I'm trying to get into making 3D alters, and I'm running into a really basic problem:
When I use my xacto knife to cut the card, it doesn't cut cleanly. What I mean is that the cut edge has a splintery, frayed texture to it and you can see little pieces of the white inside of the card. Is there any way around this? I've tried two different knives so I don't think it's the blade's fault.
Strangleroot Geist freaks me out because of the angle of the geist's head; you can tell it died from having its neck broken due to hanging. The promo version is also creepy.
Sensory Deprivation manages to touch on both my fear of eye injury and my claustrophobia.
Things don't actually die, and it's just a game. I agree. But in the same light, things don't actually get raped, and it's still just a game.
Seriously, I know that rape has a worse connotation, but why? I don't know about you guys, but I really don't see how rape is on a worse level than murder, in the real world. And I don't see why they should differ in a fantasy world.
I don't quite understand how portraying rape is worse than portraying murder.
Murder might seem to be a harsh word to use, but in the same way, so is rape. Neither is actually happening, but one evokes a huge response and the other is really taken as a given in a fantasy card game.
That's not to say that I don't find images of rape (or implied rape) more offensive than those images of murder, I just really don't know why.
I've said this two or three times already, but since the question keeps coming up:
Rape, in both real life and fiction, is a disturbing concept because it's about someone using violence to hurt and humiliate someone who does not have the power to fight them off. It's an inherently sadistic, psychopathic act.
Murder is a more serious crime in real life (since it leaves the victim dead), but in fiction it can be less disturbing because, depending on the situation, the murderer's mindset can be easier to understand. I really don't blame Garruk for wanting to kill Liliana. He's dying of a curse that she put on him, for god's sake. I'd probably try to kill her too, if I were him.
So "Random big guy forces himself on random small woman" (my initial perception of the art) is disturbing as hell. "Garruk attempts to defeat Liliana" (my perception once I realized what I was actually looking at) is not disturbing at all.
I think his knee placement and her dress riding up are what is doing it for these people. That, and if you ever, EVER show a woman looking weak, you are obviously a sexist in most women's eyes, just from my perspective (If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, is what I'm saying)
Right about the first part, wrong about the second. The complaint that was made about the art wasn't that it showed Liliana being defeated or looking weak, it was that she and Garruk were positioned in a way that looked like a rape scene.
(I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who would agree with the second part, but I hope they aren't "most women.")
But, What if i came from a place in which the UFC/MMA wasn't common place and i saw the picture and perceived it to be one man attempting to rape the other. How is that not the same as someone not know the context of a MTG card and perceiving it to be a picture of a man about to rape a women?
It's not
Your perceptions is not reality regardless of if you believe it to be or not.
The fact that they're in a boxing ring wearing martial arts gear makes it clear that they're participating in a martial arts fight. There's really no way to look at that picture and not see the context.
Yes true, but... I wouldn't know unless I talked to her about it and even then she may just quitly suffer the flashback. How am I to know? Should would just stop talking about TV shows like Law and Order or statues (like the rape of whatever-that-famous-godess-is that is so often shown in art history classes) to avoid "trigger".
What is "reasonable accomidation"? How far should one go to avoid said "triggering"? So far as to not show an important peice of art history in a class about art history?
I think the issue is that no one expects a Magic the Gathering card to depict rape. Everyone knows that a show like Law and Order is going to have rape cases in it, which makes it easy for people with "triggers" to avoid the show.
Neither of which conveys the personal hatred he has of her. I don't think you have ever been truly angry in your life if you can't understand this and I guess that is a good thing.
Actually, I kind of see your point. My suggestions would have been too impersonal. So there would need to be a way to show that this was a deeply personal hatred, without making it look like rape... yeah, I don't actually know how that would work.
Yes as we all know brutal ax murdering and attacks by rabid animals commanded from a man against a woman is much more acceptable than implied sexual assault.
I said it earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again: Rape is a special kind of disturbing because it's pretty much always about the same thing: someone using force to hurt and humiliate someone else just because they can. It's basically a violent, sadistic power trip and that makes the concept far more upsetting than "Planeswalker who commands wolves fights planeswalker who casts curses."
Only his hand is on her throat. This means he can't be in any stance that provides the immediate threat of him being able to kill her in one blow.
