I don't see why you can't have your cake and eat it, too. The way I do it generally had to do with the context of the scene. For example, if I have a scene where I'm doing nudity for the sake of being silly, I may find amusing ways to block the naughty bits, but if I'm doing a sensual scene, I see no problem with showing nipples. In fact, I'd go farther if society wasn't so dang hung up on sex.

Swearing, as well, as entirely contextual. People say "shit" in my comic when it's appropriate. The F-word is almost never in my comic, but it's there where it's contextual. In extreme instances of anger or distress, they swear. Simple as that.

The only characters that absolutely don't swear are the villains. I find it tremendously amusing that the villains apparently only know comic book swearing. "BLAST!"

A lot of people think that you specifically have to use cuss words in moderation, but I think that overuse of ANY word is awkward. It's not just the swear words. For me, it has nothing to doing things in moderation or imposing arbitrary restrictions on myself. My only restriction is context.

Someone
Probably, yes. Use of those elements does not create a gritty feel. Use of artistic and literary talent do.

huh, actually, the way he used those elements WERE as artistic and literary devices. look at the nature of the story, they fit in PERFECTLY. therefore the story WOULD be different if he didnt use them.

this seems to be something a lot of people dont get. just because something has bad words or naked people doesnt mean that's automatically something they're using because they dont know how to write. where you even get that notion is beyond me. same thing the other way around, just because someone doesnt use them doesnt mean they DO know how to write.
goes the other way around too. it's not whether you use this or that in your story, it's wether it fits or not.
for example, one of my favorite comics on here is AntComics. HILARIOUS comic. but if her characters spoke the way mine did or did the things mine did in Putrid Meat, it wouldnt be right.
same as if Putrid Meat was written like AntComics, it wouldnt fit because Ants is a much more goofy, lighthearted comic, where as Putrid Meat is much rougher,like if you were to slam someone's fingers in a car door and laugh at him. i'm no less literary then she is, i'm just doing what makes sense for my comic.

if it offends you ,that's one thing. some things just make people uneasy, but that's not the result of being talentless.

no, not everyone needs to use these kind of story elements, but that's just what they are, story elements,no less valid then the ones you use.

saying something that offends you is automatically talentless tells me you're probably not a very creditable writer since you cant manage to see the difference.

saying that comics with intense subject matter are automatically crap, and their writers are talentless is a scuff in MY FACE,whether you ment it towards me directly or not. and i wont let you do that.

Neilsama
I don't see why you can't have your cake and eat it, too. The way I do it generally had to do with the context of the scene. For example, if I have a scene where I'm doing nudity for the sake of being silly, I may find amusing ways to block the naughty bits, but if I'm doing a sensual scene, I see no problem with showing nipples. In fact, I'd go farther if society wasn't so dang hung up on sex.

Swearing, as well, as entirely contextual. People say "shit" in my comic when it's appropriate. The F-word is almost never in my comic, but it's there where it's contextual. In extreme instances of anger or distress, they swear. Simple as that.

The only characters that absolutely don't swear are the villains. I find it tremendously amusing that the villains apparently only know comic book swearing. "BLAST!"

A lot of people think that you specifically have to use cuss words in moderation, but I think that overuse of ANY word is awkward. It's not just the swear words. For me, it has nothing to doing things in moderation or imposing arbitrary restrictions on myself. My only restriction is context.

bing-o!

I actually only labeled mine T+ because for the longest time I thought unregistered people couldn't view M or A =p

Basically wasn't going to change it until told to do so. Though so far I don't think it's moved into the M area really. I may need to change it soon due to violence escalation about to occur however.

And I have to agree with Pit_Face and Neilsama. Sometimes the nudity, language, or whatever "grittier" method used can actually add to the world being created.

Yes it's really easy to think of alternative things to say or ways to not have gore or whatever, but if those methods potentially help push a certain theme or feeling the author wants then why water them down?

Obviously everything should be looked at 2 ways. If I do this cleaner could it add to the scene better? Am I forced to do it grittier?

More often than not I come to the conclusion that the situation is best left a tad cleaner. But in some instances the extra umph is required to express what I wish clearer.

PIT_FACE

Someone
Probably, yes. Use of those elements does not create a gritty feel. Use of artistic and literary talent do.

huh, actually, the way he used those elements WERE as artistic and literary devices. look at the nature of the story, they fit in PERFECTLY. therefore the story WOULD be different if he didnt use them.

(clip)

saying that comics with intense subject matter are automatically crap, and their writers are talentless is a scuff in MY FACE,whether you ment it towards me directly or not. and i wont let you do that.

Alas, misunderstanding abounds. Did I say I was offended? Did I say that Sin City was badly done?

No.

I didn't state that 'intense subject matter' makes something crap.

(Most use intense subject matter badly, though it is not bad itself.)

Nor did i say that people who use it are talentless. The I.S.M (intense subject matter) is often largely superfluous and a crutch to the talentless, yes. That said, use of ISMs does not infer talentless-ness. There are some excellent writers and such that know the use of these tools and do well with them. They are tools though and not plot, nor character, nor milieu. They are tools to use wisely, not to be spread all over a work of fiction in an attempt to be gritty.

Gritty is achieved, not by use of ISMs, though many a gritty movie/comic do contain those things. Gritty is a feeling that has to be injected into a work from the most basic level and does not magically appear upon inserting ISMs. ISMs are merely the accent, the frosting (if you will) on the cake of grittiness. It is not the end all and be all. THAT is the mistake of many authors and moviemakers. Thinking that ISMs make a good story/movie. When in reality a good story/movie is a good story/movie regardless of the existence of ISMs.

This is why I fight against the use of ISMs, not because they should not be used. They are like the rules of grammar. You must learn how grammar works before you can break the rules. Otherwise you become a "hack". The same goes for ISMs, the author must learn to tell a story before they can confidently use these very subtle tools.


Addendum: In case, someone desires to make the ridiculous claim that I am saying that 'lack of ISMs' = good story...Let me just say, tsk tsk. Good story=good story. A story with no ISMs is perfectly capably of being terrible. It is also true that, the overuse of ISMs has been know ruin a perfectly good story. ISMs never made a good story better, nor a crummy story into a good one.

Also, condemning ISMs is not condemning free speech. This was never about impinging on free speech. It is about good story telling. The "free-speechers" are too caught up in not being censored.