This is 98% off topic, but this just occurred to me and I need to tell someone: Kusig's culture makes zero sense. The idea is based off of western ideas of sexuality, where nudity is inherently viewed as sexual and taboo and is therefore a private and sexy thing. But in cultures where nudity is the norm, the naked form isn't going to necessarily be seen as something sexy, it'd just be considered......normal since the people in that society have spent literally their entire lives around it. It'd be like a giant nudist colony, people strolling around without clothes and not giving a shit. Their conventions for what is considered attractive could be entirely divorced from the physical form. In this society what would be considered sexual, intimate, or attractive would more logically be something more subtle, like emotional connection, combat ability, wit, or artistry. I'm reminded of the society in [Author's name withheld for spoiler reasons]'s books where everyone has sex all the time, so it's not particularly intimate. Instead they value the warmth and emotion a voice can hold and convey. In this society nudity is casual and reasonably commonplace, but singing is shameful and taboo.
If it was a breakaway counter-culture from say fantasy Islam then I could see it, but I don’t think it ever gets that deep so it falls completely flat.
I don’t know if you know this, but the artist Miller is the one who wrote the script for the comic, so essentially he edited story. Rumor is , he thought original story was not good. Either way, Shad had no part in the rewriting whatsoever
Holy shit, the "I'm the bestest fighter ever, I promse" medal at the 37 minute mark is literally the emblem Shad uses for his youtube channel. That''s the design. Truly facepalm worthy.
"can i be a better man?" [5 minutes of stabbing a hobo later] "OH WOE IS ME, I TRIED NOTHING AND I AM STILL THE SAME HORRIBLE MAN AS BEFORE, WEEP FOR ME AUDIENCE I DESERVE SYMPATHY---"
I think Shad has erroneously conflated redemption with absolution. The only thing I can think of that would save this would be if Daylan (or however you spell his name) is dead and this is all just a form of purgatory he's going through. Condemned to face the echo of all his victims until he can find the Light. It would explain why the world and narrative keeps bending to him alone if he was in reality the only one there.
Mormons don't believe in purgatory, and don't really even believe in hell. I don't think shad has a strong grasp on what traditional Christianity expects of a man before he is redeemed.
It amazes me how these RU-vidr "culture critics" that pick apart any new media to the nth degree, then go and produce the books/comic that can best be described as the drizzling shits
I used to be really into the cultural critic scene, but the more I try to do to improve myself, the more I see that they only can recognize what is bad, not inspire what is good. They are themselves part of the very thing they criticize
I can't help but notice that Shad hired an artist for this. Huh weird I thought his art was at a professional level and he could work so much faster with AI.
@@solarydays I don't remember that being a main point of his but maybe he did make it I haven't watched his AI vid in a bit and don't really care to rewatch. As I recall he ranted for a long time on how artists should embrace AI because they will know how to use it better than the peasants that don't. He goes on to say that he is a professional level artist and is beyond condescending about how he has an "artists eye." As he corrects a picture of Supergirl while he ignores wonky anatomy and lighting.
@@solarydays I feel you. Jazza being his brother and a fairly successful artist I think really burns his butter to no end. Shad strikes me as the type of guy who always has to be an expert at everything even when he has maybe the most basic understanding of something.
Honestly, knowing Shad is Mormon explains some of his perspective that comes through in his books. Whether Shad knows it or not, he's treating sins of vastly different severity as the same, which led to the weird things that happened in his novel. He has this idea that redemption is something you can earn without the forgiveness of your victims because the only irredeemable sin in the Mormon church is to disregard God. I am glad the graphic novel removed some of the worst parts of the novel because it at least showed that Shad knew it was bad to some degree. I think Shad needed to spend more time learning about how to write redemption stories before writing Shadow of the Conquerer because the poor understanding of this topic and how it works shows in his writing. I used to be a fan of Shadiversity (his videos are no longer interesting to me) and I am still a bit sad his work has so much lost potential.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Daylin supposed to be worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan combined prior to his "rebirth"? Because all i hear is Daylin and other characters justifying and making excuses for his past atrocities and current crimes.
@@leichtmeister Genghis Khan was a ruthless conqueror, raped and pillaged everywhere he went. His body count, both on the battlefield and in the sack, was incredibly high. So much so, that it’s not even considered rare for people to claim him as an ancestor to this day throughout China because of all the women he “won” through conquest. In spite of this, his empire was stable, prosperous, and he allowed people to worship their own gods and practice their own customs, insofar as they payed taxes and recognized his rule. The fact that he was a dictator who slaughtered millions makes him like Hitler or Stalin, even if his goals and motivations were different.
@@leichtmeister Genghis Khan would kill entires cities and make "examples" of them if they didn't surrender immediately. While his killing wasn't on the same level as Hitler and Stalin, this is only because he didn't have the tools to match them. He's actually much closer to them in terms of body count than any other preindustrial tyrant
I wonder who pushed the changes to be honest. I don’t believe shad made them of his own volition as they feel more like a compromise than genuine. Largely because Daylen’s personality is still the same as he was in the book. Which makes the changes feel like bandaids.
36:00 I call that the “Hitler invented trigonometry” argument. If a theory by a bad person happens to be objectively correct, it doesn’t mean you have to like them or give them “credit”, you just move on with using the correct idea
So this character is apparently so remorseful for all the awful things he did but whenever anyone actually criticizes him he bristles and gets all defensive and tries to justify it.
