Hey, everybody! Welcome to the home site for my first graphic novel, Charlie and Gloria! I will continue posting updates on the drawing process over at WesDraws.com, but this will be the central hub site for all things C&G-related. Here you’ll find the book synopsis and character bios as well as a 25-page preview of the graphic novel! I’ll also post any C&G fanart on this site, so if you’d like to draw one of the characters just send it to me at wes(at)wesdraws(dot)com and I’ll post it in the yet-to-be-created fanart section!
For more info about Charlie and Gloria, just read this interview I had with myself:
Graphic Novel Q & A With Myself
So what’s this graphic novel/comic book/illustrated tome called? As you can see from the image above, the book is titled “Charlie and Gloria”. It’s about a guy named Charlie and a girl named Gloria. Pretty creative, I know. I learned a long time ago that it’s best to keep your titles simple so as not to confuse your readership – case in point, You’ll Have That.
What’s the story about? The story follows Charlie and Gloria on an awesome – and rather impromptu – first date. First dates (or even second dates and third dates) can be rather intimidating, but when they go well they are absolutely amazing! Especially when you can tell right away that there’s a mutual attraction. There’s a lot of mystery as you both try to delicately pick at the “walls” you’ve built around yourselves, and the smallest things – such as a touch on the elbow or a coy smile – can be as intimate as a kiss on the lips. Those early dates are also pretty “innocent”, and I wanted to write about that fun, light-hearted vibe that surrounds a burgeoning relationship in its very early stages.
The story doesn’t seem like a huge departure from what you’ve done in the past. Weren’t you going to try to create a fantasy-based graphic novel? Yes. Originally, that was the plan. I still want to write and draw a fantasy/action story, but I decided that it might be best to play a little closer to home with my first graphic novel to lessen the likelihood of burnout.
You’ll Have That was a love story. Max vs. Max was a love story. Charlie and Gloria is going to be a love story. Are you OK with being the Nicholas Sparks of comic book creators? I guess . . . I mean . . . I never thought about it like that . . .
You said you wanted to write about the “innocent” vibe of the dating experience in the early stages of a relationship. Does that mean there won’t be any sex or boobies in your graphic novel? Yeah. That’s pretty much what that means.
Is this book gonna get all Jesus-y like Max vs. Max did? Um . . . I’m a Christian, so I guess some of that might leak into the story. Max vs. Max was more of a deliberate exploration of a man’s faith after divorce. This book isn’t exploring any elements of faith, so if that’s what you mean by “Jesus-y” then I guess my answer is “no”.
So when do we get to see this book? Will it be a webcomic? Probably not a webcomic. I’d really like to get this book published by a major publisher, so I’m going to try to court literary agents. Eventually I plan on making a dedicated site for Charlie and Gloria with a 10- to 20-page preview as well as character bios and other book info.
How can we – your adoring readership – help you promote this book? The best way would be to follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ (I always follow back) and use your social-media-network-of-choice to talk about my book. I’ll be posting updates and sneak peeks along the way, so if you can retweet that stuff and post it on Facebook that would be totally rad!
“I’m not convinced by the arguments for atheism” – As far as I’m concerned there are no argument for atheism, and can not be. Atheism is *just* the rejection of theism. It doesn’t necessarily mean you believe god does not exists, it means you don’t believe he exists (and there’s a difference between the two, though it may not be apparent at first glance). All I (as an atheist) is saying is that I’ve yet to see any good evidence FOR any sort of deity, so I have no reason to believe that there is one. So all my so called “arguments for atheism” are just arguments AGAINST theism. That is, I’m not convinced by any of them.
I’m not sure I explained that good enough, but just thought I’d point that out. It’s not that I don’t want to believe in god (I used to be a Christian), but I just don’t see any reason to any more. If I had a reason, I’d believe.
(I’m very glad you’re blogging about this btw, cause I find religion so very interesting!)
Are you sure you wouldn’t describe yourself as more “agnostic” than “atheist”?
No. People often misunderstand the difference between “atheist” and “agnostic”. An atheist does not believe a god exists due to lack of evidence supporting said existence. An agnostic does not believe that it’s humanly possible to know whether a god exists or not so they don’t take a position of belief one way or another. Very few atheists will subscribe to absolute certainty that no gods exist we just choose to believe that a god doesn’t exist because there isn’t compelling evidence to convince us otherwise.
Thanks for the clarification!
