The assumptions made are stupid. And because it’s written by the author I can only assume they are makng assumptions. You need a reality check. Why are you making it so much about the orphans? Most kids wouldn’t realize unless it was made apparent which no school would do.
You need a director or creative writer because you are clearly out of touch
Really? Because I have some pretty clear memories of how kids from “the children’s home” (aka: the orphanage) were treated compared to “normal” kids. This isn’t too far off the mark. Everyone somehow knew if you were one of “those” kids. And they were all lumped together as if what one of them said or did held true for all of them.
It’s true of any group, really. As kids in school, they’re forced to cram all kinds of knowledge into their heads, a lot of which is simplified in the earlier grades and expanded upon later. Because they are human beings that haven’t been around as long as adults and whose brains are still growing.
As a result, people tend to get categorized into groups just as a matter of trying to organize the knowledge of who is who and what they do. It’s not immature to do this when one is actually young, as you are just starting to learn everything. Later, in adulthood, it is an amazingly common problem known as “prejudice”, but in childhood it’s a matter of “Argh, give me the cliff notes! I can’t memorize the personal history of a dozen people I’ve just met! They’re all orphans and live at the same orphanage, okay that’s good for now. Back to memorizing the times tables and trying to remember what the pancreas does.”
Um, reality check? Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about?
This kind of assumption is so common I have seen it MYSELF, SEVERAL TIMES, with completely different kids in different situations.
You might try backing up your comments, with, you know, FACTS before you start pumping out the stupidity.n(many of you around here know my and my dad’s story with orphans and foster kids– suffice to say I speak from a position of experience.)
So writer decides to go a direction reader dislikes. [Sarcasm] This is automagically the writer’s fault for writing the story he wants and should bend the knee for the reader. Hmm, makes sense to me! [/Sarcasm]
Growing up I moved A LOT. I was always the new kid in a new school. Now, while I wasn’t an orphan I can understand because I was always relegated to a position of outsider I could not escape and there was always children’s assumptions that were flat out wrong. One of which, that all the other outsiders in the school were my allies even if I never knew them.
Humans since birth categorize and assume. It’s basic Psyche 101. They would know they were orphans and presume they’re all arm in arm. The adults would as well, seeing them as a faction.
Not much else to say except what you other awesome readers said. Am I the only one gettin’ teh feelz from seeing people stick up for the writer & story in the face of an ignorant comment?
Incorrect. Kids are highly aware of what makes them different from others and what makes others different from them. Family, including mothers and fathers, are a huge part of children’s lives, especially the youngest ones. In elementary school the topic would be coming up all the time. They’re routinely drilled on their parent’s names, address/es, and phone number/s to make sure they’ve memorized this very important information (regardless of whether they actually spell it out as being the reason or not). They make mothers/father’s day cards and Christmas presents and make art projects of their families etc. Elementary age kids especially are exceptionally talkative and don’t have much of a filter. If you spent any time at all around elementary aged children (and preschoolers) you’ll learn many private things about their parent’s lives very quickly. You’ll know who’s father wears dentures, who’s mother walks around the house in her underwear in the morning, who sleeps naked, who’s sister has a drug problem and how many sexual partners their newly divorced dad has over. Kids are amazingly astute even if they don’t wholly understand what they’re repeating or paraphrasing.
As someone with a psychology degree and professional experience in children’s development I am fully qualified to say that you’re incorrect.
Now, if you’re drawing upon your own personal experience not knowing who may or may not have been an orphan, I’d believe you. Orphanages are almost completely gone in the US today. In the 70’s the civil right’s movements included a hard look at institutionalization, particularly for those with mental illness. What they found was horrifying- forced treatments, beatings, inadequate standards of cleanliness, isolation, and exposure to the elements. Orphanages are another institution and they have their own problems. Too many children, not enough adults to care for them. Yes, they were fed and clothed and had a roof over their head but they were not nurtured and as a result were having serious behavioral problems to include attachment disorders and future mental illness. So, there was a huge push toward getting these kids into a “functional” home. We all know that’s not always the case, but the use of foster care over orphanages has been a step in the right direction. Some kids are unable to be properly handled and cared for in a foster home and end up in a group home with more intensive treatment and experienced staff. The children in group homes sometimes go to public schools but more often than not have their own special schools with smaller teacher to student ratios, alternative programs, additional services and service providers, a more secured campus, and teachers who are trained in different ways that are able to preform holds and restraints, are trained in crisis deescalation, and have protocols for dealing with violent and otherwise inappropriate behaviors. So, in short, most of the kids that you’d be able to automatically identify as being an orphan are not in the public eye and the ones who are in successful foster homes are often being fostered by family members. So you may not notice that there are a handful of foster kids in your school because you just knew they lived with their uncle or grandparents or a family friend. Perhaps there was one or two foster kids that were in the more traditional foster situation. There are now serious pushes for their privacy but they often do divulge this information as is their right. Those kids are usually treated differently, but they don’t have a group of other kids like them to surround themselves with for protection and because they’re the only ones that can truly relate. If there were a public school in which children from a local group home all attended together I would bet that they’d all stick relatively close together unless it was a large number and they had broken off into their own separate cliques.
