Jun05
Con Schedule
CGS Super ShowApril 6-7, 2013
Reading, Pa. - Meg only
TCAF
May 11-12, 2013
Toronto, Ontario - Isa and Meg!
Philadelphia Comic Con
May 30-June 2, 2013
Philadelphia, Pa. - Isa and Meg!
Where to find Meg
Where to find Isa
The Adventures of Ellie Connelly
All New Issues
Amya
Dar
The Devil's Panties
Dovecote Crest
The Dreamer
Eerie Cuties
Everblue
Fall on Me
The GaMERCaT
Girl Genius
Girls With Slingshots
Gloomies!
GRONK: A Monster's Story
Lackadaisy Cats
The Meek
> Seed
Phoenix Requiem
Red String
Roza
Something Positive
Subculture
Xylia Tales
YU+ME dream
Metacarpolis
GGAR
Sister Claire
> Blaster Nation
> 9.18 The Fan, radio
LOL The forth panel is great. . . I mean, it’s all great, but that panel’s awesome. XD And Renge seems to know something. Perhaps it’s about the ghost thing that keeps bugging Emma.
“Perhaps it’s about the ghost thing that keeps bugging Emma.”
That’s an interesting theory. But I disagree.
Personally, I believe Renge is referring to the Dorthy as “it.” Doing so, she fails to hide her venomous hatred for the Dorthy. It’s like I wrote before: Renge’s motivation all along was to prevent the Dorthy from meeting Ozma. And her reasoning – the source of her hatred – is probably the same as Warrick’s childhood outburst in blaming the Dorthies for Ozma’s gradual decline after each Dorthy’s death. I believe Renge loves Ozma as much as Warrick (in her own twisted way). She would not stand to see Ozma suffer from befriending and loosing another Dorthy. And in Oz, heartbreak can break someone and literally kill them (as happened with Adora, Warrick’s and Selva’s mother).
BTW: Nice work ladies on the new website layout. It looks good. However, only Emma’s picture shows up on the “Cast” page.
Not an oops.
I just haven’t done the rest of the cast yet. Hopefully, I can get to it this week. I’m looking for good pictures and cutting them down. Right now, the top priority was getting everything set up, doing our server move with the ad folks and my day job, where we’re moving this week. Also, I need to tag the rest of the entries as well and work on replacing the early pages with the book versions.
Congratulations, you just received a copy of my to-do list. *cues Zelda discovery theme*
I agree, she is likely referring the ghost. Let us keep in mind that Renge was there when it reappeared – she probably has an idea of who or what it is. Also, no matter how much she might hate “The Dorothy”, calling her “it” would sound strange to me.
*to the ghost
My kingdom for an edit button!
What sounds strange to me is the idea that Renge would somehow know that The Dorthy is sort-of (but not quite) possessed by a phantom thing – which may or may not be a literal fusion of the ghosts of all the Dorthies who died. Heck, even Warrick and Jinjur does not know that and they WITNESSED Emma going all weird on them.
Besides: If Renge knew that the ghosts of the Dorthies are still around in Oz, she might not object to Ozma meeting the Dorthy. Because if the ghosts of the Dorthies are not actually GONE and Ozma could talk with them, then Ozma might snap out of her deep funk. If anyone could help the Dorthies (either find eternal rest or new bodies to live in Oz) it would be Ozma. She created Adora from a purple flower and a piece of the Tinman’s heart, after all.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Emma herself manages to set things right in Oz and put the phantom(s) to rest. Emma seems to be a new type of Namesake and this seems to be her destiny/purpose.
…Though, we don’t actually know that The Phantom is made up of Dorthies. Emma came to that conclusion on her own and The Phantom neither confirmed nor denied this. Those other face things might be The Phantom’s previous victims. (Which actually makes more sense…)
Well that doesn’t rule out the other face things actually being the Dorthies, even if the actual phantom is some monster that is made up of the faces of it’s victims… (As in Xpacetrue could be right about the faces being previous victims of the phantom thing, and the phantom itself being made of it’s previous victims who were all Dorathies as they were the only ones in Oz who were not protected by the magic that created Oz… Emma luckuly might be under some other protection and the phantom is trying to break it…)
“…Renge was there when it reappeared – she probably has an idea of who or what it is.”
That’s the weird dark thing which was locked up in Warrick’s/Selva’s ancestral castle and which they accidentally freed. We haven’t seen much evidence that this is the same thing which is possessing Emma. Last time we saw the thing they freed, it came into contact with Ozma. They both disappeared at that point, which leads me to believe they combined to create the deadly poppy plague.
We first saw The Phantom (possessing Emma) in the library in the real world, before jumping from the poor girl who lost her legs to Emma. On the other hand, that poor girl had the magic (ruby?) slippers and the Phantom seemed to drag Emma into the Land of Oz. So, maybe The Phantom and Warrick’s monster in the closet are the same after all…?