To add to what Troy said, I look at it like this; agnosticism vs, gnosticism answerers a different question than atheism vs. theism. If someone asks me “what do you believe [about God/s]?” I can’t answer “well, I’m agnostic”, cause that wasn’t the question. A/gnosticism deals with knowledge (gnōsis: knowledge) and a/theism deals with belief (in a deity). You either believe in a god, or you don’t. Any clams of knowledges are unrelated to the question. If you’re not a theist, you are by definition an atheist, and vice versa. So you can be an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist, or any combination. I’m an agnostic atheist, cause I don’t BELIEVE, but nor do I claim to KNOW there isn’t a god. I just don’t believe there is one.
Out of all the books defending Christianity that I’ve read, The Case For Christ was probably the best one. However, I found it a bit dishonest. It didn’t convince me.
Why do you trust the bible? Accurate translations? Surely you jest. Tell me now how many different English translations are there of the bible? A translation is only as good as the translator and translators are human who make mistakes. The fact that we have so many different English translations of the bible should give one pause about the book’s credibility. How old a manuscript is and how many copies there are of the manuscript don’t give credibility to the historical accuracy of the text. Nor does the fact that there are undisputed historic events or people depicted in the bible. Actual people and events in history are depicted in fictional work all the time. If the bible is a historical document then so is Homer’s The Iliad.
In order for something to be considered a credible historical document it has to be corroborated by other sources of the time period. If several different documents are describing the same people and events with relatively similar accounts of said people or events then one can assume it is more credible especially if the writer is well known for their documentation of historical events. Unfortunately there are NONE.
You may attempt to refute me by pointing out so-called sources that Christian apologists like to point to for historical evidence but I have done my homework and I can refute them all. I’ll give a free one right now because it’s often the 1st source Christians point to for historic evidence of the bible… Josephus. Christian apologists point to Josephus as a source that gives the bible credible historic evidence but it fails and I’ll tell you why…
Both references to Jesus Christ in “Antiquities of the Jews” are describing what sub sects in the Jewish communities believe in, it is NOT suggesting that these beliefs were true. The first reference briefly mentions the story of Jesus Christ being the brother of James. The second reference known as “The Testimonium Flavianum,” with or without the added Christian forgeries, is only mentioning the story of Jesus which Christians believe in.
Furthermore…
• Josephus was not even born until 37 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews was not written until 94 CE
• Antiquities of the Jews contains the history and beliefs of the Jewish community, the references to Jesus are describing beliefs and not history.
• Josephus died as an orthodox Jew and never believed in a savior named Jesus Christ in his autobiography
Don’t bother pointing out anyone else either I can already tell which ones you’d mention and possibly even some you haven’t thought of or heard of. I’ll give you a list here…
LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA
TACITUS
SUETONIUS
PLINY THE YOUNGER
None are actual historic accounts or eyewitness accounts.
Christianity offers answers? Yes I suppose it does provide answers, but they are answers without credible evidence to support them as facts. And I just love it when Christians bring up morality which is based on Christian Divine Command Theory which states that: Morality is based on what God commands and no other reasons are needed to accept something as a moral obligation except that God so commanded it. Therefore if God commanded something then it is right, but if God forbids it then it is wrong.
So allow me to ask you the same question Socrates once asked… Is conduct right because God commanded it? Or did God command it because it is right?
If you answer that it is right because God commanded it then the only reason we have for doing something is because God commanded it. But this makes God’s commands arbitrary because there is no reason for why God commanded something other than the fact that he did. He just commands what he commands. If this is the case then God could command us to do something horribly evil by simply declaring it good. If God is the creator of morality then he could declare any act good and there would be no moral reason above God to distinguish him from Satan. So God telling the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18)… an actual act of genocide was a morally sound command.
This makes the whole concept of the goodness of God meaningless. If we think the commands of God are good merely because he commands them then his commands are just… commands. We can’t call them good because in order to call them good we would need a standard above to declare that they are indeed good commands.
If on the other hand you were to answer Socrates’ question saying that God makes commands because they are good then that means there is a standard above that God that we appeal to in which to base his commands as good which are independent of God himself. In this case we are left to decide for ourselves which of God’s commands are good and which are not good and furthermore we are left to decide for ourselves what is good and what is not good without needing God’s commands at all.
