Pages 15-17 (Eccl. 2:1-3)

Posted on July 14, 2012, in Rough Drafts. Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Panels have been numbered for easy citation. The drawings are crude and still evolving but feedback on content is appreciated. Thanks to those who’ve responded both privately and on this site. Please keep the comments coming.

  2. one more comment, i think it would help to make the things said more “common” slang, contractions…

  3. Groovy advice, jrls. i speak in 60 year old slang so I hope as 18-23 year old readers visit and respond they’ll give this old boomer a crash course in the idioms, vernacular, and memes of their generation. The gen-y jargon i have included (“kick ass” shows up at one point) is the exception. I must be more consistent. I’m also aware that serious novelists can give individual characters their own unique voice and I’m afraid everyone speaks in my voice which is boring. One character still to be introduced speaks with an Italian accent which was a mad attempt to add variety. The editing continues! Thanks again.

  4. in 7 and 15, is the king reference to Solomon? If it is, not sure when it was introduced. If it isn’t then I don’t get the king thing.

    • This is a quandary for me. Why would a former king be a university professor? And from Jerusalem? I solved this riddle by avoiding it…letting Dr. Q make the claim without much student reaction (allowing students to react more to his philosophy).

      Regarding Solomon, another quandary. I do not believe Sol wrote Eccl. so the reference to 700 wives was gratuitous…in the mouth of a student who will bolt from the classroom in due time (for reasons that will become clear later). My strategy is to keep Dr. Q’s lecture as close to the original as possible without getting embroiled (as commentators have for centuries) in debates about authorship. This is one of the gambles I’m making…that oblique references add just enough puzzlement but not too much puzzlement. I want the text to be vague enough so readers enjoy filling in the gaps (like a who-done-it), not so obvious that readers get bored (like predictable fairy tales), and not so obtuse that viewers throw up their hands in futility (as many do with modern art).

      Good comments and food for thought. Thanks for responding, bilpal.

  5. I can only view page 17. Looks like 15 and 16 did not upload correctly?

  6. All three pages show up on my screen. Not sure what’s up. I’ll reload.

  7. I’ve reloaded pages 15-17. Do they now show up on your screen? I hope so. Sorry for the inconvenience.

  8. Nice flow to these pages. The conversation and the way the characters play off one another seems cohesive except the last page. I think it could be stronger without the last four panels. 24’s, 25’s, and 26’s responses seem either too obscure or too general.

    • Thanks for the feedback. Part of the plot of this work is calling attention to student (and ultimately modern reader) reactions to Dr. Q’s relentless pessimism. By offering a variety of possible explanations for what drives him I’m hoping to jar dogmatic readers into realizing that both demonizing and uncritically embracing his point of view is risky. His negativity is a Rorschach inkblot reflecting one’s ever changing frame of mind. I’ll rethink how to accomplish this by mulling over your good insights. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s