Except that the girl (Karen I believe) was from The Red Shoes and not Wizard of Oz. Yes, the shoes are magical but they’re cursed, not enchanted.
Also, the ruby slippers were a convention of the movie, not the Oz books, upon which Namesake draws its canon. However, I do remember when Emma first visited the house of the Dorothies, there was a pair of red shoes laid out.
Nonetheless, since the original shoes/slippers (regardless of color) were supposed to be pretty darn powerful, I’m not so sure if they would just be left in the House, even if no one but the Dorothies is supposed to be able to go inside. Also, they were from Oz, not from Kansas/our world, so they wouldn’t have been left as an offering the way the other items were.
Eeek, that doesn’t bode well. On the other hand, if Renge is actually not the wicked witch she seems, she might have been a little more forthcoming…
Say what you will, but I can never get over the Brain-munching poppies. Death by losing your brain/being a puppet to brain-eating plants is the worst death imho.
No. Sorry Renege but you don’t get to call anyone an idiot when one of your courses of action was brainpoppies for your citizenry and friends.
Ok…. Surtout ne respire pas trop fort Warrick, je crois que ces demoiselles sont un peu nerveuse, ce n’est pas le moment de se faire remarquer.
Marvelous as always! How far do you have the story planned? Do you know the ending of the whole adventure? Incidentally, for the new cast list, Alice Liddell’s “golden afternoon” was 7/4/1862, not 1863 ( sorry to pick nits).
Then again, perhaps her “actual” trip was after she was told the story, making 63 possible. I just noticed the bit about the train. Do you ladies laugh at how seriously we take your story?
Yes, the “golden afternoon” was in 1862, but in the Namesake world, the trip takes place in 1863. The boat trip is something Lewis makes up to explain how he came up with the story.
Historically, several days before the incident that was excised from Dodgson’s diaries that’s depicted in the prologue, Dodgson took a train trip with the Liddell girls. Supposedly, something happened on that trip leading to Dodgson’s estrangement from the family a few days later. That train trip is where I decided that Namesake’s Alice Liddell was snatched and taken Underground for the events of “Alice in Wonderland.”
It’s OK, we take the story equally seriously.
I do my very best to ground the fantasy in the actual history that takes place. There really was a train trip and the page from Dodgson’s diary talking about the estrangement from the Liddells really was cut from the diary (though supposedly by a niece rather than him.) Edith Liddell really died in 1876. The Liddell girls really did tour Europe in the early 1870s. I got lucky and stumbled upon Ina’s married name before writing the second intermission. Before we even began penning actual scripts, I read several biographies on Charles Dodgson, L. Frank Baum and other historic characters we’re using. I can write up another blog entry on that if you guys want.
As for the ending, we do know it. We have an outline of the entire story. While it’s change and adapted as the characters developed and we’ve refined things, we do know how it ends.
The new site is gorgeous! I want to click on everything.
Oh, the fourth panel is amazing! And how many times am I gonna have to squee over how cute Warrick and his various facial expressions are? I might explode or something…
Yes, panel four is very good. Jinjur appears to have trained her soldiers well.
Isolated, panel four looks like Warrick has been caught in flagrante delicto with Renge. (Afterthought: If anyone takes this as meaning that I am shipping Warrick and Renge — that is the expression, right? — I will … Actually, thanks to the anonymity of the Internet, I will end up doing nothing. All glory to the Internet.)
Actually it would be Glinda/Sabion’s Guards.
See the spears and white gowns, not the knitting-needles?
I was referring to additional action by me, but if Jinjur’s forces wish to do me a service, I will graciously accept.
“Jinjur appears to have trained her soldiers well.”
I would hope so. If Namesake’s Jinjur follows the original rather closely, then she’s been training soldiers for decades. (People in Oz were ageless and immortal… until recently.) In fact, her training probably began around the time of the original Dorthy. Jinjur is one of L. Frank Baum’s original characters.
BTW: I wonder how much of Baum’s works Emma is familiar with? I bet she’s been wishing she was more read up on that.
Emma knows the movie, she doesn’t know the original books; which means that she has a general knowledge of Oz and very little of the details from the novels.
I love the fact, that on her back and surrounded by enemy weapons, Renge is still ready to swing bolo punches.
im starting to feel sorry for him they keep makeing him do all this stuff and bossing him around and those ladys there real bitch’s i hate them but i like this story sofar!
LOL at Warrick’s expression in the center panel. Like, “Dude!”
And I’m not sure I like Renge calling Emma an “it” like she was a non-entity. But, we don’t know for certain where her enmity stems from.
Is the “it” Emma? Or is she referring to what’s in Emma? Hmmm…
La lisibilité de la troisième case est assez limitée…
Le découpage de l’action est plutôt bien fait mais cette défaillance de la troisième case détruit partiellement l’effet, c’est dommage.