Funnybook Babylon

June 18, 2007

I hate Scans Daily

Filed under: Blurbs — Pedro Tejeda @ 5:41 pm

It’s at least three steps below Newsarama for godsakes.

It’s pretty obvious by the 4th panel, that she’s not blowing anyone. I can’t believe anyone could miss the point of this art.

Not a blowjob


  1. Uh, I like the panel, but it *does* sorta artistically imply a sexual domination from the point of view of someone blocking it out.

    Especially the part where he says ‘always’ with his ‘o’ face.

    And the 4th panel is one where she seems to be in denial…

    Comment by Joseph Mastantuono — June 18, 2007 @ 11:38 pm

  2. I’m gonna assume you’re tired. It’s pretty obvious that artist and writer are being rather suggestive with the art. That’s the point of the piece.

    My gripe is that people actually believe that an actual sexual act took place on these pages instead of just a symbolic representation of a bj.

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — June 19, 2007 @ 7:05 am

  3. Scans_Daily is the internet equivalent of the kids in the back of your sixth grade science class that giggle every time the words “penis”, “vagina”, “endosperm”, “coccyx”, “herbivore” or “duodenum” are mentioned, because they are/kinda sound dirty.

    Comment by Chris Eckert — June 19, 2007 @ 12:38 pm

  4. I’m confused.

    A drawing *is* a “SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION” of an act. Just because the artist is being symbolic rather than pornographic doesn’t change what the art suggests.

    I’m looking at this without context, if the work addresses the aftermath of ‘abuse’ or the character dealing with it (again it could just as symbolic) it’s effective.

    but maybe it’s just me looking in a vacuum, but IT SAYS THE LOVER IN THE TITLE. How do you not assume some sort of act from that.

    Comment by Joseph Mastantuono — June 19, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

  5. The actual mechanics of a blowjob, are near impossible in this sequence. Unless Maximus has an “inhuman” penis of 21 inches that can curve then it’s possible. Even then, he’s only getting the tip, as we all know doesn’t count.

    Also, I’m going to kill you next time you tell me this not a pipe. You know what I mean!

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — June 20, 2007 @ 7:26 am

  6. Wife’s exact words.

    “What’s going on?

    Ohh! it’s a blowjob then doggystyle.

    It’s very pretty but that’s what’s happening.”


    and besides what the fuck are you talking about pipes? Do I look like I’m from belgium?

    Comment by Joseph Mastantuono — June 22, 2007 @ 9:10 pm

  7. I have to say, your wife must not understand the mechanics of doggystyle. It’s from the back not the front. The dude is behind the bars, which she is facing. Unless, we are still thinking about a stretchy uber long penis.

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — June 24, 2007 @ 11:01 am

  8. As a member of Scans_Daily, and a proponent against mixing slash readings with canon relationships (like long established heterosexual characters being imagined as a homosexual couple, even thought they’re not even compatible as two human beings), let me say: There’s nothing wrong with exploring subtext.

    Comic art has long been academically examined as a symbolic medium, with various textual interpretations beyond the original story. Every artistic medium faces this: paintings, film, music, TV, literature, etc. It would only stand to reason there would be a community that examines the sexual subtext of popular series being touted as “the modern mythology.”

    I don’t deny that the proposed subtext’s can often be far removed from the original author’s intention for the work, but there’s no high crime of intellectualism here. Nor is it a failure of logic; people examine and supply an alternative interpretation of something, and the stated subject of the community is sexual subtext and pairing. The wording of, “they are so gay for each other, it’s practically canon” can seem childish and one-dimensional, but it comes from people giving VERY close readings of work, not just consuming something without thinking much about things.

    They aren’t treating things simply and crassly; they’re invested in the works heavily. If you don’t like the subtext discussions, do what I do: either enjoy the free comic scans or give comments on other aspects of the posted works.

    Comment by gl_earthprime — January 26, 2008 @ 1:11 am

  9. Mr. Earthprime, my issue with scans daily is that most of the people have an agenda to take something out of context and make fun of it. Few if ever read the full work.

    Sometimes they are so enamored with their point, they are unable to follow the scene graphically. At this point in my life, I just avoid the site because it’s not the place where I can expect intelligent commentary from people who know the medium. People at scans daily will often post something, and in the comments, someone will debunk what they are saying. The issues is that no one reads the comments. They just post a reply to the original material and since they have no context of the book, they agree with the original and often incorrect posting.

    No one is saying not to read into the material listed there, but when your idea of what is going on there is completely against what is actually physically drawn on the page, maybe your opinion isn’t very strong.

    No one at scans daily is exploring subtext. It’s a bunch of people making immature “gay” jokes about any sort of relationship between guys. It’s no better than the 12 year x-box live players. It’s people accusing a writer of racism and sexism without looking at his previous record. It’s alot of assumption with no mature reading.

    I’m pretty much over this subject, but I just wanted to reply back as a courtesy. Thank you for visiting the site.

    Comment by Pedro Tejeda — January 26, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress