[0615] Fox Fan
└ posted on Thursday, 11 September 2014, by Novil
- Lydia: Is something wrong, Steve?
- Steve: I… forgot to turn off the stove. The roast’s completely burned!
- Lydia: Oh, that’s too bad. But I’m full anyway.
- Steve: I’m not feeling so well, Lydia.
- Lydia: Yeah, you’re quite pale. I hope you won’t get sick.
- Lydia: Maybe I should go.
- Steve: Yes, maybe that’d be better.
- Lydia: But before that I want to take a look at your fox collection!
- Steve: Then this way, please.
- Lydia: Is it true that you have over fifty paintings and prints?
- Steve: Yes, I love foxes!
- Steve: I have a very bad feeling about this.
- Lydia: Maybe a little too much, don’t you think?
![[0615] Fox Fan](/comics/2014-09-11-0615-fox-fan.png "[0615] Fox Fan")
Ah, continuity.
Gotta love the references.
Guess it was inevitable with WOO heading the revenge plot.
Ok so wait a second… Woo and co are doing this whole thing because Shadow was (understandibly) not too happy with his sex life being exposed.
And to enact their vengeance, they… use “prints” of foxes having sex? I mean, unless these are “professional” foxes of course, then I would understand…
plot twist: woo didn’t change that room
To be fair, the guy thinks that foxes can’t feel shame and he seems like a decent bloke. I think that this is going a bit too far.
It’s still hilarious, though.
I think I’ve started to feel a bit bad for Steve. I hope he turns out okay.
And seriously, what was that thing in the oven?… I’m not sure if I WANT to know, when I’m thinking about it…
@ Sarusig:
What baffles me is where they got a load of statues of foxes doing the deed. did they make them? if so then how did they find the time. And isnt that a little too much effort
Now, where did Woo get those pictures from?
I don’t think that Woo took photographs of Shadow and Echo during…ahem.
But the pictures do look an awful like those two foxes..
Hmm.
Okay, he DESERVED that one, if your dim enough to not see that coming, you deserve it.
@ Rayman:
98% sure is was poo.
Shadow (outside): *eartwitch* Yes, she’s seen it. Now, you need to get some molten iron, human girl, and start finding places to pour it into! It’s the only proper way to react to this situation! Go on… nobody would blame you! I’ll like and friend you when you post about it!
>:=)>
Oh well at least it’s not Anime. Ehehehehehehehe. Someone would be is some serious trouble.
Geary wrote:
NOPE Chuck Testa.
The stylizing of the statues is actually quite good. Nice job, Powree!
Luke wrote:
Do you read this comic?Luke wrote:
Do you read this comic?
Okay, that’s far enough. I do believe the animals have gone further though and are likely to have ruined Steve’s life over a misunderstanding.
Well, if something’s worth doing, it’s worth overdoing. 3:D
@ moon_fruit:
The Internet
Wow. Just wow.
The two reasons we have internet: porn and cute animal pics. You have successfully brought the ‘net full circle!
I feel SOOOO sorry for this guy.
Okay, I love the slice of life Sandra And Woo comics, but as of late I’ve had to wonder if I should really be cheering for them… It’s crossed a lot of lines from ‘Loveable Rogue’ to ‘Violent, cruel, and malicious.’
Someone has radical political views which you disagree with? Better kidnap and murder them! (Or at any rate dislocate them so utterly from their old life that they can’t possibly get back.)
Someone unknowingly offends you while trying to capture the beauty of nature? Better drug them, humiliate them, and whatever else Woo and his friends did…
A mother doesn’t want her thirteen year old son hanging around a dangerous pyromaniac who clearly has some kind of psychological condition? Better manipulate and lie to her so she has to go against her beliefs!
In the past, all the villians have at least been (Caricature, cartoonish, excessively) evil, crazy, or radical, or stupid, but as of late I’m getting the feeling more and more that our cast just has no sense of morals or reasonable reactions. Especially with the friendly, kind, nature-loving guy who Woo+Co. are screwing with now.
“A mother doesn’t want her thirteen year old son hanging around a dangerous pyromaniac who clearly has some kind of psychological condition? Better manipulate and lie to her so she has to go against her beliefs!”
Considering the religious zealotry and homophobia, I don’t see how she deserves any sympathy, especially since she wasn’t harmed in any way.
If you have a “very bad feeling” about something, just don’t do it….or listen to Gandalf…RUN!..
@ moon_fruit: The guy’s gallery is available online. They simply chose the “worst” of his pictures and made sure those were the ones that were up
@ Annaphylactic Shock:
No one should have to change their religious beliefs to fit other’s veiw.
