who view their fusion as a transformation of sorts; 2010 was Pokemon themed (and Pokemon metamorphose into different forms as they grow); 2009 was based on Final Fantasy 6 (though I never actually got to the part where Terra gets turned into an Esper), and 2008 saw the MC getting turned into an animal as its central premise. In addition, I have ideas for a Nano based on my playthrough of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon (which, you may know, involves the MC being a human turned into a Pokemon). So yeah....
Still here....
Posted 13 years agoI do stop by about once a day to see what's new in my notifications inbox. And I do still draw, I swear! (Okay, so I don't actually swear all that much, I prefer proper language, but still...)
I just ... generally lack things to talk about.
You've probably heard that news about upcoming Pokemon Black/White sequels (real sequels, too)
I also combed through my personal Watchlist and removed outdated entries. Wow, did something happen or what, because I wound up removing about a full page of artists today. Some people changed names, other people quit/left, and a few of them erased everything on the way out.
I just ... generally lack things to talk about.
You've probably heard that news about upcoming Pokemon Black/White sequels (real sequels, too)
I also combed through my personal Watchlist and removed outdated entries. Wow, did something happen or what, because I wound up removing about a full page of artists today. Some people changed names, other people quit/left, and a few of them erased everything on the way out.
Have you ever disowned your art?
Posted 14 years agoI mean seriously. You had an idea, drew/painted it, etc. then some time later you look back on it and felt a "what was I smoking?" so strong that you had to actually, personally, permanently dispose of it in some manner?
In my history....
The first was the only genuine TF sequence I've drawn to date. It was back in 2004, subject being a random human subjected to a TF into a three-headed hydra. Torn clothes, body horror, the usual stuff. There is only one copy of it left on the Internet, over on my FAC page somewhere (if you're really that desperate to see what it was). I did not (and will never) upload it here, especially knowing what sorts of fetish-catering stuff that the TF genre produces. I still have my scan files of the damned thing, but the original has long since been reduced to ash and scattered to the winds.
The second was also in 2004 after various attempts at drawing Sora (of Kingdom Hearts fame) as a red lion -- this was before the knowledge that there was actually going to be a Kingdom Hearts 2, before the announcement that Lion King was going to be one of the worlds (and with Sora as a black lion). There is one copy still buried in my deviantART gallery somewhere, but likewise, it's the only copy you'll find anywhere because the physical original ... "no longer exists."
The last was in 2006, a fanart of another artist's gryphon, a normally anthropomorphic character but rendered as a feral form. The piece itself wasn't bad, probably even my best coloring and detailwork at the time, but it became the subject of a personal dispute between me and a third party and I ended up losing that dispute pretty badly. (By which I mean "genuinely considered throwing all my art supplies in the fire to watch them burn" badly). The gryphon was an innocent but casualty of war, and you won't find any copies of it anywhere, not here, not dA, not FAC. I still have my scan files of it, of course, but the original is now in the hands of the artist whom it was a fanart for in the first place (physically mailed and sent).
There are a few other pieces I've never uploaded over the years because I managed to give away (or misplace) the originals -- one was a semi-mechanized dragon (transformable between quadruped and bipedal forms) which I gave to a friend, the other was an anthropomorphic avian which I gave to my old H.S. art teacher. Neither of these I would consider disowned, but I never took any scans of them, making them my most elusive pieces ever.
In my history....
The first was the only genuine TF sequence I've drawn to date. It was back in 2004, subject being a random human subjected to a TF into a three-headed hydra. Torn clothes, body horror, the usual stuff. There is only one copy of it left on the Internet, over on my FAC page somewhere (if you're really that desperate to see what it was). I did not (and will never) upload it here, especially knowing what sorts of fetish-catering stuff that the TF genre produces. I still have my scan files of the damned thing, but the original has long since been reduced to ash and scattered to the winds.
The second was also in 2004 after various attempts at drawing Sora (of Kingdom Hearts fame) as a red lion -- this was before the knowledge that there was actually going to be a Kingdom Hearts 2, before the announcement that Lion King was going to be one of the worlds (and with Sora as a black lion). There is one copy still buried in my deviantART gallery somewhere, but likewise, it's the only copy you'll find anywhere because the physical original ... "no longer exists."
The last was in 2006, a fanart of another artist's gryphon, a normally anthropomorphic character but rendered as a feral form. The piece itself wasn't bad, probably even my best coloring and detailwork at the time, but it became the subject of a personal dispute between me and a third party and I ended up losing that dispute pretty badly. (By which I mean "genuinely considered throwing all my art supplies in the fire to watch them burn" badly). The gryphon was an innocent but casualty of war, and you won't find any copies of it anywhere, not here, not dA, not FAC. I still have my scan files of it, of course, but the original is now in the hands of the artist whom it was a fanart for in the first place (physically mailed and sent).
There are a few other pieces I've never uploaded over the years because I managed to give away (or misplace) the originals -- one was a semi-mechanized dragon (transformable between quadruped and bipedal forms) which I gave to a friend, the other was an anthropomorphic avian which I gave to my old H.S. art teacher. Neither of these I would consider disowned, but I never took any scans of them, making them my most elusive pieces ever.
So apparently...
Posted 14 years agoBeen toying with the "Pokedex 3D" app on the 3DS. Apparently you can make Pokemon AR markers out of anything, including LEGO tiles. Which is pretty cool....
Got a nice photo of Serperior on its AR marker, for one.
Got a nice photo of Serperior on its AR marker, for one.
Shiny GET!
Posted 14 years agoPlaying: Pokémon HeartGold
I just caught a purple Wurmple from an ordinary random encounter. Awesome!
... Nothing else to say. Back to the grind....
I just caught a purple Wurmple from an ordinary random encounter. Awesome!
... Nothing else to say. Back to the grind....
