| |
|
And who so plays to the crowd.
Is there any evidence that GM takes any real interest in the fannish study of his work? I assume he has a definite idea of the kind of effect he wants to create -- eg. on a grand scale, forming a hypersigil; in a general way, infecting others with his ideas; in terms of the medium, exploring new ways of storytelling or representing heroism -- but I wasn't aware that he would, for instance, read this kind of discussion.
GUD DOG
My favourite line in a comic for some time! My girlfriend has indulgently put up with me going around saying in a naive-inquisitive tone "IS GUD DOG?" for the last 24 hrs.
One remarkable thing about this page is that it makes teen-style txt spk, which I previously experienced as a horrible lazy practice and symptom of sloppy English, seem endearing. Most people on the average chatroom "talk"/write as well as Bandit.
NB. another point for discussion -- does he really "answer to Bandit"? He actually responds to "1", whether from his keepers or Tinker. When and how do the (brilliant: each both authentically Disney-animal-doc and suggesting a type of social renegade) names come into it?
Anyway I really assumed that the talk chips are giving voice to what the animals were already thinking, rather than encouraging them to a higher level. "Hungry" is not beyond the average cat, and "Grass. Eat. Now. Eat" seems a reasonable guess at what a rabbit might be thinking.
Bandit shows more ability and aptitude for learning from what he hears than the others -- which is entirely appropriate I think, given that dogs readily learn the sounds of human commands and ascribe a meaning to them, whereas most cats only respond to their name (or the basic sound of their name being called...probably more tone of voice than the word) and I would think a rabbit would be unlikely even to reach that level. Bandit alone seems to be trying to process what the humans are talking about, even when they're not talking to him (dee-comm-ish-ond).
In fact, it could be argued that they're more intellectually limited than you might expect from trained killing machines. To handle the first mission would require more planning, discipline and control -- higher levels of awareness and intelligence -- than their speech patterns and by extension thought patterns seem to suggest.
Tinker is not an average cat. She (? spitting specifically about MMMEN gives that impression perhaps) is, I think, the animal we're seeing on the first few pages, as the page of them leaving the building, heading for the truck shows her (medium-sized) in the middle, with the red optics rather than blue or yellow. Pirate and Bandit are presumably called up to the right room (335?) by her. Your average cat is not going to stake out its prey, then call in a dog and a rabbit for back-up. Neither is your average cat going to troop out obediently when the job's done: if Tinker had a normal cat intelligence and attitude she'd be scooting off to explore on her own terms, doing a bit of hunting and coming back when she's ready. Which, interestingly, is exactly the tendency she's showing on the final pages.
So are the animal weapons being controlled or prompted on their missions? They are not conforming to normal animal behaviour, although they seem to revert to it at the end when they're out of the compound and back to nature. Are they animals of an average intelligence, or souped-up superbeasts? |
|
|
I just read that there's a horrific rabbit-slaughter sequence opening issue #2