So, instead of getting nasty, why not try to actually think this through? It’s one thing to disagree and to state so, it’s another to make assumptions of your own and just plain get nasty. If you don’t like the artist’s work, don’t read it! If you usually enjoy it but this is irking you, why not treat him with respect? Especially when you obviously don’t have the knowledge base to criticize. Be nice! It will get you further in life.
Reality check? As far as I can tell, the story’s eponymous protagonist doesn’t even exist in our reality.
It has already been established that there is some animosity between the orphans and the other students, and this update provides some insight into that animosity. If anything I’d say that’s evidence of Dave’s writing prowess.
That being said, I do like where the last couple pages have been going. I hope that finally ALL the children get in trouble for breaking the rules. None of this mess would have happened if they had only followed the rules and not instigated a snowball fight.
Things I’m looking forward to:
Tony redeems himself and makes it known he was never intentionally trying to hurt the others and was just teasing; albeit better judgement could have been made on his part…
Truck’s family situation coming to light/light being shed on what truly goes on with this kid because it seems like abuse/brainwashing/emotional disability.
Amanda and Heather have a talk. Amanda shares why she felt betrayed and Heather shares why she feels under appreciated.
Amanda, Keisha and Heather get punished for physically attacking other students. This leads to bonding/above scenario. Not to mention they learn a hard lesson that words may hurt, but beating someone up is never the solution to mean words.
Amanda meets Andy; Amanda gets a chance to see someone loves her.
The conflinct between Selkie, Amanda, Andy and Todd. Andy and Todd have to be adults for their children and make a proper choice. Regardless BOTH parents need to be involved in Amanda’s life for the child’s sake.
The other kids realize the orphans are not as bad as they assumed and shorten the distance between them all. They all need to realize they are forming their own little groups due to misunderstandings.
The adults realize some of these kids have SEVERE social issues that need to be addressed! These issues are not because they are ‘sociopaths’ but are most likely due to parental neglect, bad influences and lack of proper adult supervision in general.
I would really like to see why some of the ‘villain’ children are so mean. I find it very hard to believe it’s just in their nature. Outside influences are a thing! I do so very hope that this gets explored as maybe side stories or mini-arcs. Bad guys for the sake of needing bad guys seems like a weak plot. These characters have huuuuuuge potential stories! Maybe even real sympathy gathered for their situations. Ot maye just awful parents and older siblings. Still lots of interesting aspects can be had here. I’m dying to see.
Aside from Andy getting involved (I still dislike her like I would dislike a vomit puddle), I’m pretty much on the same lines. Especially the bit of the adults in the story getting involved in their kids’ mental/social health issues.
Saying Rob’s accent aloud I’d say it’s either Boston or New York/Jersey XD Some kinda lazified-anglo saxxon from new england XD I’m from Maine, I hear it ALL the time 🙂
So the sneaky, manipulative kids thought they were the victims a trap of Rube Goldbergian complexity.
Isn’t it interesting how terrible people always imagine that everyone else is just as terrible, and in pretty much the same way? Which, of course, justifies their own terribleness. With any luck, this incident will teach this little group of terrible people that neither part of that is true.
Ouch, that’s so hurtful.
.
.
.
Good.
The assumptions made are stupid. And because it’s written by the author I can only assume they are makng assumptions. You need a reality check. Why are you making it so much about the orphans? Most kids wouldn’t realize unless it was made apparent which no school would do.
You need a director or creative writer because you are clearly out of touch
Really? Because I have some pretty clear memories of how kids from “the children’s home” (aka: the orphanage) were treated compared to “normal” kids. This isn’t too far off the mark. Everyone somehow knew if you were one of “those” kids. And they were all lumped together as if what one of them said or did held true for all of them.