Her being forced onto her back, except he can't be holding onto her to keep her there...hmm..."You lie there while I stand here and look angry" yep, not the same.
Just his leg between her legs...this would actually be a bigger implication for sexual assault since he would have no other reason to be there, right now, his leg is there to better balance himself for the haymaker he is about to lay down and to keep her from dodging his blow.
So no, 1/3 isn't very good.
How about he is holding her neck and she is forced down, but his leg isn't between hers, now the picture just looks fake as he is in an awkward position attempting to kill her and its not immersive at all.
Neck being held with leg between hers, this would look pretty intimate to me...
Leg between hers and her being forced down...what is stopping her from moving her head to the side? Why would an experienced fighter like garruk give her a means to move around? This doesn't make sense...
So no, 2/3 doesn't seem to work either as you don't get the same emotion and immediacy that the current artwork is portraying.
Okay, how about 0/3? He doesn't have to be touching her at all, and his anger could still be conveyed. It was suggested earlier that he could have been swinging an axe at her, or siccing wolves on her.
How should this card have been portrayed then? How should the anger that Garruk has, in which he has been cursed to go crazy and die a painful death, be portrayed in a fight to the death against Liliana? How can you show that personal connection of hatred Garruk has for Liliana without having a scene that some people could construe as "Rape in 3...2...1...."?
As whydirt said earlier in the thread, the problem is the combination of Garruk choking Liliana, forcing her onto her back, and sticking his leg between hers. If one or two of those details had been different, this thread probably wouldn't even exist.
I can appreciate that, but if a player is already sitting on the fence because of the sexual content of the game, there's plenty of more egregious examples of objectification to be found, what with the game's long and storied history of leggy, scantily clad angels, and, of course, Liliana of the Veil itself.
Being offended or disturbed by an image depicting rape isn't the same as being offended or disturbed by an image depicting a scantily-dressed woman. I thought the Triumph of Ferocity art was disturbing at first glance, but I don't really care one way or the other if Liliana of the Veil is dressed provocatively. Other women may disagree with me; they may find both cards offensive, or neither offensive.
But what these people are doing is akin to covering their bodies in sugar whilst laying in a field, and then acting surprised when they get covered in ants.
Men generally have more intelligence and self-control than ants do.
Where do you draw the line between "****ty" and "acceptable"? I mean, I'm sitting here right now in jeans and a t-shirt. Someone from the Victorian era would have thought I was obscene for wearing pants instead of a dress. Someone from some parts of the Middle East would find it offensive that my face and arms are uncovered. A foot fetishist would probably be turned on by the fact that I'm not wearing shoes. A homophobe might see my rainbow earrings and accuse me of flaunting my sexuality. At what point am I no longer responsible for censoring myself for my own safety?
This. Absolutely this. All implications of rape go out the window once you know what's actually going on from a story perspective. And frankly, if you're playing the game, you should be at least marginally aware of the story. It's not like the card doesn't have flavor text.
I linked to an article way back in the beginning of this thread, where someone was worried that new female players would be turned off from the game because of the card. I don't necessarily agree with this (since reading the flavor text is enough to tell you exactly what's happening and why), but I do think he had a point in that context can be blurred in certain situations (like the fact that this image is on a playmat, which means there's no flavor text accompanying it), and what an experienced player sees isn't always going to be what a new player sees.
I honestly think the main reason is that with death, you clean it up and its done with and everyone can move on with their lives. Rape on the other hand, sticks around for years and years. A person can only suffer death once, a rape victim can suffer the rest of their lives.
Though, I wonder what would be considered worse, being raped then killed or just killed. Neither seems like a better option to me than the other.
I think it's about the motive. There are plenty of justifiable reasons why someone might kill someone else: self-defense, an act of war, accidentally, etc. With rape, there's pretty much only one reason: You want to sadistically assert the fact that you're more powerful than someone else.
No one is saying he can't be depicted beating her using brute force. It's in the accumulation of details, namely:
1. He's choking her
2. He's holding her flat on her back
3. He's forcing himself in between her legs
Lose any one of these three things and the art would probably be okay.
QFT. Also, the fireball could have been bigger. I didn't notice the fireball the first time I saw the image; an emphasis on it would have made it clearer that Liliana isn't helpless.
