Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
If Victor Frankenstein created "The Frankenstein Monster," then the monster would inherit his paternal surname, making them both Frankensteins proper. It's one of Victor's failings that he did not give "The Monster Frankenstein" a proper first name, along with his failing in abandoning his creation.
If only Mary Shelley knew the eternal chaos she caused by not giving that green monster a name.
Adam?
That was my memory! Wasn’t he named Adam?
Junior
He wasn't even green in the original story.
isn't it frunkenshtine
if you're a reader of the story, you know that the monster considered the doctor to be his father. so calling the monster Frankenstein is just accepting that perspective... not accepting it could be detrimental to you and your family and friends health.... don't piss off the monster is pretty much what I am saying
His name is Adam Frankenstein
His name was Robert Paulson.
Your MOM was Robert Paulsen!
His name is Frankenstein Smonster
The barista would have written down Liechtenstein.
Woah, Frankenstein reboot idea, the Doctor was the puppet master of the monster so they were actually one in the same. The monster mimics all the Docs moves because replacing a brain is hard so he just used tech.
One and the same
the real monster is always in the comments
the real monster is Hey what's that behind you?
Maybe the real monster was the friends we met along the way 🤷🏻
Does this mean that the monster and his creator had access to a TARDIS?
Not quite the same idea but try reading "jekyll and hyde"
Never heard of it. /s
Since the creature depicted is the extremely unfaithful to the book Boris Karloff version, sure, he can be named Frankenstein. The book version would not be, though.
Awkward.
Lol, I was about to react with an "ackshuly" that is the precise point of this cartoon. Well played.
Transcription
A cartoon of a woman standing next to a coffee machine, holding out a takeaway coffee container. She smiles as she asks "Frankenstein?"
The same woman, now with no visible mouth, in a wider shot, showing two figures raising their hands and looking at each other: a man in a lab coat, glasses, and with grey frizzly hair, and a depiction of "Frankenstein's monster" as soon in popular culture.
Is this AI generated?
Nope, just me! 😊
Back on Reddit, I was a co-mod of a sub with the guy who founded the "transcribers of Reddit", and that helped instill in me an appreciation for the value of accessibility.
It's not too hard to do and I'd encourage anyone to give it a go. There's no need for perfection, and you get a better sense of it as you get used to doing it.
Mastodon and Pixelfed both yell at users to provide alt text for their own posts, but unfortunately Lemmy's devs don't seem to have quite the same care for accessibility.
Probably not. I think most of these are human volunteers
You're right, it's just me 😊
Volunteer singular, maybe. It's the same person on every post I've seen today.
To me it just doesn't seem to satisfy the purpose of alt text. It reads a lot more like an LLM being asked to visually describe what it sees. It's too verbose.
Sure, and yes, it's literally doing what alt text would do, for the same purpose (i.e. describe the image for the visually impaired). The "style" of these that I've seen (not just here) is pretty verbose, so I don't think that's necessarily an indication of llm use. Obviously I can't prove it either way, but I'd rather give these the benefit of the doubt, since this is useful work if it helps people follow along.
The visually impaired don't really get anything from descriptions like "in a wider shot" though, nor is "now with no visible mouth" a relevant detail because the style of the comic does not depict any character with a mouth unless they are speaking. That's LLM logic.
I actually tend to do these less verbose than what I've seen is common with others. I concentrate first on getting across the specific message of the post, and second on describing details that help get across the mood.
The wide shot is an important detail, because it explains why we didn't see the other subjects in the first frame. The lack of visible mouth felt important to me because it contrasts with the smile in the first frame, the lack of smile (or indeed any mouth) gives it a weirder feeling.
Your initial comment seemed like a fairly innocent question and I was happy to answer it, but seeing the thread continue, it's looking more like a baseless accusation. And that's dickhead behaviour. Don't do that. To me, or to others. It's extremely rude, and honestly provides nothing of value. It's especially galling to be accused when I'm spending my effort trying to make this a more inclusive space.
Not baseless, I explained my reasoning. If you say it's not the case, that's fine.
I'm sorry, but "he described the people with no mouths as having no mouths" is a bullshit reason. Just...don't make accusations like that. It's a shitty thing to do.
If you want to ask a polite question, that's one thing, but going on and on through a thread trying to persuade someone else of a completely baseless and unfair accusation is really low behaviour.
And if you had been right, what then? What would you have gained? Weigh the consequences of your actions. When the potential upside is almost-nil, and the probability you're right is a complete toss-up, it's not worth it.
Yeah, that's fair. The mouth description probably seals it for me. I think it'd be more useful to describe the overall "nonplussed" expression than the literal description.