It’s true of any group, really. As kids in school, they’re forced to cram all kinds of knowledge into their heads, a lot of which is simplified in the earlier grades and expanded upon later. Because they are human beings that haven’t been around as long as adults and whose brains are still growing.
As a result, people tend to get categorized into groups just as a matter of trying to organize the knowledge of who is who and what they do. It’s not immature to do this when one is actually young, as you are just starting to learn everything. Later, in adulthood, it is an amazingly common problem known as “prejudice”, but in childhood it’s a matter of “Argh, give me the cliff notes! I can’t memorize the personal history of a dozen people I’ve just met! They’re all orphans and live at the same orphanage, okay that’s good for now. Back to memorizing the times tables and trying to remember what the pancreas does.”
Um, reality check? Do you have ANY IDEA what you are talking about?
This kind of assumption is so common I have seen it MYSELF, SEVERAL TIMES, with completely different kids in different situations.
You might try backing up your comments, with, you know, FACTS before you start pumping out the stupidity.n(many of you around here know my and my dad’s story with orphans and foster kids– suffice to say I speak from a position of experience.)
So writer decides to go a direction reader dislikes. [Sarcasm] This is automagically the writer’s fault for writing the story he wants and should bend the knee for the reader. Hmm, makes sense to me! [/Sarcasm]
Growing up I moved A LOT. I was always the new kid in a new school. Now, while I wasn’t an orphan I can understand because I was always relegated to a position of outsider I could not escape and there was always children’s assumptions that were flat out wrong. One of which, that all the other outsiders in the school were my allies even if I never knew them.
Humans since birth categorize and assume. It’s basic Psyche 101. They would know they were orphans and presume they’re all arm in arm. The adults would as well, seeing them as a faction.
I guess you’ve never been to a school as small as that one appears to be, but believe me: the kids know everything.
I am making it about the orphans because they’re the secondary protagonists/main supporting cast.
Not much else to say except what you other awesome readers said. Am I the only one gettin’ teh feelz from seeing people stick up for the writer & story in the face of an ignorant comment?
No, you’re not the only one. {hugs Dave}
… {hugs Tony to, ’cause he’s been making an effort and this should be encouraged}
Incorrect. Kids are highly aware of what makes them different from others and what makes others different from them. Family, including mothers and fathers, are a huge part of children’s lives, especially the youngest ones. In elementary school the topic would be coming up all the time. They’re routinely drilled on their parent’s names, address/es, and phone number/s to make sure they’ve memorized this very important information (regardless of whether they actually spell it out as being the reason or not). They make mothers/father’s day cards and Christmas presents and make art projects of their families etc. Elementary age kids especially are exceptionally talkative and don’t have much of a filter. If you spent any time at all around elementary aged children (and preschoolers) you’ll learn many private things about their parent’s lives very quickly. You’ll know who’s father wears dentures, who’s mother walks around the house in her underwear in the morning, who sleeps naked, who’s sister has a drug problem and how many sexual partners their newly divorced dad has over. Kids are amazingly astute even if they don’t wholly understand what they’re repeating or paraphrasing.
As someone with a psychology degree and professional experience in children’s development I am fully qualified to say that you’re incorrect.
Now, if you’re drawing upon your own personal experience not knowing who may or may not have been an orphan, I’d believe you. Orphanages are almost completely gone in the US today. In the 70’s the civil right’s movements included a hard look at institutionalization, particularly for those with mental illness. What they found was horrifying- forced treatments, beatings, inadequate standards of cleanliness, isolation, and exposure to the elements. Orphanages are another institution and they have their own problems. Too many children, not enough adults to care for them. Yes, they were fed and clothed and had a roof over their head but they were not nurtured and as a result were having serious behavioral problems to include attachment disorders and future mental illness. So, there was a huge push toward getting these kids into a “functional” home. We all know that’s not always the case, but the use of foster care over orphanages has been a step in the right direction. Some kids are unable to be properly handled and cared for in a foster home and end up in a group home with more intensive treatment and experienced staff. The children in group homes sometimes go to public schools but more often than not have their own special schools with smaller teacher to student ratios, alternative programs, additional services and service providers, a more secured campus, and teachers who are trained in different ways that are able to preform holds and restraints, are trained in crisis deescalation, and have protocols for dealing with violent and otherwise inappropriate behaviors. So, in short, most of the kids that you’d be able to automatically identify as being an orphan are not in the public eye and the ones who are in successful foster homes are often being fostered by family members. So you may not notice that there are a handful of foster kids in your school because you just knew they lived with their uncle or grandparents or a family friend. Perhaps there was one or two foster kids that were in the more traditional foster situation. There are now serious pushes for their privacy but they often do divulge this information as is their right. Those kids are usually treated differently, but they don’t have a group of other kids like them to surround themselves with for protection and because they’re the only ones that can truly relate. If there were a public school in which children from a local group home all attended together I would bet that they’d all stick relatively close together unless it was a large number and they had broken off into their own separate cliques.