@@Don-Scrimaso you see having characters like that work very well it’s just that daylen is portrayed as the good guy and doesn’t go through any development
@@Don-Scrima but doesn’t feel any remorse and is still ultimately portrayed as the good guy by the book and he gets away without consequences? Yeah sounds like some real development
This was a really good and fair review. There's not many reviews of the graphic novel out there, but a lot of the reviews I've seen on the book felt very much motivated by a dislike of Shad personally, or a dislike of his politics. That's not at all to say that the book isn't deserving of criticism, but it somewhat undermines the actually fair criticism when reviewers (not you) make it clear that they have a vested interest in trash-talking Shad. I appreciate that your review did not come across that way, and I liked the segment at the end about how we should not attack the author for their beliefs. I'm a big fan of Shad, but I fully agree that both the book and the graphic novel have HUGE issues, especially in the character of Daylen and his supposed 'redemption,' but I feel like a lot of reviewers tend to take the most bad-faith interpretation and try to claim it means Shad himself shares the awful twisted views that Daylen so often espouses. And I can see how it could come across that way, but to me it almost feels like he's more oblivious than anything. Like he didn't realise how bad some of these things were going to sound, or he didn't realise the full depth of the horrible implications of some parts of Daylen's story arc. It's like he does understand that Daylen was evil as hell, but he didn't realise that by getting so far into Daylen's head when writing, he has somehow almost made the book feel like it's trying to claim Daylen wasn't actually that bad. It's hard for me to even explain it, but I guess what I'm saying is a lot of the critics seem to think Shad is saying Daylen's crimes weren't all that bad, when in reality, Shad is actually just trying to explore how this character would try to justify his crimes to himself. Shad himself is not really trying to make a moral judgement - he's leaving that up to the reader. And maybe this isn't the right place for me to make that argument, since you were not one of those critics who went after Shad himself for the contents of his book, but a lot of the comments here seem to be of that mindset, and I thought I would at least try to share a slightly different perspective. Don't get me wrong, I still REALLY dislike the way Daylen is written (I have a whole review of this graphic novel on my channel which is mostly critiquing Daylen's character), but I don't think the awful character reflects on Shad as a person, it just think he wasn't quite competent enough at writing to tell the story the way it needed to be told. Anyway, I really liked the review - I didn't expect to watch the whole hour-long video, but it was over before I knew it.
shad is a misogynistic reprehensible smegma of a human being the book 100% reflects his extremely far right religious views and the saddest part is that this troglodyte has a daughter. but it shouldn't surprise me that someone calling themselves the culture crusader likes a rape apologist
U know, maybe an intro book to virtue ethics might help here? Or simply reading an AA booklet to get a grasp on the basic process of redemption …The biggest issue that jarred me the most is daylan doesn’t feel like a 80+ who rules an empire for decades. He feels like a teenager who had parents who never gave him responsibilities. Even his vices of arrogance and self-justification don’t have the mental gymnastic sophistication of an all power tyrant who ruled so long, so totally… I’d expect an evil Marcus Aurelius or Machiavelli on steroids
What would help is Shad not being a fundamental Christian right wing nutjob. A lot of the book is just Shads personal opinion about "wokeism" communicated through the book.
Ther are pretty immature dictators , but then he wouldnt be so skilled, and if he were a narsicist, which he is, redemption needs the will to do daelin doesnt? In real life MANY dictators are yeah maybe can be like aN immature teenager but no one tries to redeem them. Did shad even look up what a dedemption arc is, it involves becomming a better person, not just rebrand.
Yeah. If you ask me, Daylan would have worked better if he was the son of the Conqueror, not the Conqueror himself. Make it so he was a spoiled brat who is now trying to break away from his father’s actions but struggles doing so because he grew up completely detached from the world and without any responsibilities or people telling him”no”.
@@rickyratcomicsI think the world building, the magic system, the exposition on technology is thought out and well described. If u like world building and exploring new worlds, u might enjoy this. If not, u might get bored. If u’re looking for character development and interaction, u’ll likely be left frustrated. IMHO, the main character is on two competing character arcs that make him kinda two ppl at the same time. I think shad was trying to have a character go one step forward, one step back, but there’s not enough self-reflection, evidence in character’s actions and behaviors to show he’s on one path or the other, and other characters don’t act to effect change whether better or worse. It’s like the main character is in his own dream world and everyone around is a reflection of his arrogance TLDR: world building and details might be fun. Fights and action might be entertaining. Character and character interactions likely will lead to frustration. Also, graphic acts of violence.
Around 39:37 I feel like a better story could have been told by: Daylen came back, aiming to do good but he was too cowardly to show himself so he tried to make amends one small thing at a time, being spat in the face all along the way and witnessing the horrors he caused; he gradually grew out of his cowardice and faced everyone in the final trial. This way Daylen can still be kinda badass in action while echoe the supposed theme of the book.
Awesome review! I'm glad he removed the SA but that definitely tells me Lyra was meant to be a love interest which is messed up! Also, I agree he should not have killed Ragnor(?) Or at least if he did there should have been severe repercussions that change the course of the story from Aurek. Or (I know this would never happen, but) I'd love most if Daylen got his ass handed to him and had to be saved by Aurek. Also, I agree Daylen is not sorry. Suicide once you're old and decrepit is not facing consequences. The book should have started with him regretful that he's old and failed and when he's remade young hebshouldnstart evil and slowly turn good.
I agree, Daylen should not start evil and slowly turn good. Ostensibly, the point of his self-imposed 20 year exile was that, in time, he became a different person and learned to regret his actions, eventually leading to his attempted suicide from guilt. Making 17-year-old Daylen a hotheaded killer defeats the entire premise of his character.
@laserbeampussydestroyer6279 exactly! Either young Daylen should've been repentant or old Daylen should not have been remorseful. The book does a weird this where it says old Daylen is remorseful, but then his actions throughout the story say otherwise.
@@tropetrinitytrilogy8533 Ooh I didn't think about that! Old Daylen could be an unrepentant piece of garbage, forced into exile. Then he finds redemption through his experiences after his "reincarnation." It's obvious now that Shad wanted to have his cake and eat it.
Actually, it‘s really interesting that Shad creates a society that is mostly nude and his explanation for it is, that they culturally take pride in being able to control their urges. It really shows how much Shad can only see culture through a very narrow lens. Nudity is NOT inherently sexual. If you have a society that sees nudity as normal, then seeing people nude won‘t create any „urges“ than the regular level of sexual attraction we see today in our society between fully clothed people. Throughout human history there have been many cultures that considered nudity to be completely normal and non-sexual in nature. And why wouldn‘t it be? Pretty much all animals are nude all the time and they are not horny all the time… Shad thinking up a culture that is constantly nude but also still sees nudity in the same sexualized light was we do today really shows Shad‘s personal biases. I know that he‘s very religious, so I assume he probably considers nudity to be something humans are MADE to see as primarily sexual.
