It seems to me that if your caption clearly indicates that the bloke is so drunk he doesn't know that he's having sex, it might make more sense to draw the woman on top.
Legendary underground comic artist Robert Crumb has caused a bit of a stir with his illustrated Book of Genesis - complete with biblical rumpy-pumpy and "gratuitous" violence, as the Telegraph puts it. Lot seduced by his daughter, as depicted by Robert Crumb The book prompted Mike Judge of God botherers' "think-tank" the …
So what's next on the agenda? It might be interesting to see if he could get away with interpretations of a few other religious texts. I must admit that the Koran was the first to spring to mind, but Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish etc texts would probably be fun as well.
Of course he might want to find a safe house first, as one or two people might be a bit more upset about it than the Christians seem to be.
Butthead: huh-huh-huh. Coool.
Beavis: Shuttup buttmunch, he's taking the lords name in vein.
Butthead: Oh yeah. What a dick.
Beavis: Wow! Boobs! Sweet.
Butthead: This is even better than when Mel Gibson played jesus.
Beavis: He didn't look like Braveheart in that movie....
Beavis: Shuttup douchbag, I'm trying to concentrate on the boobs.
"Outrageous Tales From The Old Testament"; I think Neil Gaiman was one of the contributors; comic book retelling of a lot of those Old Testament tales. It was done pretty much straight from the bible and was certainly eye-opening if you haven't read some of the dodgier stuff in "the good book". The story of Jael and Sisera from the Book of Judges was particularly unpleasant as I recall.
Wow, seems on a par with "dog bites man"
The bible does have quite alot of behaviour illustrated*, not condoned. But read the bible if you want to read about some pretty poor behaviour.
It's not necessary to be so graphic* in your descriptions, if I need an image my brain is capable of providing one...
* Puns deliberatly left in place (A good pun is it's own reword)
"It may surprise people but the bible does contain nudity, sex and violence. That's because it contains real stories about real people"
Yep, the first "real person" has a wife that's made from his own rib. Does that make her a "real person"? What about all the bits with the sky-fairy and how he is (inexplicably) pissed off at everyone except the Israelites - despite the assertion that he made all of them too.
Most the old testament can pretty much be summed up by "God killed everyone except us." or "God enabled us to kill an entire nation - yay!". That's genocide, so presumably if the story is true and Jehova is a "real person", the UN will by trying him for war crimes.
A good number of news articles on El Reg (particularly in the bootnotes section) include such editiorial opinion by the writers. I can't say I'm always crazy about this myself, but would say that this is part of El Reg's in-house style; I suspect that despite saying "regardless of the content of the article," it was exactly that which made you comment.
"So what's next on the agenda? It might be interesting to see if he could get away with interpretations of a few other religious texts. I must admit that the Koran was the first to spring to mind, but Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish etc texts would probably be fun as well."
Umm, the old testament part of the bible was claimed by the Jews long before it became a Christian book.
I think it would be a brave person who did one of the Koran though, after the what happened in Holland with a few cartoons.
Oh - I rejected that comment because it wasn't especially amusing and was barely coherent.
Also, AC (whose name I can still see, if you didn't know) I'm not sure if you meant to call me a moron in another thread but consider it a strike if you did. (If you didn't, well, you need to work on your grammar.)
Now if you'll excuse me there are 152 comments in the queue.
"Where did Cain's wife come from, anyway?"
That's easy. He was a mofo. Or sisfo, maybe? Oh well, I have read Christians openly accepting the inevitability of incest due to the simple fact that Cain had no one else to have his kids with...
152 comments on queue!? Sheesh... far from me inflating that even more, then.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, but Crumb could do this one justice!
I know what I'm giving my fundie brother in law for Christmas; if I'm lucky he'll stop talking^Wpreaching at me every time I see him ...
I can't wait to see what Crumb does with Gen. 1.1+ v.s. Gen 2.4+ :-)
Faith is making a virtue out of not thinking right - so not only do they not want their "faith" offended, but they're also encouraging _NOT_READING_ something which is evidently based on the original source text and presented in a way that the proles can understand (with pictures, as the old book is a bit wordy)...
And here people who like to think of the bible as some puritanical nonsense get offended by this?!? These are people who obviously haven't read the various morally abhorrent and horrifically bloody stories that make up a good portion of it. Child abuse, rape, torture, murder, enslavement, genocide (is genocide OK if it was God?) the list goes on and on and on.... Read yer bible folks!
"Jesus Saves" - whatever!
Can't wait to see his version of the Koran. "And the trees cried, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind us. Go forth and kill him." Sounds like fun for the entire family. Let's see if he has the brass balls to do it (Unlike the creator of South Park, who ran scared of the Moose-lems).
The Old Testament is full of kissing and fighting, shagging and killing, just like life. Which seems to make it more credible to me rather than less....
The cautious reviewers are saying "if Crumb misrepresented or abused the text for gratuitous sex and violence, then that is bad"
The welcoming reviewers are saying "if Crumb has accurately illuminated the text and retold it faithfully, then that is good"
"Can't wait to see his version of the Koran. "And the trees cried, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind us. Go forth and kill him." Sounds like fun for the entire family."
You know what's weird? I thought that sounded interesting so I went off and googled it. But it turns out that that's not from the Koran but a hadith i.e. not the Koran but an interpretation or commentary. And then the other odd thing is that the only places to carry that quotation are frothingly mental anti-Islamic sites/forums...and wikipedia, quoting a frothingly mental anti-Islamic site.
Would it be possible to source that quotation with a bit more precision on where it came from, anonymous coward? There's surely enough ridiculous nonsense sprinkled throughout ancient religious texts and modern anti-Semitic nonsense without anyone needing to make up more...right?
It may as well be with the most illogical and reactionary person in the room. Nice to see the Torygraph wearing its sad little heart on its sleeve.
@Tim Greenwood, I did have a try at this a few years ago with a less than totally reverent, East Londonised version of the Ramayana, sadly never produced, but fun to write.
(from his agent) that Robert Crumb intended to, essentially, use artistic license to make a version based on vaguely rewritten OT, but when he sat down to draw it, he realised he didn't need to - the OT was already sufficiently graphic etc.
The drawings are, indeed, intended to be an accurate representation of the text.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019