I actually thought you meant the same thing as SpANG! did, Sijo ... that I was narrating with one voice and then switched. Now that you clarified what you meant, I can sort of see your point.
This story was written while the "Going Home" storyline was being written, and there are things about it I would tweak. However, it is like Going Home in that it is not being narrated at all.
What I drew in the temple/church is what happened as it was happening (of course, what was happening was the head priest explaining the foundation of his church from a heavily biased perspective), now we've switched scenes and I've continued telling the story just after Ronson recounts the parts you've already seen.
So there really isn't any narration at all, which might be what seems a bit odd in comparison to a lot of comic writing. I try not to rely too much on narration because I feel that when a character narrates a story, it will be somewhat skewed to their perspective. By avoiding a narrator, I feel I get closer to "what actually happened". In general: If it's in a word balloon or flashback illustration, it's a perspective. If it's drawn in real time, it happened.
This is also how "Myths & Legends" was written - no narration short of a few "Meanwhile" and "Later" boxes.
"Consequences" was, however, heavily narrated. The first part was from Inti while explaining his time to the other gods - and his interpretations of events were biased to his perspective. The second part was not narrated, and was told in real time. The third part was told by Ronson, who had recounted the events of the second part to some mysterious recipient just prior to the beginning of the third part.
So far, I have only told short stories in real time, without narration. I also tell it linearly (aside from clearly delineated flashbacks).
I think narration is a good tool to use when there isn't enough time (as in pacing, not as in the amount of effort required for a page) to illustrate the whole story. That's why I needed it in "Consequences" because it already required a lot of skipping back and forth, and expanded explanations to explain what the main character is thinking would have bogged it down.
...but I will keep the critique in mind, and maybe shift my style a bit more in the future. One needs to constantly expand their bag of tricks.
@SpANG: I didn't mean that the story was supposed to be narrated by the head priest; but rather that we began with one narrative and end up with another. Ronson may like that plot device a little too much.
And btw, these are CASUAL comments, it's not like any of us are *required* to do research before posting. I wonder how well YOUR statements would stand that test. ;)
So it turns out the whole thing was being narrated to someone in a bar?
Didn't we start with the priest narrating the story of the Ronson Church?
It's not uninteresting, but it gets convoluted. I assume Ronson must be telling the story... or maybe the (former) head acolyte.
And yeah, I'm not surprised that some people refused to accept the truth even after being shown it by their very god. Some people use faith as a crutch for their beliefs and can't live without it.
...And there's still two more pages to go? What else is there to tell? (We'll see.)
Why do I think, that the high priest is still there and the temple is now more popular thatn before, because Ronson appeared there.... Which makes it extra holy.
But Who's the one souting "WHAT!?" at the end? I think it's either Ronson or someone, Ronson is talking to.
Ronson at 8:34AM, May 5, 2010
I actually thought you meant the same thing as SpANG! did, Sijo ... that I was narrating with one voice and then switched. Now that you clarified what you meant, I can sort of see your point. This story was written while the "Going Home" storyline was being written, and there are things about it I would tweak. However, it is like Going Home in that it is not being narrated at all. What I drew in the temple/church is what happened as it was happening (of course, what was happening was the head priest explaining the foundation of his church from a heavily biased perspective), now we've switched scenes and I've continued telling the story just after Ronson recounts the parts you've already seen. So there really isn't any narration at all, which might be what seems a bit odd in comparison to a lot of comic writing. I try not to rely too much on narration because I feel that when a character narrates a story, it will be somewhat skewed to their perspective. By avoiding a narrator, I feel I get closer to "what actually happened". In general: If it's in a word balloon or flashback illustration, it's a perspective. If it's drawn in real time, it happened. This is also how "Myths & Legends" was written - no narration short of a few "Meanwhile" and "Later" boxes. "Consequences" was, however, heavily narrated. The first part was from Inti while explaining his time to the other gods - and his interpretations of events were biased to his perspective. The second part was not narrated, and was told in real time. The third part was told by Ronson, who had recounted the events of the second part to some mysterious recipient just prior to the beginning of the third part. So far, I have only told short stories in real time, without narration. I also tell it linearly (aside from clearly delineated flashbacks). I think narration is a good tool to use when there isn't enough time (as in pacing, not as in the amount of effort required for a page) to illustrate the whole story. That's why I needed it in "Consequences" because it already required a lot of skipping back and forth, and expanded explanations to explain what the main character is thinking would have bogged it down. ...but I will keep the critique in mind, and maybe shift my style a bit more in the future. One needs to constantly expand their bag of tricks.
Sijo at 6:29AM, May 5, 2010
@SpANG: I didn't mean that the story was supposed to be narrated by the head priest; but rather that we began with one narrative and end up with another. Ronson may like that plot device a little too much. And btw, these are CASUAL comments, it's not like any of us are *required* to do research before posting. I wonder how well YOUR statements would stand that test. ;)
Artificer Urza at 6:03PM, May 4, 2010
Not surprised.
Poki_rat at 4:25PM, May 4, 2010
Geeze, some people never learn.
SoItBegins at 2:18PM, May 4, 2010
Wait, wha....? ......oh.
SpANG at 1:05PM, May 4, 2010
Actually, no, it didn't start like that. It's interesting how you never go back to check your statements for factual accuracy before posting. ;)
Sijo at 8:51AM, May 4, 2010
So it turns out the whole thing was being narrated to someone in a bar? Didn't we start with the priest narrating the story of the Ronson Church? It's not uninteresting, but it gets convoluted. I assume Ronson must be telling the story... or maybe the (former) head acolyte. And yeah, I'm not surprised that some people refused to accept the truth even after being shown it by their very god. Some people use faith as a crutch for their beliefs and can't live without it. ...And there's still two more pages to go? What else is there to tell? (We'll see.)
Heidrek at 6:31AM, May 4, 2010
Why do I think, that the high priest is still there and the temple is now more popular thatn before, because Ronson appeared there.... Which makes it extra holy. But Who's the one souting "WHAT!?" at the end? I think it's either Ronson or someone, Ronson is talking to.
Darius Drake at 2:05AM, May 4, 2010
Will they stop worshiping Ronson now, and worship Bikk instead?
Nolim at 10:20PM, May 3, 2010
Not so easy after all.
ghostrunner at 10:17PM, May 3, 2010
sounds about right
TheFlyingGreenMonkey at 10:05PM, May 3, 2010
First