A place to sit around and talk about the comic.
https://www.twokinds.net/forum/
Is it weird if that started me thinking about an alternate timeline where Trace shielded Saria that night, but not himself? Maybe I should write that as a short story (I’ve got a few more I’d like to do to, I’ve just got to work up the nerve to write them).Flora wrote:I wonder if Rose was planning to be the nanny, had Saria lived?
That...is actually a very good point to take away from this...as we just saw in the colored version of Weeping Rose, Rose's hair is entirely red with no white streaks. Something doesn't add up...Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:00 am I really like the style of Saria's painting. Hope we get to see more of that in the not so distant future.
Also Toms is really good at foreshadowing and making sensible cliffhangers and too build dramatic tension.
Finally, is it just me, and my poor vision or Trace's pupil is slightly reddish?
Also just noticed:
It is old (current?) Rose in the portrait. Her hair has white streaks. But Saria did not live long enough to meet, let alone paint Rose at that age...
Who or what painted this?
Rose's hair being fully red in the colored sketch has to be a continuity error. Saria only died 5-6 years ago and Rose is currently 28, meaning that she was already over 20 before Saria died. A 20+ year old keidran is already old - not *as* old as she is now, but Laura was already getting grey hair and she was only 16. Furthermore, Rose's hair already has the start of white streaks in TDM, which takes place probably most of a year before Saria's death, so her hair was definitely already going white by the time Saria died.Matra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:25 amThat...is actually a very good point to take away from this...as we just saw in the colored version of Weeping Rose, Rose's hair is entirely red with no white streaks. Something doesn't add up...Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:00 am Also just noticed:
It is old (current?) Rose in the portrait. Her hair has white streaks. But Saria did not live long enough to meet, let alone paint Rose at that age...
Who or what painted this?
)Makes sense. That would make one of the last, or the last painting Saria made of her.MuonNeutrino wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:36 amRose's hair being fully red in the colored sketch has to be a continuity error. Saria only died 5-6 years ago and Rose is currently 28, meaning that she was already over 20 before Saria died. A 20+ year old keidran is already old - not *as* old as she is now, but Laura was already getting grey hair and she was only 16. Furthermore, Rose's hair already has the start of white streaks in TDM, which takes place probably most of a year before Saria's death, so her hair was definitely already going white by the time Saria died.Matra wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:25 amThat...is actually a very good point to take away from this...as we just saw in the colored version of Weeping Rose, Rose's hair is entirely red with no white streaks. Something doesn't add up...Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 12:00 am Also just noticed:
It is old (current?) Rose in the portrait. Her hair has white streaks. But Saria did not live long enough to meet, let alone paint Rose at that age...
Who or what painted this?
The sketches often illustrate canon, but even the ones that aren't obviously fanciful still may not actually *be* canon themselves, especially in the details. For example, Rose's hair is similarly all red in the colored sketch of Rose and Raine going to a fair, even though Raine is depicted as her current age in that sketch and so Rose should also have her current appearance.
(Or, as at least one person suggested at the time, Rose just sometimes uses hair coloring cosmetics or the magical equivalent to cover up the white.
So in this timeline Trace dies and Saria becomes a power hungry genocide trying to resurrect his dead huisband, and then stages a coup to take control of the templar?BadFoMo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:59 pmIs it weird if that started me thinking about an alternate timeline where Trace shielded Saria that night, but not himself? Maybe I should write that as a short story (I’ve got a few more I’d like to do to, I’ve just got to work up the nerve to write them).Flora wrote:I wonder if Rose was planning to be the nanny, had Saria lived?
Also, Anyone think the paintings would make good posters?
P.S. I got the first version!
Saria was actually significantly older than both Trace and Rose. Trace is 24 and Rose is 28, while Saria would have been 33 in the current comic timeline if she had lived and was 28 when she died. But yes, Rose almost has to be the equivalent of a 70+ or even 80+ year old human. Under the older canon description of Keidran aging she'd have been even older than that, as Tom's previous position was that most keidran died of old age soon after passing 20. That seems to have been somewhat retconned now with Eric's revised dialogue stating that 'some keidran can make it to late 20s if they're lucky', but Rose is still pretty old even in that description.Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:00 amAlso i just realized just how old Rose really is. She is older than Trace, the oldest member of the group, probably she is also older than Saria and, heck, she is even older than myself. And considering Laura looked like a middle aged woman at 16 then Rose would be around her 60's-70's in human years.
Hopefully this simply means the age limit is simply getting a soft retcon. Being pushed to, around 50 years cronologically, would make more sense given Tom seems to really do not want to follow that lore thread anywhere. Again that might not be case and Rose is some sort of undead wolf or something. But again we already have that discussion and we did not get anywhere...
Grated minds think alike...steelabjur wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:37 amMaybe Evil!Trace setup Rose with a "The Picture of Dorian Gray" type situation and she just modifies her appearance with magic?