So, instead of getting nasty, why not try to actually think this through? It’s one thing to disagree and to state so, it’s another to make assumptions of your own and just plain get nasty. If you don’t like the artist’s work, don’t read it! If you usually enjoy it but this is irking you, why not treat him with respect? Especially when you obviously don’t have the knowledge base to criticize. Be nice! It will get you further in life.
Reality check? As far as I can tell, the story’s eponymous protagonist doesn’t even exist in our reality.
It has already been established that there is some animosity between the orphans and the other students, and this update provides some insight into that animosity. If anything I’d say that’s evidence of Dave’s writing prowess.
Wow. You been told. A lot.
“Tony’s the kid we pretend is invisible.” “I’m standing right here …” “SEE? My point exactly!” So very much the way real kids interact. Good work.
Reading it aloud, it sounds to me like he’s trying to do Scotty from Star Trek, or maybe Shrek.
My Fair Lady + Shrek + Austin Powers “English English”
Now I can think of is Mike Myers in My Fair Lady and I really want to see that now.
I heard it as kinda New-England-ish, but having only visited the area briefly, I’m probably way off the mark.
“Because we ain’t DUMB”
*4 panels later* stupidity confirmed.
Whole lotta hypocrisy goin’ on in here.
That being said, I do like where the last couple pages have been going. I hope that finally ALL the children get in trouble for breaking the rules. None of this mess would have happened if they had only followed the rules and not instigated a snowball fight.
Things I’m looking forward to:
Tony redeems himself and makes it known he was never intentionally trying to hurt the others and was just teasing; albeit better judgement could have been made on his part…
Truck’s family situation coming to light/light being shed on what truly goes on with this kid because it seems like abuse/brainwashing/emotional disability.
Amanda and Heather have a talk. Amanda shares why she felt betrayed and Heather shares why she feels under appreciated.
Amanda, Keisha and Heather get punished for physically attacking other students. This leads to bonding/above scenario. Not to mention they learn a hard lesson that words may hurt, but beating someone up is never the solution to mean words.
Amanda meets Andy; Amanda gets a chance to see someone loves her.
The conflinct between Selkie, Amanda, Andy and Todd. Andy and Todd have to be adults for their children and make a proper choice. Regardless BOTH parents need to be involved in Amanda’s life for the child’s sake.
The other kids realize the orphans are not as bad as they assumed and shorten the distance between them all. They all need to realize they are forming their own little groups due to misunderstandings.
The adults realize some of these kids have SEVERE social issues that need to be addressed! These issues are not because they are ‘sociopaths’ but are most likely due to parental neglect, bad influences and lack of proper adult supervision in general.
I would really like to see why some of the ‘villain’ children are so mean. I find it very hard to believe it’s just in their nature. Outside influences are a thing! I do so very hope that this gets explored as maybe side stories or mini-arcs. Bad guys for the sake of needing bad guys seems like a weak plot. These characters have huuuuuuge potential stories! Maybe even real sympathy gathered for their situations. Ot maye just awful parents and older siblings. Still lots of interesting aspects can be had here. I’m dying to see.
Aside from Andy getting involved (I still dislike her like I would dislike a vomit puddle), I’m pretty much on the same lines. Especially the bit of the adults in the story getting involved in their kids’ mental/social health issues.
Saying Rob’s accent aloud I’d say it’s either Boston or New York/Jersey XD Some kinda lazified-anglo saxxon from new england XD I’m from Maine, I hear it ALL the time 🙂
So the sneaky, manipulative kids thought they were the victims a trap of Rube Goldbergian complexity.
Isn’t it interesting how terrible people always imagine that everyone else is just as terrible, and in pretty much the same way? Which, of course, justifies their own terribleness. With any luck, this incident will teach this little group of terrible people that neither part of that is true.