You know, I still think Durkon should mention Xykon.
Printable View
You know, I still think Durkon should mention Xykon.
I'm gonna stop you right there and say: This is already offensive, for the use of the word "bizarre" and the othering use of "they", and your post doesn't get less offensive as it goes on. (Pro tip: "Buggering" is not the right term to use for anal sex in the 21st century.) I recommend changing the subject instead of grabbing a shovel.
Inst, might I suggest actually studying queer theory before attempting to apply whetever you think it is to this text? Also, maybe take the time to examine the language you use, since we try not to belittle queer people in the process of queering a text.
Thanks.
Wait, if Malack bleeds, Durkon can kill it.
Was it just me or Vampire Albino Lizard have purple blood? I knew that his "children" could be vampire thralls.
I've got to say, I'm with Malack on this. He is who he is, why should he concent to being made different against his will? Also, I like his ability to learn from Tarquin.
And I LOVE the obscure theologic joke. It does make me wonder about OotS-world afterlife-structure, but that's O.K. I guess Special folks (people devoted to a specific god, I suppose) have a subset of afterlife possibilities as opposed to normal fighters, bar-owners and such-like.
I think with regards to the point that ascribing "homophobia" to Durkon is incorrect given Durkon's traits as a generally likable person, I think it's incorrect seeing how Mr. Burlow generally does not work in black and white categories; for example, while Tarquin is lawful evil, he's depicted as someone who can be extremely courteous and congenial and Malack, for being a minister of a despotic regime, has been shown to be a generous host and a caring friend. In the same way, Durkon is in certain ways an arch-conservative, if you note his conflict with the Chaotic Dwarfess in their original encounter with the Linear Guild; while the Chaotic Dwarfess can be defended on her belief in individual happiness, Durkon's strict sense of conventional morality means that he must condemn her on her faithlessness and lack of duty.
As to the conversation in general, you are right and this is going off onto a real-world politics tangent. I'll abandon it here.
Oh, and GO BELKAR AND Mr. SCUFFY MINIATURES!!! WOOOO!! Yay Sir Thumb!!!!
Damn, this is getting tense. I don't know if I can handle "will they get out of this?" rather than "how?" :smalleek:
The problem here is also that the allegory pictured is arguably strongly negative.
We do not have a genuine example of a "vampire" who is arguably more Good than Evil, even if we subtract his "condition" out of the picture. Thus if I accept the allegory, we are putting words into the Giant's mouth that would be considered disrespectful at multiple different levels.
There were a few episodes of Buffy that played along this inspiration very adroitly. One should go watch those episodes again, if one wants to play this game.
For the record, even I feel strongly the allegory angle fails here, asking the question is a fine one. Even when it does not work.
Malack just jumped the shark from neutral to evil with his plan to invoke Godwin's Law on the Western Continent; but previously, you could make a better case for Malack's integrity; for example, he drinks the blood of judicial system by-products (and I don't think that The Empire of Blood strictly has a bad judicial system, while harsh and not particularly fair, it's not an active tool of repression) instead of actively hunting people down to kill; he's been extremely congenial and extremely friendly to Durkon and his friends.
Right now, I'm less interested in Malack's metaphor than what Rich is going to do to Tarquin. I am so sorry for Malack. I really liked the character.
There is absolutely no intent on my part for Malack's reveal to be any sort of allegory to any LGBT condition, and I frankly find the suggestion incredibly offensive because it would require that I had chosen to portray the LGBT experience as comparable to a monster that killed innocent people to live. Also, it would have required that I put the most bigoted and offensive actions in the mouth of one of my most benevolent characters. If I ever were to use any part of this comic as an allegory for LGBT experiences, I hope I would do so in a more thoughtful and positive way.
If anyone accidentally read it that way, even for a moment, I apologize.
That said, to keep this conversation from continuing, I'm locking this thread. I may send a moderator in later to see if anyone stepped over the line.