In Christianity and many other religions homosexuality is considered wrong, people should not have to like or approve of something that goes against their religious or moral beliefs and expecting them to is Incorrect and a form of peer pressure.
And bigotry is hatred you can disapprove of something without being a bigot, if that isn’t the case, then would you be a bigot too for disapproving of Christian views? No of you wouldn’t. Remember a pendulum swings both ways not just one.
Candy wrote:
Homosexuality isn’t a choice.
Homophobia is.
MawileCeyvis wrote:
What about Ytps and Memes?
Well, the wrong poses part was right…
moon_fruit wrote:
Woo knows where to get the Pr0n2 at. If he can find R4(00/\/ Pr0n, then he can easily get Fox Pr0n.
Woo is a Pr0n master. One does not simply find Pr0n using an underaged girls youtube account. 😉
Ok kids this s what we call say it with me nie re-pro-duc-tion the fist step in the circle of life 😀
@ Annaphylactic Shock:
Homophobia is a fear of homosexuality disapproval of it is not.
I have known people who have changed form homosexual to heterosexual and vise versa so some would disagree on that last bit.
The key here is TOLERANCE you don’t bother them they don’t bother you.
You don’t try to wiggle your way into their churches they won’t bother your world.
If you sit down and talk with some religious people you’d see that’s pretty much what they want .
To be left alone.
Being a hypocrite, hating one group being they “hate” a group you support isn’t going to get us anywhere.
And most religious people don’t hate homosexuals they disapprove of homosexuality.
saying disapproval is hate would be like saying because someone disapproves of sex before marriage they must hate people who have sex before marriage.
Disapproval and hate are two different things.
Homophobia and disapproval are two different things.
Candy wrote:
Telling people that it’s okay to be gay as long as they hide it isn’t tolerance.
@ mechwarrior:
Where in my post did I say that?
I don’t bother their churches-dont complain about the decisions they make in them- and they won’t bother you.
And if your talking about where I said I knew people who switched orientations, they did that on their own accord no one forced them. It was just a “I think I’m straight” or a “I think I’m gay ” moment.
Reading in context is important~
@ mechwarrior:
That’s not what he’s saying. What he’s saying is, he’s not gonna bother people as long as they’re not trying to shove their views down his throat. Seriously, people get mad at Christians for oppressing their religion, but don’t like gay people? Well, you’re just a hater, and you should have our opinion forcefully shoved upon you, because it’s just ‘right’.
Seriously, society is fucked up.
@ mechwarrior:
Also I would prefer if posted my whole comment instead of bits and pieces to make it appear as if I said something I did not. It’s rude. Thank you.
@ The Doctor:
Exactly It’s not very fair when you think about it that way.
If religions cannot express their opinions to the secular world then secularists shouldn’t be able to either.
I believe everyone should be respectful and be able to hold their own beliefs without being attacked for them. But of course that’s just my opinion.
Max wrote:
I find this view perplexing. S&W is quite tame compared to some webcomics I like! Besides which, as I’ve pointed out multiple times in the past when these same arguments came up, this comic has always had an edge. How early on did they kill Tweety Bird?
MawileCeyvis wrote:
Oh, it was already full circle. I dare you to Google “yiff”.
Wow… I didn’t see that coming
@ ahwilliampenn:
Yes, I’ve been reading it for nearly two years now I think. What has that got to do with anything?
Xezlec wrote:
I don’t read Brainslug, but my point is not that the characters are too graphic or even that I have a problem with them being violent.
My problem is that they’re a bunch of pre-teens (Early teens? I can’t quite place their age) who have throughout the comics become increasingly reliant on just screwing over anyone who gets in their way.
Woo and the other forest creatures actually running as predators is fine. It’s a joke which comes from the narrative dissonance of the traditional ‘Talking animal’ genre being spliced in with specific realism that you don’t normally see. Everything else follows the standard tropes you see with a talking animal/human relationship, EXCEPT for the fact that they are repeatedly shown eating smaller animals, very explicitly. That’s funny.
To make the rest of my point, I’m going to address the comment by Annaphylactic as well:
Annaphylactic Shock wrote:
That’s a terrible argument. ‘I disagree with this persons belief, so we should be mean to them.’
Also, looking through the story again, Larissa (Once again, I don’t believe these characters are even in puberty yet,) openly talks about wanting to do sex-related things with Landon, doesn’t shy away at getting the parents involved, admits to committing an international felony, brings up that she’s an arsonist, and gets Landon’s father drunk. And you know what? Harriet (Ladon’s Mother) is never rude to her. She never yells, never insults, she just politely asks Larissa to leave because LARISSA IS A TERRIBLE PERSON. Out of Harriet’s sight, Larissa also convinces Landon to directly disobey her. Once Larissa is gone Harriet gets quite upset, going so far as to try and cut her son off from Larissa entirely (Which is justified since Larissa is, once again, a psychotic maniac,) but she doesn’t act like a bitch to Larissa.