Indeed people are forgetting that Garruk is the weaker one and was corrupted by her already. I mean it isn't as if we got a card depicting this or anything. Liliana is absolutely the stronger walker in Innistrad and Garruks fighting back. He is struggling for his life and people saying Liliana is in the disadvantaged position just don't even realize what is going on.
You are right. Those who see this in the way they want to see it have issues, but people do that all the time. You just have to piety them.
Again, the issue is "out of context". I'm all for cheering on the hero Garruk as he fights the villain Liliana. It's only when you don't know who those characters are that this becomes a really unfortunate image.
Him: what was that for?
Her: charity
Him: what the <bleep> is that supposed to mean?
Her: I figured I'd do you the favor and let you touch a woman once in your life...it'll probably be your only chance.
Then she smiled and walked out.
I'm sure you already know this, but your girlfriend is awesome.
Anyhow, apparently I live in some sort of utopia because I've never encountered any of the stuff you guys are talking about. Granted, the D&D stuff isn't applicable, since my LGS doesn't do D&D (which I think is unfortunate, actually. I haven't played D&D in months and would love to get back into it). It does do Yu-Gi-Oh, though, and I've never seen any rudeness or hostility between YGO and MtG players. I think it's because of the age divide; the YGO players tend to be middle-schoolers, while the MtG players tend to be in their 20s and 30s. There are some adults who play YGO, but they're also MtG players so what are they going to do, bully themselves?
There was this one time when I was standing outside the LGS, and a pack of kids who looked about 12 years old walked past. One of them pointed inside the store, said "Look! A nerd tournament!" and they laughed. It pissed me off until I remembered that I'm 28 and above caring about middle school bullies.
If anyone's interested, here's an article about it: Liliana and Garruk. The author of that article also wrote a similar article earlier that I thought made a better argument: Anti-Flavor Dissertation
Really!? Even in isolation, is that really what it looks like?
'Cos to me, it looks like shes about to have her head caved in.
Ignore everything you know about the storyline, and it's a picture of an angry man pinning down a woman, preparing to commit an act of violence against her. The fact that he looks like he's about to punch her lights out doesn't change the "rape" vibe; rape often involves physical violence that isn't directly related to sex.
Of course, the key phrase is "ignoring everything you know about the storyline." The author of the article that I linked to above says he worries that new (female) players who aren't familiar with the story will be freaked out by the art, but all you have to do is read the flavor text and it's clear that Garruk is just trying to get Liliana to lift a curse she cast on him.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, while the picture squicks me out and I wouldn't want to use a playmat of it, I don't think it's offensive or that people who like it are bad or sexist. Of course, I don't speak for all women, feel free to disagree, etc.
When I use my xacto knife to cut the card, it doesn't cut cleanly. What I mean is that the cut edge has a splintery, frayed texture to it and you can see little pieces of the white inside of the card. Is there any way around this? I've tried two different knives so I don't think it's the blade's fault.
Strangleroot Geist freaks me out because of the angle of the geist's head; you can tell it died from having its neck broken due to hanging. The promo version is also creepy.
Sensory Deprivation manages to touch on both my fear of eye injury and my claustrophobia.
I've said this two or three times already, but since the question keeps coming up:
Rape, in both real life and fiction, is a disturbing concept because it's about someone using violence to hurt and humiliate someone who does not have the power to fight them off. It's an inherently sadistic, psychopathic act.
Murder is a more serious crime in real life (since it leaves the victim dead), but in fiction it can be less disturbing because, depending on the situation, the murderer's mindset can be easier to understand. I really don't blame Garruk for wanting to kill Liliana. He's dying of a curse that she put on him, for god's sake. I'd probably try to kill her too, if I were him.
So "Random big guy forces himself on random small woman" (my initial perception of the art) is disturbing as hell. "Garruk attempts to defeat Liliana" (my perception once I realized what I was actually looking at) is not disturbing at all.
Right about the first part, wrong about the second. The complaint that was made about the art wasn't that it showed Liliana being defeated or looking weak, it was that she and Garruk were positioned in a way that looked like a rape scene.
(I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who would agree with the second part, but I hope they aren't "most women.")
The fact that they're in a boxing ring wearing martial arts gear makes it clear that they're participating in a martial arts fight. There's really no way to look at that picture and not see the context.
I think the issue is that no one expects a Magic the Gathering card to depict rape. Everyone knows that a show like Law and Order is going to have rape cases in it, which makes it easy for people with "triggers" to avoid the show.