31:56 The transitions are jarring. I agree that Daylin should have been searching for redemption, then Arek could confirm it by saying the Light told him to follow him. This was a huge missed opportunity for these two characters to bond and the story to actually do something. 37:09 Oh god. The stupid. It burns. 44:27 That would have made a huge difference. Maturity and growth are two things a writer can't fake. 46:21 Here's the heart of why this belief system does not work: Arek is basing Daylin's 'goodness' on how much Light he has inside. Daylin has it because he powered up with a couple of rocks, not because he's a decent human. It's like thinking a super model is an actual goddess based on a photo shoot. It's shallow and under cuts Arek's entire reason for existing. Arek isn't behaving like a priest who has a calling or a mission. He's a Greek Chorus of one.
He needed to help clumsy help people with the lightbringer. and enough habbit that erik sees hey , he looks like daelin but daelin would never help people, i keep a watch on him.
7:37 Yeah, that sent my Kindle airborne, too. There is a facet of Buddhism that focuses upon facing ones fears in order to achieve enlightenment: If you fear death--meditate in a cremation ground; fear of sharks--meditate in a shark cage, et cet. If this is what he was going for, it never landed.
Another fantastic video. I've not read any of Shad's writing, but even so, all of the points you bring up about character development (or lack thereof) is in line with my own thinking and it's great to find conversation that keeps story about story and discussing the characters, and keeping the conversation there. It's so much fun and doesn't happen enough in my opinion. And your summation and personal thoughts at the end, I couldn't stop nodding. Thanks for making these videos! They're such a breath of fresh air.
I don't think shad has the philosophical foundation to actually explore "can you redeam such a monster?" I don't think he can properly portray such a villain in the first place, I don't think he can actually bring such a character from his darkest point to redemption. He knows this is part of Christianity, but he doesn't know anything more than whatever he heard growing up.
16:41 My theory on why this whole stone thing worked: It all had to do with the creation of the arc knights. They use a simpler variation of what Dipstick did to get their powers. He was the only one who did it properly. Everyone else becomes an arc knight through a priesthood, which might kill the initiate depending on their politics. It's done that way to avoid making overpowered idiots like Dipstick. That was why he appeared to be full of light instead of what he was truly full of. (Sh!t.)
"It's well known that one dies if touching either darkstone or sunstone while passing through the barrier." Um... HOW is that well known? Are people always falling off the edge of the world with those stones and coming back to say how it killed them?
From what I gathered if you just fall off without a stone you will fall forever. If you're holding a stone you die. I'm sure people will have fallen from airships and things.
@@lennysmileyface I don't expect it's your job to say. And really it's a much more impressive magic that people survive the fall without the stones than die with them.
Criticism is like medicine: the right prescription and dosage can save your life, but taking it all will kill you outright. To that end, Shad making that video about the shit reviews was a huge mistake. No writer/creator should ever go that far. You make something, you sell it, you let people experience it. You can talk to your audience, answer their questions, ask about their experiences - but you should never dictate to them. You should always challenge criticism to see if it holds up (not all critiques are equal) but calling all negativity 'wrong' or 'disingenuous' is literally pointless. And it's especially odd when you then modify your work to address those points... after clowning on them.
The art is very well done, but the panels are all over the place. Whoever wrote the script did not know what they were doing. There's a lot of static images, redundant panels, etc. A graphic novel should be drawn in the same way as an animatic - you carefully choose which panels to draw to make constant narrative sense on the page. Just looking at the panels and not reading any of the text, I honestly couldn't keep track of what was happening from page to page. Lots of people standing around, walking, sitting, etc. Other than a few pages of fight scenes, there was no real movement at all. Again, not the fault of the artist, he's obviously very talented and it honestly bugged me that the pages needed so many text boxes and dialogue bubbles that a lot of the art was lost. Also, he stopped child labour, huh? Except for the sex work, it seems.
Daylen: "Freeeeezzaaa" Kirk: "You can't say that Daylen you're not Vegeta and Freeza doesn't exist in this universe." Daylen: "I don't believe you!" *jumps off cliff* Kirk: "No.... you?"
41:00 - So we meet angry guy with beard who turns up with sword in hand. Then he gets angry some more. Then sheaves his sword for one panel so he can keep being angry and then... SPLASH PAGE WITH SWORDS. 44:40 - those two panels don't work. The left panel has Mary Shad blocking Angry Guy With Beard. The next panel has Mary Shad somehow having moved his own sword completely out the way and closed so that Angry Guy With Beard has his sword arm fully extended past Mary Shad and Mary Shad is punching him with his doof stab glove. Borrow a friend with a few cardboard tubes and see if you can transition from panel A to panel B. (Spoiler - ya can't.) Also that sword is clearly the fantasy sword designed by someone who doesn't actually know a lot about sword fighting. You have a sabre style and then put spikes all over the handguard. Not just spikes, but spikes with arrow heads on them. The claimed theory is that you can punch with an enemy if they get too close. Sorry but anyone that close is still close enough to slash. Also, you have arrow heads, so if you do poke someone there is a chance the arrow might not pull out. So cool, you now have a dead body stuck to your sword. Also Also, you have to carry that sword on your belt. Good luck protecting your upper thighs from your own sword. Also Also Also, if you catch a blade in them you are providing somewhere for their sword to gain leverage. Sure there can be times where this might work for you... OR... you are allowing your opponent to gain a full leverage advantage over your wrist and disarm you. IS. DUMB. DESIGN. Remember, if it wasn't found in the historical record there was probably a very good reason.
Yea, I never put sexual content in my stories simply because they always took me out of the stories I’ve read. I end up skipping them. They seldom add anything and often they’re not done well enough to avoid being vulgar instead of intimate. How ppl love reflects who they are, they’re not pornstars. If a writer does want to include them, reading a bunch of top 100 erotic romance would help. But i don’t want to take readers out of the story. Simply that. Sex is still there. I mean, if it’s not the ppl in my stories have bigger problems than a Dark God chomping down on the continent :p
The Great Bastard... Yeah... Shad seems REALLY proud of giving his Mary Shad Character that title, but seems to completely fail to understand the historical usage of the word. Historically it was a term to define that while said person was the son (or daughter I guess) of his parents, he (or she) is not considered as a legitimate member of the family and is not in that cultures laws of inheritance. ie - this is the King's bastard son. He is not the prince and will not take the throne on his father's death. In the age where people are getting called "Name" the "Thing" someone like Mary Shad is NOT going to be called Shad the Great Bastard. You are going to be known as Shad the Cruel, or Shad the Unmoral or - once he is safely dead - Shad the Utter Can't. Bastard as an insult is a modern concept and even now the level of offense can vary greatly between cultures.