If I had a son, I’d want him to stay the hell away from a girl like her.
But, to bring my point full circle:
These characters aren’t using violence to bring justice, or even vengeance, they’re just bullying everyone else to get what they want. While forest predators eating prey is fine, most of the things that have been done involving humans (Especially one-off characters who only appear for a single plot thread) have involved the supposed ‘Good guys’ manipulated, bullying, and drugging their enemies into submission. While this could work if they were portrayed as anti-heroes or perhaps even villains (Though writing a story from the villains perspective is always tricky,) they’re not. Every action is not only written as though they are completely in the right, the world around them bends to MAKE SURE that they’ve been justified.
The message overall being that if someone is causing you problems or has a belief you don’t share, use any means necessary to get rid of them. (Including murder.)
I should add: I still really like Sandra and Woo. The ‘Slice-Of-Life Kids-In-School’ parts are excellent. (Reminiscent of Calvin and Hobbes mixed with a bit of Looney Toons and aged up a bit.) It’s just all the story-arcs with actual villains get a bit mixed up because I slowly lose the ability to empathize with our protagonists.
This just feels like a follow up for the oven. For some reason, I feel like the hardest hit is still to come. Even so… yeesh…
If all the animals in the woods were as sentient and self-aware as they are depicted, then this would have been made general knowledge a long time ago and serious discussions about their rights and privileges as people would be a bigger issue that pervades the whole of society and there would have been plenty of blowback at the pictures’ publication from rights organizations and possibly law enforcement, resulting in civil and criminal charges. Also, in this scenario, the frisky foxes could be cited for public indecency.
If no other woodland animals were as sentient and self-aware as the ones who are depicted here, then no one should have any reasonable expectation that legitimate nature photography crosses any kind of moral or ethical boundary, and this act of vengance against innocent behavior from a responsible nature photographer is disproportionately cruel and malicious, which makes one sympathize more with the photographer than the “wronged” animals.
The whole reason that this particular story arc is not very funny is that the author is trying to have it both mutually exclusive ways at once. Either we have a world full of sentient animals, and every hunter (and predator) is a murderer, and privacy is the least of the issues, or we have a world full of normal animals, and privacy is not an issue.
Like the Harry Potter books with a world full of extremely powerful yet secret wizards, any story with talking animals with human intelligence but the world otherwise unchanged starts falling apart when put under the lightest of scrutiny, and this story line recklessly throws the whole conceit under the magnifying glass and dares all passers-by to gaze deeply.
I wonder whether Lydia (who appears to also be Sandra’s teacher from strip 606) is going to have tales to tell her pupils.
@ Threadnaught:
Woo warned us all by saying ” Did we go too far?” or something of the like….
@ Frank:
I’ll buy that
Candy wrote:
Please try to accept this as merely an alternative point of view (especially if you are not one of these people you mention): it could be merely that these people you’ve known have, at some point, chosen to embrace feelings they have had all along, or alternately decided – for various reasons – to suppress those feelings they were previously comfortable expressing (possibly due to religion or peer pressure). I think it’s nearly impossible for someone who does not experience something first hand to pass judgement or determine the validity or source of those experiences.
Acting on homosexual or heterosexual impulses is certainly a choice (for everyone that’s not a psychopath) – I think that experiencing any of those impulses is not completely a choice, but is a combination of genetics (primary), cultural influences (secondary, but still quite significant), and finally self programming/discipline (tertiary, and the most subtle)
i still want to know what was in that oven….maybe some half-rotten prey? foxes are known to scavange after all..
Aww, now I think Woo did go too far. I’m really starting to like Lydia and Steve. I’m sure that if someone took an inappropriate picture of me and posted it online, I’d probably want to pour molten lava down his orifices too, but Steve’s just an adorable nature photographer who honestly didn’t know any better. I hope this doesn’t ruin his life. Lydia’s a sweetie.
@ Max:
No. That Dorothy Cambridge deserved everything she got and more. She was a cruel, malicious, criminally insane jerk spewing prejudice and hypocrisy with every sleazy step she took. She did nothing that was of any use or help to anybody except her own malignant self. Shame such a deserved fate cannot be done to such as Rob Ford, Ann Coulter, Ezra Levant, all at the Fraser Institute, Americans For Prosperity, the Koch brothers, OceanaGold, Pfizer and Bayer, to name a few!