Sigh. Back when Phillippe was standing on it, no one griped about anything as mundane as a plot.
i agree completely.
however, phillipe standing on it represents a one-off, non-arced story. it was, and others of its type are, completely self contained.
the brilliance of the phillipe standing on it stories was that while 100% self-contained, the made reference to an immense universe of achewood that had not been told or storied. the possibly retarded otter was both self contained and a portal to a universe.
regardless, the strip stood on its own.
as such, looking at, like as at a picture, i could see the entirety of it and comment on it. hey, i could say, look! phillipe is standing on it. hey, i could say, look! the mona lisa isn't very pretty.
with story-arc strips, though, i can look upon them and see much, but by their very inclusion into a story arc i respect the artist's desire for me to see them in continuity. it is rude of me to appraise the strip of its complete value until i have viewed the entire arc.
if i wasn't to wait, why would i have been presented an arc?
if i were to partake of the strip as a singularity, it would have been presented to me as a big mac, modulated but complete, and not as a mc-dlt, which was separate. one did not eat the cold side cold, and then, later, upon receipt of the hot side eat the hot side. the mc-dlt was not 2 entities, separate, alone. no, it was a series of sandwich halves which must be combined into a singular sandwich entity.
i may appreciate, say, the insane brilliance of the cold half, the bill murray representation. i may appreciate, as it were, the hot side of ray's complete being encapsulated into the witty banter of a patty in a strip.
but, i may not conjoin the two and offer an opinion as to my meal until the chef has given me his full offering.
anything else would be uncivilized.
Author
Topic: I could call a picture like that... Sloplung! -- 10/18/10 (Read 7731 times)