Are you seriously applying real-world linguistic history to a fantasy world where the word can mean literally whatever the author wants because it doesn’t exist?
Overall: I enjoy religious traditions/belief systems in books. When they're done well it deepens the story and gives it different contrasts among characters. In this comic there's next to nothing to give the reader even a basic understanding on what the Light means, other than Arek is a 'light bringer'. If you've read the book (and I have) the blanks are easy to fill in. Had I not read the novel and picked this up it would have been confusing, but not enough to hook me into wanting to read more. I'm glad he dropped the SA for the comic. I just wish it was more than it is. Lots of lost opportunities.
Totally agree. The fact you have to have read the novel to understand even the basics of the world, its cultures and, beliefs is my biggest single gripe with the adaptation. As much as I think the novel over explained everything and not every culture/belief system made sense, it was the most interesting part of the book. I don't think all the SA will be dropped for the future parts but having it toned back is a very welcome change and will likely make the graphic novel version be received better by readers.
@10:36 Don't you just love it when the first page of the graphic novel you are reading starts off with a massive exposition dump? When it comes to comics, show don't tell is the golden rule. If you have to tell the reader everything, you have broken the immersion of visual story telling.
@@barbarrojaa.c.4761 No. If you read the first page, the narration is broken up into sections by different panels. This is very clever because the camera zooms out to the overhead shot on the final panel while you are reading through dialogue. The pacing is excellent.
@@LauraTeAhoWhite it was a joke. Watchmen is verbose, but it definetly shows, doesn't tell everything. The panels are showing stuff, how it moves. It shows Rorshach walking by, without indication it is him. It shows his character walkimn on blood. And the callousness of a city where a transuent can walk over a fall and only get yelled at. How the blood flows to the gutter, the iconic pin. All things that are being shown. As much text as there is, it is not just textual exposition, it is informing a lot more and the panels themsleves tell even more. I know what I said, I was joking how there is a right way to do it, and a wrong one. Shad seems to have missed all the detail that was shown and that Moore was obsessive about. And the panels in the comic show this
The Ayric thing wasn't a retcon, he's the same freedom fighter, but he changed his name after defeating Daylen so that he could just mourn his family in peace without being venerated. Essentially, he was a foil to what Daylen did when he saved the world. Daylen adored the praise and became a godlike emperor figure, and Ayric went into obscurity hoping not to be adored.
Honestly, even if Shad was willing to listen to genuine critiques (he's not), its almost impossible to find them nowadays. Like you said, so much of the discourse online and even in society in general is bad faith and politically or religiously motivated... I hate it. Also, I loved the rant/ramble at the end, summed up my thoughts exactly, keep up the good work!
Shad has listened to criticism. If you look at other videos criticizing his novel, you’ll often see a comment left by him saying that he appreciates the feedback.
@@Don-Scrima I've seen exactly one - and that was on a video with few criticisms. He made an entire video saying that most of the negative reviews were disingenuous. That's not taking criticism.
what if for the start of the book you still could have the fight but what if dayless in his exile was teaching sword fighting and making weapons and the reason why he is doing the jump thing is because he thinks that what he has done in his exile is not enough to make up for his mistakes, this would explain what he has being doing during his exile but also works towards the theme of if this person is redeemable, then as the book continues us as the reader would learn more about what he did and you could see him trying to be a better person for his mistakes, you could still have him do bad things but that is conflict that character is going through but it also could be him struggling not becoming the person he once was, this would give us as the audience hints into who dayless was and he behaved, i get the book has more problems but this is just my first thought
Oh and maybe have the light not letting him doie when he is still suicidal that he listenes to a wisdom that maybe to make up if dying isnt enough, he has to live and face tht , or something.
So he does horrible things, faces no consequences, then cries in private about being sorry for what he did. This is supposed to make him look like a good person? It seems like Shad is making his own version of Kratos but he thought that self reflection made Kratos look weak or something and thought, "I could do better than that." It just makes Shad look like a coward for not wanting to write about emotional vulnerability with others.
Interesting to bring out Kratos. In first set of God of War-games he is just petulant, angry and bitter maniac. Coward who sold his soul when things got bad, got upset for his patron actually making him better at his job and betrayed him as consequence and got paid as agreed. Then he proved even worse and despite all the warnings went ahead and there was consequences. In Norse-duo he is way different character. He has had chance to remake himself as someone new and despite remembering his acts he does his hardest to not repeat them. He has a reason to show better example to someone else. Ghost of Sparta is not something Kratos wants returning just because he knows emotional price. It is quite complex story and Kratos truly becomes a hero by heroic deeds and mindless destruction is not heroic.
No, it’s not supposed to make him look like a good person. The whole point of the book is that he was a coward for hiding from punishment, but by the end of his arc he’s ready to face the consequences of his crimes and turns himself in.
@@Don-Scrima but he never does face consequences. He never changes throughout the book. He says he deserves punishment from the first page, yet never actually does anything about it. He is constantly validated by other characters and that doesn't change either. Even "turning himself in" results in nothing.
DC's What if... is called Elseworld. Comic is mostly adaptation by Mike S. Miller, and it shows - he see this books differently than creator Shad, and thant's why it's actualy completely different thing... that I doubt will be good (SMiller is at best meh creator...).
This comic book is for two audiences. The first is those who have read the novel, and it’s obvious. His protagonist is clearly near irredeemable in the novel, and anyone who read it knows this. The second audience is those who don’t know about him, and thus he makes an abridged version of his story. He clearly doesn’t know how to write a comic. Again, the jarring transitions show that. First time writing problems. That’s like Daniel Greene’s book being utter trash (allegedly) while he’s criticizing others writing. If they didn’t rail with such fervor no one would pay any attention to them.