I do not remember Saria's age was ever stated. She liked them young or Traces likes em old.MuonNeutrino wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:36 amSaria was actually significantly older than both Trace and Rose. Trace is 24 and Rose is 28, while Saria would have been 33 in the current comic timeline if she had lived and was 28 when she died. But yes, Rose almost has to be the equivalent of a 70+ or even 80+ year old human. Under the older canon description of Keidran aging she'd have been even older than that, as Tom's previous position was that most keidran died of old age soon after passing 20. That seems to have been somewhat retconned now with Eric's revised dialogue stating that 'some keidran can make it to late 20s if they're lucky', but Rose is still pretty old even in that description.Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:00 amAlso i just realized just how old Rose really is. She is older than Trace, the oldest member of the group, probably she is also older than Saria and, heck, she is even older than myself. And considering Laura looked like a middle aged woman at 16 then Rose would be around her 60's-70's in human years.
Hopefully this simply means the age limit is simply getting a soft retcon. Being pushed to, around 50 years cronologically, would make more sense given Tom seems to really do not want to follow that lore thread anywhere. Again that might not be case and Rose is some sort of undead wolf or something. But again we already have that discussion and we did not get anywhere...
I never liked the life expentancy difference and i think I am not the only one. Personal preferences for storytelling aside. It came from a "legal" joke that definitely has not aged well and it is not that funny to begin with. On the other hand it is a big deal if a whole species/civilization has such a small lifespan. How is culture and civilization supposed to form in such a small time, specially considering they have a similarly long infancy? Even if you ignore that it has to at least affect the characters interpersonal relations in some capacity. But it doesn't the subplot about New Trace worrying about Flora's lifespan was shot down, by Nora, in one page and Tom does not seems to have any intention of incorporating that idea into the lore or world building. Either he has some long term plan about it that i cannot fanthom or he is simply ignoring it. Personally i thinkg if it were shift from "hardly 30 years" to "around 50" there is still enough difference for it to be talking point in the comic. But is long enough time for it to be dismissed in most cases, of course that would meant some characters for it to make legal sense so it will be quite a drastic retcon.Bellhead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:54 am That painting would make a spectacular poster, or even a background.
And yeah, it must have been, at least slightly, retconned. Tom was on record saying their life expectancy was 20 years, and a keidran living to 25 would be like a human living past 100. We also know "He lied about his age. Euchre extended his life through unnatural means, but saying more would be spoilers". 6 months ago comic time, and he said he was.. 21? 23?
Wouldn't doubt Trace did that, and did the same for Rose. So, only a slight retcon.
Note that even if we discount the possibility of Rose and Euchre having unnaturally long lifespans, Eric's rewritten dialogue here would be enough to show that there'd been a retcon. The sentence about making it to late 20s was not originally there, but was added when Tom revamped some of the older pages a few years ago. That line is incompatible with the idea that getting to 25 would be the equivalent of making it past 100, so that older statement about age equivalencies has to no longer be canon.Bellhead wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:54 am And yeah, it must have been, at least slightly, retconned. Tom was on record saying their life expectancy was 20 years, and a keidran living to 25 would be like a human living past 100. We also know "He lied about his age. Euchre extended his life through unnatural means, but saying more would be spoilers". 6 months ago comic time, and he said he was.. 21? 23?
Wouldn't doubt Trace did that, and did the same for Rose. So, only a slight retcon.
Saria's age can be determined from the dates given on her tombstone combined with the current year, which we know from Maddie's letter.Technic[Bot] wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 3:21 am I do not remember Saria's age was ever stated. She liked them young or Traces likes em old.
Also Rose looks terrific for a 70 year old, which considering her shape shifting abilities might not be that surprising, come to think of it, have we ever seen an old Keidra? Naturally old I mean? In any case i think it is safe to assume they do not age linearly. People in real life do not either so there is no reason why they don't either.
I personally doubt that the short lifespans came from the 'legal' joke; that fact seems to me to be far too fundamental of a element of the worldbuilding to have just been dropped in on a whim for the sake of a silly joke. I think it's far more likely that Tom had that in mind from the beginning and simply felt that was a good time to start hinting at that element to the readers. And I don't think that plot thread has been dropped completely. It hasn't been revisited in a while, but the characters have been rather busy on more immediate things. It feels to me that the resonances between that universe element and a) Trace's obsessive desire to protect his love interests at all costs, and b) Keith's issues with *not* having been able to protect people he cared about, are far too strong to not come up again at some point, given that both of them would normally be destined to vastly outlive their significant others. To put it another way, IMO it would be out of character for Trace and Keith if they *didn't* suffer angst about it at some point. It is, I suppose, possible that the main story of the comic might end before we *get* to that point, or other events might intervene, but I think that's far too strong of an emotional hook for plot elements for Tom to have introduced with no intention of revisiting.I never liked the life expentancy difference and i think I am not the only one. Personal preferences for storytelling aside. It came from a "legal" joke that definitely has not aged well and it is not that funny to begin with. On the other hand it is a big deal if a whole species/civilization has such a small lifespan. How is culture and civilization supposed to form in such a small time, specially considering they have a similarly long infancy? Even if you ignore that it has to at least affect the characters interpersonal relations in some capacity. But it doesn't the subplot about New Trace worrying about Flora's lifespan was shot down, by Nora, in one page and Tom does not seems to have any intention of incorporating that idea into the lore or world building. Either he has some long term plan about it that i cannot fanthom or he is simply ignoring it. Personally i thinkg if it were shift from "hardly 30 years" to "around 50" there is still enough difference for it to be talking point in the comic. But is long enough time for it to be dismissed in most cases, of course that would meant some characters for it to make legal sense so it will be quite a drastic retcon.