Actually, I kind of see your point. My suggestions would have been too impersonal. So there would need to be a way to show that this was a deeply personal hatred, without making it look like rape... yeah, I don't actually know how that would work.
I said it earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again: Rape is a special kind of disturbing because it's pretty much always about the same thing: someone using force to hurt and humiliate someone else just because they can. It's basically a violent, sadistic power trip and that makes the concept far more upsetting than "Planeswalker who commands wolves fights planeswalker who casts curses."
Okay, how about 0/3? He doesn't have to be touching her at all, and his anger could still be conveyed. It was suggested earlier that he could have been swinging an axe at her, or siccing wolves on her.
As whydirt said earlier in the thread, the problem is the combination of Garruk choking Liliana, forcing her onto her back, and sticking his leg between hers. If one or two of those details had been different, this thread probably wouldn't even exist.
Being offended or disturbed by an image depicting rape isn't the same as being offended or disturbed by an image depicting a scantily-dressed woman. I thought the Triumph of Ferocity art was disturbing at first glance, but I don't really care one way or the other if Liliana of the Veil is dressed provocatively. Other women may disagree with me; they may find both cards offensive, or neither offensive.
Men generally have more intelligence and self-control than ants do.
Where do you draw the line between "****ty" and "acceptable"? I mean, I'm sitting here right now in jeans and a t-shirt. Someone from the Victorian era would have thought I was obscene for wearing pants instead of a dress. Someone from some parts of the Middle East would find it offensive that my face and arms are uncovered. A foot fetishist would probably be turned on by the fact that I'm not wearing shoes. A homophobe might see my rainbow earrings and accuse me of flaunting my sexuality. At what point am I no longer responsible for censoring myself for my own safety?
I linked to an article way back in the beginning of this thread, where someone was worried that new female players would be turned off from the game because of the card. I don't necessarily agree with this (since reading the flavor text is enough to tell you exactly what's happening and why), but I do think he had a point in that context can be blurred in certain situations (like the fact that this image is on a playmat, which means there's no flavor text accompanying it), and what an experienced player sees isn't always going to be what a new player sees.
I think it's about the motive. There are plenty of justifiable reasons why someone might kill someone else: self-defense, an act of war, accidentally, etc. With rape, there's pretty much only one reason: You want to sadistically assert the fact that you're more powerful than someone else.
QFT. Also, the fireball could have been bigger. I didn't notice the fireball the first time I saw the image; an emphasis on it would have made it clearer that Liliana isn't helpless.
Again, the issue is "out of context". I'm all for cheering on the hero Garruk as he fights the villain Liliana. It's only when you don't know who those characters are that this becomes a really unfortunate image.
I'm sure you already know this, but your girlfriend is awesome.
Anyhow, apparently I live in some sort of utopia because I've never encountered any of the stuff you guys are talking about. Granted, the D&D stuff isn't applicable, since my LGS doesn't do D&D (which I think is unfortunate, actually. I haven't played D&D in months and would love to get back into it). It does do Yu-Gi-Oh, though, and I've never seen any rudeness or hostility between YGO and MtG players. I think it's because of the age divide; the YGO players tend to be middle-schoolers, while the MtG players tend to be in their 20s and 30s. There are some adults who play YGO, but they're also MtG players so what are they going to do, bully themselves?
There was this one time when I was standing outside the LGS, and a pack of kids who looked about 12 years old walked past. One of them pointed inside the store, said "Look! A nerd tournament!" and they laughed. It pissed me off until I remembered that I'm 28 and above caring about middle school bullies.
Ignore everything you know about the storyline, and it's a picture of an angry man pinning down a woman, preparing to commit an act of violence against her. The fact that he looks like he's about to punch her lights out doesn't change the "rape" vibe; rape often involves physical violence that isn't directly related to sex.
Of course, the key phrase is "ignoring everything you know about the storyline." The author of the article that I linked to above says he worries that new (female) players who aren't familiar with the story will be freaked out by the art, but all you have to do is read the flavor text and it's clear that Garruk is just trying to get Liliana to lift a curse she cast on him.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, while the picture squicks me out and I wouldn't want to use a playmat of it, I don't think it's offensive or that people who like it are bad or sexist. Of course, I don't speak for all women, feel free to disagree, etc.