Love hearing her thoughts on this, at least the art makes the story somewhat digestible, even if food poisoning is imminent. Love your channel and content, can’t wait for the next upload or stream!
i think its a great world to have more writing in, but the plot just kinda sucks. I would like if Shad changed direction completely and tried writing about characters who will never meet Daylan and just have his character looming over the world like the Stalin type guy he really is to the 99% of the common people. Try again with a blank slate in the established interesting world and follow whoever's advice it was "if you can write anything other than rape, dont use rape". Im sure people would be more than forgiving if he just forgets about the conqueror storyline. you could even make the title work still with all the stories being affected by the shit he did and have the characters living in the 'shadow of the conqueror'. Will shad have the mental fortitude to consider such a hard blow to his writing and start over? very doubtful. hopefully he does try writing more though, he has room to improve.
2:40 I always thought that book would have made a better graphic novel. I had a hard time visualizing the floating continents and other parts of the cities. I did see a review and was surprised that there were maps included. (I love maps.)
I wonder when Shads response video comes, he's the personified snowflake, even small RU-vidrs like Westside Tyler are not safe. I'm sure he's checking new Videos about him every day. Btw, Daylen is a stupid name for a Emperor, I wish Authors would make more afford with names, often they're just lazy, laughable or dumb. This also applies to large Authors. (GRR Martin).
Shad is possibly suffering from the overprotective parent syndrome. You have to be willing to let bad things happen to your main character or, in this case, have him do bad things but then give him a chance to redeem himself. I don't buy any redemption for a character like that; the self-absorbed narcissist who justifies his evil behavior because he has "light" in his heart is far more interesting. Then, as he travels committing atrocities but not paying a price (except for feeling guilty I guess), you could find out he's actually in hell. This is a good lesson in character arcs, setups, and payoffs.
Shad is so far away from getting better. He is committed to manipulation and deceit. My opinion of you if changing with your review on this. I appreciate the slight lift of positivity that you give during your stream of consciousness. Edit: I can also imagine that shad might have difficulty in writing the character arc that he wants when he, himself, is portraying dishonesty to himself and his audience. Shad is also childish in his videos and it reflects in the character. I am sure that the comic book artist tried his best to sort out the mess and garbage that was shad's book. It's just that the book itself is juvenile in so many ways. I think that an author can evolve both style and perspective. It's ok if not everyone likes it or your dark side is explored. Dishonesty from the author themselves... When they try so hard to preach about morality? Seems like nothing more than a child waving their arms around, asking everyone to look. While lecturing in both his fictional work and real life. Nauseating. Hard to take him serious when he already seemed dull and delusional. I liked shad for a lot of things. I can still appreciate that. I did not respect his work very much. But it's different when I feel that way about the author. Your work doesn't hold up, shad... And now neither does your character. Shad, you may have fooled your sycophants and basking in the lack of criticism from your peers... But the audience sees through you. We know that you are gas lighting and deflecting. All the arguments that you bring for other shows, which is often nothing more than nitpicking to begin with, are now rendered pretty much worthless. Because we know that is likely shad doesn't actually understand story to make it entertaining... AND... He apparently doesn't care to face his own criticism. You know what that suggests? A liar and a coward. And I just won't care about someone who does that yet teaches and criticizes. Because it's all mental gymnastics. Shad, you have already shown your character. You can say as many words as you want... But often nothing is ever even said except your childish need for validation. Honestly, pretty pathetic. And disgusting to hear someone trying to make videos about what men should act like. Aussie, please.
The best thing about this whole mess is, how Shad makes this hour long rants about the Star Wars sequel trilogy and Rings of Power (which are arguably bad storytelling media) and than makes ALL the mistakes he criticises in his rant himself 🤣🤣🤣
I used to be a shad fan but his book made me glad I stopped watching him. Your review of the book was the first video I saw of yours (this being the second) and was the second review of the book I saw but it was definitely a superior look at the book definitely more entertaining and concise so I just wantd to let you know you did an excellent job and I. Interested to see how the graphic novel differs and to see your take on them
Me before the actual review: I wonder if Shad is going to treat these two mediums as the same, and treat each page like a book with pretty pictures, instead of utilizing the visual storytelling of the graphic novel format Me immediately when the review begins: Oh
Somehow manifest destiny applies to the redemption arc in a pretty extreme way, but neither to him being a tyrant nor overthrown. It very much reads as a narsacistic worldview that justifies whatever he wants in the moment like there was never a crime to redeem in the first place. I feel this might be a feature of conservitive mormonism with justifying thier own people's attrocities.
Dayless is like if someone watched Todd McFarlane's Spawn, Game of Thrones and Warhammer back to back, only got surface details that were cool, and didn't pay attention to the deeper themes. Shit, Spawn got caught off after 3 seasons and still pulls off the redemption of a prolific war criminal better.
Scenes in books, stories, manga need to have a reason to live. I'm not sure it was made better, perhaps parts of it were made different. You need to prove a character's arc through about 1/3 of the scenes, using the other 1/3 to be over the top action, and 1/3 awesome descriptions and support characters. I'm not sure he saved the best parts, but he has cut some of the stuff out that was repetitive, or just seemed to negate the plot. I think he needs to read a couple other books. He should read the Mirror of her Dreams series (Mordant Needs) by Stephen R. Donaldson, one of absolute gems of post-Robert Zelensky, Tanith Lee fantasy.
Personally I haven't seen personal attacks toward mormon authors. If you count 'this person is a mormon and that's why this problematic thing is in the book' then sure. I'll criticize it all damn day for that. The more I hear about the mormon faith and its history the more alarmed and disgusted I am. It's not the fact that they are mormon, however, it's the themes that are in the book that are problematic. I think it's stupid that Brandon Sanderson gets criticized for not having graphic sex in his books. That's stupid. But Twilight, I've heard it's not just Bella dressing modestly. It's the modest dress, the handling of female characters, the handling of male characters, how Bella behaves (doing all the chores like a good housewife), the themes of grooming and bonded pairs of questionable age, the idea that it's beautiful that Bella needs to suffer for her family. It's these combined things that make people note Meyer's mormon faith in relation to the book as potentially problematic, not just her dress.
