HOME | DD
SentientAberration — OLD ACX Title Page
by-nc-nd
Published: 2010-12-12 03:12:35 +0000 UTC; Views: 144; Favourites: 1; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
OLD titlepage that I *actually* had on a 200-page printout hard-copy of the last version of my first story.As you can see, it is composed of a compilation of several of my older pictures.
SCRAP
Related content
Comments: 18
I remember that monster from the story; hard to forget something that nearly killed the main protagonist on more than one occasion
Now that I think of it that's the only Fakemon I can think of off the top of my head you ever created - is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is another one. Fire/Ground type, based off of the Armadillo Lizard. It appears later in the first story as a subtle nuance, but becomes increasingly important in the second and third stories.
Both of them will get new art when they are mentioned again in my revision. I'll probably do a LOT of work on coldrak's design. I realized it looks too much like one of those digimon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it looks awesome; Like a cross between Guimon and Veemon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Veemon, that's it. I hate that thing. I don't know why though, I've never watched that show (nor do I care).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't worry it mostly resembles Guimon just with the horn on the nose and the color of Veemon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You mean *Guilmon*? (I searched it the way you spelled and nothing came up). I think coldrak looks nothing like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well sure as heck doesn't look like Veemon; Exveemon maybe but not Veemon
The tail and torso look like Guilmon's
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like I said before, what I know about digimon comes from quick image searches on Google. Either way, a slight redesign is inevitable. Spinewt's design will likely stay largely the same. I've never really had issues with it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When you see the show you can tell the difference between Pokemon and Digimon; when someone starts comparing them you know they haven't seen the show
Yeah it could use a makeover; something more threatening and less wussy-looking
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There is a hole in your logic there. Think about it for a second...
Yes, coldrak is an original creature design for a story that features what are essentially pokemon. But did it ever dawn on you that while they are in my story, the people indigenous to that world have never heard of a "pokemon" before?
Big mindfu** moment: Even though Robert goes into the situation knowing what pokemon are from a video game in his world, where he winds up, there is no such thing. This is even though the creatures themselves exist! My designs are from outside the specifications of our game designers' thinking. They are not, in fact, pokemon by definition.
Funfact: Neither of the two creatures in my story are ever called a pokemon either my narration or by Robert or his thoughts. Only creatures pre-defined by our logic to already be pokemon are. Assumptions are bad, mm'key?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know but it's simpler refering to them as Pokemon
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course it is; ever heard of metaphors and similes?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I see. Are we being a joker now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I'm being serious; if I understand the definition of misnomer correctly, metaphors and similes are the exception.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But you fail to understand the difference in meaning and use of logic vs. Grammar mechanics. Dragging this conversation into semantics is both unnecessary and useless. Words are only the colorful, representative facade of a rhetorical logic-based situation. If you fail to understand their use in a particular situation, then looking to alternate meanings in both the literal and metaphoric sense is just silly. It allows for nothing but to "beat around the bush", something I have to say you do quite well.
The logic of this situation is this (It is quite simple, really): The creatures we call pokemon that are in my story are not actually pokemon as long as they are in the realm in which the story itself take place. Therefore any creature I make up for that story is NOT a pokemon.
Key notes to consider: As a narrator in the story, these creatures are referred to as pokemon from Robert's perspective (he only knows them as pokemon from his [our] world). BUT This never happens with Spinewt or Coldrak in any case. This is simply to keep the reader in tune with the story, and to keep them from trying to imagine actual pokemon in the place of my own creations simply because I didn't name them at the time (people have done it anyway).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that's why I brought up similes and metaphors; comparison of one thing to another even though we know they're not the same. In fact, Robert calling them Pokemon is a subtle metaphor; as you just stated he uses the term 'Pokemon' to relate them to a concept he's more familiar with. The use of metaphors and similes' entire purpose is to give perspective on something by comparing things to other things people are familiar with.
He doesn't call Spinewt or Coldrak Pokemon because he's never seen their species in the games, thus he has no reason to believe they're under the same classification. If he were to use a word, it would be Fakemon but the term would sound weird in your story.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, but none of this has anything to do with the argument you were pushing before, which was that Spinewt and Coldrak were pokemon. You're changing the subject, though gradually.
The point you make now is actually misrepresented if you use the terms 'simile' and 'metaphor'. You're not far off, but where this becomes inaccurate is in the very concept in the story itself. Robert is not actually comparing these creatures to Pokemon... He really believes they are (that's all he has ever known.) What we're looking at now is not a comparison, but a his 'prototype' or standard of what these creatures are. The prototype basically is any one of the 380(?) pokemon that were available in 2004. Raichu is on that list, so Raichu = pokemon/fits the prototype. For the folks that live in that world, the same prototype=common intelligent animal, not pokemon. They are in essence the same prototype, but they have different names and associations that originate in different dimensions. BUT because of the dimensional barrier, they are not the same... Quite literally, "Common Intelligent Animals" do not exist here, and "Pokemon" never existed there. Once you cross the line, what existed on the side you came from "does not exist" anymore. Robert's case complicates things here because he has sen BOTH sides.
That does not explain his reaction to Lucario, which IS deemed a Pokemon by narration in the story. He only has knowledge of pokemon up to Ruby and Sapphire (The latest games available in 2004). It is, if I can remember correctly, mentioned something like a 'pokemon he had never seen before'. Given the possibility that in one of my revisions that is no longer the case, I'm pretty sure Lucario is still referred to as a pokemon somewhere. If what you said was to be true, Lucario would follow suit. But then what about the "prototype" thing? This becomes an issue that could be represented on a Venn Diagram; Lucario does not fit Robert's prototype because of the time frame involved, but it does fit ours ('ours' as in 'you and I' from Robert's home world here). We see it labeled as a "pokemon" because it fits our prototype for our time. In contrast, we have Coldrak and Spinewt, for whom that was never the intent from the start. We have to assume that they originataed entirely on the other side of this dimensional barrier and cannot be associated with our prototype of a pokemon (This will obviously be hard for some to do anyway, but this would be no different if someone thought they were a Neopet or Digimon when you think about it.)
Also, assume this is all from the view of someone with perspective of both sides of this barrier (Which follows suit with Robert's character).
I'm breaking into some of my multidimensional theory... You're not getting lost are you? It is far more complicated than standard logic! I'll assign a probability of 9/10 that you get lost in this somewhere.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0