A relationship with God or Jesus is kind of one-sided isn’t it? If you tell me you talk to God I’d say you were religious. If you tell me God talks to you I’d say you were delusional. Besides where does it say in the bible that God or Jesus wants us to constantly bug him with all the mundane and trivial crap in our lives? Why would he possibly give a damn about your raise at work so you can support the baby your wife is pregnant with when it comes yet the prayers of a child being physically or sexually abused for the abuse to stop fall on deaf ears?
Every Christian should read John W Loftus’ book “Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity”. It is the single most compelling argument against Christianity which most Christians probably wouldn’t read because they prefer to read things that encourage their beliefs instead of refute them even if it comes from a scholar of Mr. Loftus’ stature who has extensive degrees in Christian theology and probably knows more about the bible and Christianity in general than the average church-going sheeple do.
The bones of Jesus wouldn’t be found if the presumption is that Jesus existed and was exactly what the bible said he was… the reason why is because he resurrected and the ascended into heaven whole. There would be no bones to be found.
If Jesus was just a man and the bible was an exaggerated account of miracles that never happened including the resurrection, then bones could possibly be found but it could probably never be proven that the bones actually belonged to Jesus of the bible because we have no DNA to compare it to for forensic evidence.
So regardless of what anyone believes about Jesus the likelihood of his bones being found and proven to be his… well I think they’ll find Jimmy Hoffa before they find Jesus.
Wes, since I started following your comics and posts online, I have always found them to be sincere, honest, and refreshing (compared to most of the junk out there). And watching as you dealt with a tremendous life change and challenge, I am so very encouraged and elated to see where your faith is today. In my opinion, you have a wonderful understanding of Christianity and what I believe Christ has called us to as Christians. Thank you man. Bless you and love you brother.
Thanks, man. That choked me up a little bit. It’s been a pleasure having you as a reader all these years.
Wes,
not all the Bible is to be read in the same way as, say, The National Enquirer or The New York Times. Unlike a Muslim, I do not think that my scriptures were created solely by God without any human input. Mark Shea said it much better than I can expect to:
“The Bible, while it is a single book authored by God is also 73 books authored by the men writing under inspiration. Those men are not robots zapped by a God Ray and forced to write against their will. They are perfectly free and writing exactly what they wanted to write[.] This means, among other things, that they are writing a lot of different kinds of literature and are by no means all writing newspaper language. Therefore, the very first step we should take as readers in understanding a biblical (or, for that matter, any) text is to determine what literary form the author is employing. Is the passage poetry? Historical narrative? Philosophical reflection? Pastoral instruction? Apocalyptic? Myth? Scripture is simply crammed with a wide variety of different kinds of writing, and the kind of writing you are reading will greatly influence the way in which it is intended to be read.” ( http://www.mark-shea.com/lit1.html — the series of articles runs up to 7, btw).
I regard the New Testament as a set of documents with reliable historicity. And, like you, Wes, I find it much tougher to swallow that men craven enough to abandon their messiah when he was threatened with death would, in a mere fifty days, invent a lie that he had raised himself from the dead, and maintain that lie in the face of political opposition and persecution, jail, torture, and their own imminent demise. Liars have in many places thrown their duped followers under the bus in order to preserve a lie; I know of no other case where they are alleged to have sacrificed themselves to do so.
@Rasmus & NFQ, I do not expect my belief to move you. In fact, I do not expect *anything* to move you, just as three documented miraculous healings at Lourdes failed to move Emile Zola. Before going there to write his novel of the same name, he declared “I only wanted to see a cut finger dipped in the water and come out cured.” Afterwords, he said “If I were to see all the sick at Lourdes healed, I would not believe in a miracle.”
God will permit you to make any choice you wish. He will not put us in a universe where free will is constrained. He loves us, and He wants us to love Him. Love, to be real, must be freely given. If we truly are free to love Him, then we must also be free not to love him. One of the most cold and cutting things I have ever said to anyone is, “I do not know you, sir.” I see you responding to God in much the same way.
Troy,
I would suggest that your information may not be up to date. But don’t rely on me; I’m no expert. Go to your nearest university, and talk to history professors who are not yet tenured. Those who have tenure are far more likely to be fixed in the same patterns of thought as were current when they got their professorship. Even the atheists will concede that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
madmup, you have a point, to a point. ^_^ It IS important for us and for others to know what we are for. But it’s also important to know what we are against, and why.
About Revelations, maybe the locus are nanobots, the scorpions are tanks, and the meteors are nukes.