I think just like Shad is retconning his poor storytelling choices, it seems like you're (maybe unintentionally)'retconning your view of Daylen as a terribly thought out character. I think justifiably you were really repulsed by his character in the novel and now are somehow trying to "understand" him. Maybe you feel like you were too crtiical or harsh on Shad on the novel and are reframing your critique but you really shouldn't be. You can say all you want about "this character could've been really cool" and focus on the potential of a premise in a character but you can't downplay all the existing lackluster signs that make him poorly written. yet that's not even the worst part-it's that Shad actually believes he's someone worth praising behind all the narcissm, degeneracy and perversion. Shad thinks he can somehow be the best ruler, most cunning inventer and engineer, fiercest warrior, manliest MAN (but they can be emo and cry too), bestest badass to ever live that also is *shrugs*a murderer and rapist disgusting human being that insists forcing his vile views on other people and ruining their lives as a result.
I'm actually just viewing the novel and the comic as completely separate in the same way I wouldn't critique a first draft of a novel and the published version of a book the same way if they were substantially different. Daylen in the novel was a poorly thought out (if at all thought out) character and everyone existed to praise him. I even said in that video that it would be better to move him to a different venue so you have less internal monologue because it would ... expose less parts of how bad he is to the audience. I don't want to go into what I'm considering basically a second draft and holding it to be EXACTLY like the novel. I didn't figure it would be and I'm just trying my best to allow the comic to be its own thing separate from the novel, in the same way I would try to view a movie as separate from a video game or book. So, I don't believe I'd call it a retcon on my response to the novel. I'm also trying to go off the information that is in *the comic*. So we have to see how Daylen is presented in the comic before making a bunch of statements on him. Problem is, there wasn't really much about Daylen's past in issue #1. Just the summary of his rise and fall. This is a different product in a different venue. I might not be perfect in my attempt at separation, but I am trying to give it a chance to do its own thing and to give the author a chance to learn and grow. If I didn't, then there'd be no point in ever giving a crit because I'd always be about holding the author to the worst version of their story no matter what they did.
Minor criticism: The main character isn't written to be as bad as he could be, Shad did say he tried to go 80% badness of people like Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, etc.
Shad interviewed Mike Miller back in 2020, adaptation was done, inking was in progress - "DOING COMICS RIGHT! Discussion on graphic novel adaptation with Mike S. Miller, Comicbook pro artist". ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-B7pI6TCyduE.html I won't comment on Shadow of the Conqueror, not planning on reading it. From what I've read/heard, not my cup of tea. I share the above info hoping it may contribute to the conversation. Best regards.
Just criticizing someone for their religion is obviously dumb, but I do think that looking at the religious influence can explain some of the twisted concept of "redemption" at play here. To Shad, redemption is not about atoning for your crimes in the eyes of your victims, because the victims don't really matter at all. When you sin, you might sin against other people, but what's far more important is that you sin against God. Being redeemed in the eyes of the all-powerful supernatural force of God (or in this case, the Light) means you're redeemed, period. If other people are upset about this, their opinions literally do not matter at all because they're not God. Daylen is a "fuck you" to any victims who think that, by deciding whether to forgive, they hold even a modicum of power over their abusers. Any attempts by the powerless to hold the powerful accountable are perversions of God's order, as God has already chosen the powerful to execute his will over the powerless. The powerful, God's chosen, may stray from the path, like Dayless, but God knows they can be redeemed. Those on the bottom who oppose Daylen are just trash to be disposed of, whether that's because they sin or because they're unhappy with God's plan.
Man the setup and world have a lot of potential but Shad has the emotional depth of a 14 year old and also kinda sucks at fleshing out the details of his world's rules. He could've either had him truly he humbled and changed or he could've never changed had that pointed out as bad but instead he's just Super Cool and the Ends Justify the Means. His inability to have the main character lose a fight is so telling. He could have, for instance, had Daylin struggle coordinating his younger muscles and not be able to fight at a high level quite yet so he has to learn the hard way instead of just being a super badass who can't lose.
The new character is such a let down i find. That was a moment to make a pivotal change. Just as some examples. Have him want to let the guy win but maybe pride stops him from lightening up. Or maybe its a good back and forth but then Daylen gets pressured and on instinct cuts loose. Or maybe the fights decent but then Daylen over comits and do to the new guys age he cant block properly and takes a hit. Showing what Daylen almost was. Theres so much room to have worked on actual redemption or struggle
Watched the book review, not watching this. Both very insightful and reasonable criticism. Shad seems to have the same complex Eric July has where they can't take criticism and think their shit dont smell.
"What did the romans ever give to us?!" - "The aqueduct!" - "Pff, the aqueduct!" EDIT: That's from the person who rages endlessly about emperor palpatine coming back in "rise of the skywalker"! Lol.
Well, that Shad believes brutalizing random hobos is a good thing doesn't come as a surprise. Hunting the homeless for sports is a defining feature of Shads political niche after all.
So based on this comic, Arrik (Erik?) is a dark skinned race character with magical powers, ie the "Magical Negro" trope. And worse yet its the version of this trope where the black man in question acts as the White Hero's sidekick who helps them become a better person (or in this case affirms that the protagonist is a good person deep down), likely at the risk of their safety, common sense or their own characterization or depth. I should have expected this, but because I didn't I'm now even more annoyed and angry with this product
They don't even believe in hell. They believe Hitler is in third class heaven. Growing up I was always really conflicted about Mormons. I thought they were wrong, but I don't see any big problems beyond being technically wrong about things I was taught to believe. At this point in my life, I think they are seriously lacking in really important philosophy about what right and wrong means, and the real consequences of evil.
I have only read the novel and I think it’s pretty good, especially for an author’s first work. Not to say there are things that can’t be improved (e.g., Lyrah is a mess), but I think that everyone (including you) gets the wrong idea about what Daylen’s character arc is supposed to be; people seem to think that the narrative attempts to justify or excuse his past actions despite the only perspectives we get about them are from the characters, and they’re 95% negative. Sure, Daylen uses the “Hitler built the autobahn” defense for himself, but that’s because he’s a human and humans naturally get defensive in the face of criticism. Anyway, the genuine answer to the vast majority of the criticisms you have against his character is, “That’s not the kind of character he is;” Daylen is a mind with 80+ years of life experience (most of which is extremely privileged and authoritative) thrust into the body of a hormonal teenager, so of course he’s going to be impulsive and irritable when people don’t listen to him, but also intelligent and teachable enough to grow (which he does). And something I legitimately don’t understand is the fact that you know where his character arc lands, but keep asserting that he should already be there at the beginning of the story regardless, and you never explain why. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these standards also apply to Darth Vader, King Arthur, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, Queen Guinevere, Victor Frankenstein, Batman, Iron Man, the main characters of Ender’s Game, and pretty much every character in A Song of Ice and Fire? TL;DR, Even though I agree with some of your points, I think your criticism of the main character is moralizing (bad person = bad character) and unfair. P.S., I think it needlessly poisons the well when you imply, intentionally or not, that Shad is okay with rapists having romantic relationships with their victims. I really hope you think harder about that kind of thing in the future.
A critique of a book is not a critique of the author. At no point do I say the book is stating what the author believes, I say the interpretation of the book contents. I even go out of my way to express a separation of author and creation because I was disappointed in the number of comments on the novel critique that attacked the author. Daylen is not the author, even when books will always contain the perspective of the creator. I say that, you best learn it, even though I know the author separate work from the personal in his video reviews of movies and video games he doesn't play. You said, "Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these types of critiques also apply to --" I'm not critiquing the other properties. No, a critique on one book or story is not applicable to every other story or even ANY other story. Critiques are specific to the characters, direction, reading, and elements specific in the work being talked about and never are a catch-all for everything. It's not the elements involved that matter, it's the journey in the story, themes, techniques, and the purpose of the work. It's equally interesting you decided to leave out how much of my character ARC criticism is also couched in, "depends on where the rest of the comic goes to carry it," to show his choices and change or lack thereof. Please learn that all or nothing is not how critique works and just because someone else did something well doesn't mean someone else's attempt at doing the same will turn out well, or because something is done poorly, then it's done poorly every time. Daylen doesn't even read like an 80yo man. I don't buy it, if you do, I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I didn't and I had problems with it. Accusing me of moralizing or being unfair doesn't make me sympathetic to your viewpoint, but it does make me believe fans of the book only want to hear praise and don't understand literary criticism. At the end of the day: we're allowed to like different things, dislike different things, and works of art will be read differently by people based on our backgrounds, insight, and skills. I respect you have a different interest and you enjoyed the book, now please, respect mine.
@@KirkpattieCake “A critique of a book is not a critique of the author.” We agree. “At no point do I say the book is stating what the author believes, I say the interpretation of the book’s contents. I even go out of my way to express a separation of author and creation because I was disappointed in the number of comments on the novel critique that attacked the author.” You’re right. That’s my mistake and I apologize. “You said, ‘Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t these types of critiques also apply to-‘ I’m not critiquing the other properties.” I never said you were; this was an argument meant to question your logical consistency. “No, a critique on one book or story is not applicable to every other story-“ We agree. “-or even ANY other story.” And we disagree. There are several bad stories across all different genres and mediums, and many of them have common problems that can be compared to and contrasted with each other; it’s very rare to have a writing problem that uniquely applies to only one story. “Critiques are specific to the characters, direction, reading, and elements specific in the work being talked about and never are a catch-all for everything.” I agree that it’s never a catch-all for *everything*. But when one of your big critiques of a story is that the main character is evil, that’s a catch-all for a lot of things, and you’ll either have to explain why it applies specifically to this story, but not others, or you must apply this standard to many more stories if you’re going to be logically consistent. And if you do apply this standard to all those other examples, then I disagree with your standard. “It’s not the elements involved that matter, it’s the journey in the story, themes, techniques, and the purpose of the work.” Agreed, but your only supporting evidence to say it was poorly done was Daylen attempting to justify himself in his head (as he would), and Ahrec justifying a self-defense kill (which it was because the guy was still swinging a sword at him) in the heat of a duel; that’s not enough for me. “Please learn that all or nothing is not how critique works and just because someone else did something well doesn’t mean someone else’s attempt at doing the same thing will turn out well, or because something is done poorly, then it’s done poorly every time.” I really don’t appreciate this tangent. First off, you’re making assumptions about me based on words I never said: I never said, “All or nothing is how critique works,” I never said, “Someone did something well, so every attempt is done well,” and I never said, “Someone did something poorly, so every attempt is done poorly.” Neither said nor implied. This is a massive straw man and, the more I read, the harder of a time I’m having believing it was an accident on your part. Second, climb off the high horse; your last two paragraphs especially are extremely condescending. Stop lecturing me about the fundamentals of criticism; I know how it works, so respond to my arguments. I have been and will continue to be cordial with you, but I don’t appreciate the sourness. “Daylen doesn’t even read like an 80yo man.” I used to work a job that had me going between three large senior communities, and have interacted with so many 60-90 year-olds who acted just as petulant as Daylen. “I don’t buy it, if you do, I’m glad you enjoyed the book.” But you get upset when I defend the book… “I didn’t and I had problems with it.” That’s fine, but just because you have problems, doesn’t mean they’re all valid. And I’ve already agreed that many of your issues are valid. “Accusing me of moralizing or being unfair doesn’t make me sympathetic to your viewpoint-“ Why not? You yourself said, in this very reply, “…Books will always contain the perspective of the creator.” How can you say that, but then switch just a few sentences later and get upset when someone says you were (not even intentionally) being unfair to knock the quality of an entire graphic novel by using moral critique of an intentionally immoral character (which is what moralizing means)? Do you think your videos don’t contain your viewpoint? Do you think your viewpoint just shouldn’t be critiqued? “-but it does make me believe fans of the book only want to hear praise and don’t understand literary criticism.” Do you understand logical criticism? Because that’s all I did; your critiques are rooted in logic, but I didn’t think all of it was sound, so I left a like on your video for the stuff I thought was good, and commented for an issue I think is in your video. And yeah, I liked the book, but I literally said that you had some valid criticisms against it! How do you not realize that you and I are in partial agreement, lady? “At the end of the day: we’re allowed to like different things, dislike different things, and works of art will be read differently by people based on our backgrounds, insights, and skills.” I agree, but, based on your reply, you don’t seem able to even entertain the notion that you may have been incorrect about ONE of your critiques. Instead, you resorted to straw manning me and basically calling me a literary illiterate. It seems to me like you only want to hear praise instead of criticism. “I respect you have a different interest and you enjoyed the book, now please, respect mine.” I tried very hard to be as respectful as possible. If I disrespected you in any way, I sincerely apologize. However, I do not apologize for believing you were wrong about something because that is objectively not disrespectful.
I don't believe you came at me cordially. You made assumptions and accused me of making claims about the author based on the critique of the book, and then scolded me ("Think better next time"). Neither of your comments read respectful or cordial, but condescending, dismissive, disrespectful, and corrective. You even assumed I'm upset you like this book when I said I'm glad you liked it. I don't know what more I can do, man. I'm not that invested in this book, I'm glad you like it. I just felt it was rude for you to accuse me of making claims about the author when I defended him in this. Especially when I've watched other people slur the author unfairly for what's just in his book. ; ^; It's hard disagreeing with people without them accusing you of being upset, apparently, even when you say you respect their difference. I don't know what else to do for you lmfao. If that wasn't your intention, then I'll accept our apology and apologize for meeting your comment with the same cadence I felt. You still make assumptions about me and how I feel about stories. When you say strawman, you're accusing me of being dishonest. That's not respectful. I can't help it if I don't believe the character, but you do, but it is not to say anything about my views on immoral characters. You should probably check out some of my other reviews or works before attempting to assume how I feel about complex characters. Shad just reads like a novice author. The character wasn't believable in this book for me, I say why. He's not a bad character because he's bad, he's a bad character because he's poorly written, unthough out, and inconsistent. We Need To Talk About Kevin did an amazing job of writing both a terrible mother and the results in her son who became a school shooter. Bret Easton Ellis did an incredible job with Patrick Bateman. Carl Panzram was an insanely interesting real person who lived, and you can follow the creation of his mindset MIGHT IS RIGHT through his letters, justifications, and life. I'm glad Daylen worked for you, but to me, he was poorly written and that's why he's a bad character. If you want to critique the book or the readings of the content, then focus on stating why you read something the way you did or what elements read what to you instead of calling me moralizing and unfair. If you can't say that Daylen is a bad man, there's nowhere to go. I'm not saying you're saying that, I'm giving a clause. If you don't see him has bad, I respect the differences enough to not correct you. Yes, that is a moral judgment. The book's theme is on redemption; the author intended for him to be as despicable as possible if the interviews of making him Hitler, Khan, Stalin+ are anything to go by, then you follow the story to see where it goes and you'll still come to two assessments at the end: How did the book present the case of redemption and do you agree/disagree. Both are personal. Art will be personally received, responded to with emotion and personal experience, and then expressed by the viewer. Likely will not have the same answers as people have different thresholds. I share what I see and why I see it that way. I'm not trying to correct anyone or change anyone's mind. Your experience is your own. Daylen is a bad man to me. The story arc of the future comics allows for him to either get better or worse. I didn't expect him to change in this comic nor be perfect, as I said. I gave specifics of why I thought what I did and examples of suggestions to strengthen certain ideas. You didn't. Instead, you tried to undermine what I said by insulting my character. Daylen is a bad man seeking redemption. This is an introductory, 100ish page issue. We're going to get a character introduction in that, and that's it. As I said, interpretation of a work will always contain influences from the viewer. interpretation is as much a mirror of the readers perspective as a book contains the author's values by choice of theme, character arc, and story idea. At no point did I say my videos or crits don't contain my viewpoint, I say it in every book review, in my commentary videos, and in the above comment that I expect other opinions and I'm glad people have different perspectives because I understand where it comes from. You said you agreed with some of my points, but the way you talk implies to me you believe I'm dishonest in my response. There's nothing I can do about that if you just think I'm being dishonest. I'm just talking about a book and what I saw and I don't really think there's a point in continuing. I'm not fighting with you over comments. I said I respect your opinion and you're still taking that as, "how do you not understand? you can't even take the notion that you may have been incorrect about ONE of your critiques?" If you want to talk about differences in the book, then talk about the differences in the book. You've made more assumptions and statements about me in your comments than I made of the author in the video. I won't continue on this if you think I'm being dishonest, because those suggestions aren't telling me I may have misread something or taken something in a way the author didn't intend, it's you saying I'm speaking maliciously. If there's no trust in an honest, friendly approach, there's no conversation to be had. So good luck and good night. I like discussing artwork, but I'm not interested in debating it, respectfully, you can have the last word if you want or share your thoughts on the book, but from your responses in general, we have a different approach and understanding. In your response, you already seem to misunderstand what I've said, like when I said *any* story. I wasn't talking about "unique crit," I was talking about critiquing one book does not mean carrying over that same crit to another because they share the element. What one story does well, another may suffer for. You can compare and contrast how something handles say, a morally bankrupt MC, but you can't provide the exact same criticism as you're evaluating using different elements, such as, "This story the character arc fell flat because I hated the MC the entire way for being a dictator, thus, anything with a dictator MC will also suffer that problem." You can't compare. You have to see it on its own, which is why I looked at the comic AND the novel and considered them differently. That alone tells me we aren't talking the same way though, and that's fine. I wish you the best and much enjoyment with your next piece of entertainment. :)
41:40 It’s a bit sad that Shad’s comic art is better than the successful multimillion dollar COMIC BOOK COMPANY’s art in every single thing they’ve produced… lol
I might not be a fan of Mike S Miller since he defended genAI at me last year, but I can appreciate that he is skilled, has a strong style, his composition is nice, and that Shad did a great job in hiring an actual artist for his comic on this one. Especially limiting it to one person for the art and one person for the colors so they were coherent throughout.
@@KirkpattieCake I didn't know Miller was an AIbro. I do like his style, which makes me not understand why he'd be on board with AI. He doesn't need it.
It's still more than a hot mess. Somehow I think Shad is trying to save his ass with this new product. I mean, sure, you can write characters like that, but as we saw in the book...he can't write or tell stories. Unfortunately, you can spot bad fan stories pretty quickly and Shad is just a fan of himself.
Hey, why is it not AI drawn? Oh, right, it's cause those conservative artists are holding it back, not because AI 'art' is dogshit and because people's appreciation of arts goes beyond the what's on the surface? Nah, no way that's the case. Though given the only consumers of this crap are Shad's hamsters, he could have gone with the AI generated crap.
