Erfworld 162

[teratorn]

I think valce was talking about the increasingly casual use of profanity across society. I may be wrong.

All the talk about this in a comic where the protagonist curses the whole time is somewhat amusing. The curse was always there it was simply censored. What did people thing many of those boops were? If the poster thinks this stuff is vulgar then he's objecting to most of the comic. I have no problem with that, it's just strange he needed to see the thing written to object to a word I guess was there a lot of times.

The thing to note is not that Parson cursed, but that the world allowed it. I see it as the confirmation that the world really wished for Parson and is happy with him, so it granted him this small reward.

[HandofShadows]

The thing to note is not that Parson cursed, but that the world allowed it.

It could also be that the world could not stop him.

[Gez]

I don't like swearing or over the top violence or sex scenes.

All three are repeatedly present in Erfworld (even if swearing is censored all but once).


About the plot holes:

- Stealthy mountains -- irrelevant, really. Just a question of artistic license and stuff. Maybe hex limits make things more blurry out there? It would fit with the gamelike qualities of the world, making it computer-gamelike ("the current hex and the six around it are fully displayed, then the ring around that use LOD stuff and the rest isn't displayed").
- Metal golems or rock golems wouldn't have changed anything to the scene. You can say it's a blooper and invert the number on the sheet. As such, it's at most a continuity error, not a plot hole. Kinda like when an actor in a costume movie forgot to remove his watch. "Plot hole! Robin Hood never had a Casio Digital!" Sorry, no. No effect on the plot.
- Dwagon Donut. Here I agree about it, the trap thing was half-assed and he should have placed the entire donut on the lake, with the wounded dwagons protected by the ring of fresh dwagons, and Ansom unable to bring his heavies (such as gumps) to bear.

[Koretsu]

I fully acknowledge your opinion, and heartily support it. A question for you, however:

Did any of the graphic violence appear justified to you? Did it disturb you as much as the swear word did?

If not, did you ask yourself why a word that, while rude and coarse, refers to an act of procreation bothered you much more than numerous scenes of wholesale destruction, and what that says about our society in general?

De-lurking to quote this for truth.


...But as long as I'm here, let me express my profound gratitude towards the Giant, Rob, and Jamie. Thank you allowing me to experience such a wonderful story. Thank you for taking gobwins and dwagons and a world with Elvis-Gods and making it into a truly thought-provoking story.

I've been a dedicated follower since this story started two years ago. I loved every panel. Every major plot point. Every character's introduction and development. Every subtle joke or gag that I didn't catch until my fifth or sixth read.

I could go on forever, but instead of posting a wall of text, let me just close with this:

Thank you. I'm truly happy to have read this.

[Ulrich_Brew]

Ok, I'm less grumpy about the cliffhanger now.

I can't properly understand what everyone means when they say, "OMG HE SWORE CMOA!" For me it a just a Trivia: Parson swore at the end of Book 1. I really didn't even register that he swore. I should have. He swore as he threw is sword. I bet Bogroll would think he swor(e)d.

My opinion matters more than yours because I'm so booping cool, ask me about it sometime.

So, protagonist has refused the call, but the call knows where he lives.

Essentially the actions of 162 contribute to his breaking the rules to win, not resigning to fate, and keeping fighting. I see him as Frodo and Samwise thrown into one body. Several conversations that they had in the movies (I can never remember text but enjoy the books more than the movies) about how sad the big ol' world is come to mind. Then, as all seems lost, the other hobbit pops in and delivers some great insight on why they need to fight the current and save the world.

I just broke my slightly humorous post. Bummer.

Can wait til Book 2, but I'd prefer not to.

[Simanos]

Dude, have you been reading this comic? If you had his life you'd be swearing too.
Gamers swear all the damn-hell-ass time. Rob's most likely going for verisimilitude with his portrayal of Parson, the epitome of 'gamer'. Not making a value judgement about profanity. Representing a traditionally profane section of society accurately.
Would you prefer it if soldiers in the war movies minded their p's and q's too?

Interesting. One might say Parson could say it because it was the only time he really meant it (as an insult). All the other times (like when his head hurt), it was only an expression, that's how he's used to speaking about everyday events. Like saying "this is fukin great".

Opinions are like anuses, everybody's got one. What matters is how you support it. I would post George Carlin's "7 words you can't say on TV" link here to youtube, but I'm not sure how some would see that.

[PinkysBrain]

Seems a bit late to be offended by the off colorness of this strip. What with the lesbian dominatrix who slept her way up in the strip. Maybe they should end book 2 with the famous quote from Epicurus just to make the last few people understand it was never cute and safe to begin with.

[Dizcorp]

For me, that was a very good way to end the book. More than one layer in that strip!

As for the profanity... artistic licence, baby. The Giant put it perfectly - 150 strips, one obscenity. It was quite a booping effective obscenity too. Someone linked to an appropriate TV Tropes article about rare F-bombs which sums it up well.

Thanks Jamie and Rob, you two have done very well. I was a bit sceptical about Erfworld when you started it (some of the humour was too esoteric for me, and I call myself a nerd), but I'll certainly be following the next book on your new site.

Can't wait.

[ishnar]

Well, I'm back. I said I wasn't going to post after Stanley made his run for the mysterious Stealthy Mountains, and I meant it. But now that the story is over, I do have a few observations to make, both story and audience.

Don't try to apply RW physics to alternate dimensions, especially an alternate dimension based on game mechanics. In game physics, you only see as far as your character's vision stat. No matter how big a mountian is in the distance everything else is fog of war. In other words, in a war game, you don't see a mountain until you're practically standing on it.

First, (and for those who remember me) there was the "Why did Parson put Jillian back into play so close to the Donut of Doom?"

Parson didn't put her in play there, Wanda put her there. Don't forget that Wanda was completely confident of her ability to control Jillian. Her breaking out of control hindsight.

Third, can't these guys count? Seriously, "one" does not equal "many," in any math text book I ever studied. Now I'll admit I was a Liberal Arts major (History and Political Science, and a Master's of Education), and took the easiest Algebra class I could find for my math credits, but HERE it says GK has one metal golem, while here there are four more.

This is a valid point, but keep in mind. Usually a writer writes many drafts of a story before publishing it and the process of writing will usually dictate many changes to the original vision, even if they are rather small. Then during the drafting process, they go back and edit in any necessary changes. Here I just assume it was the original intention to have 1 Metal golem and later they changed their mind. Don't forget we are looking at a pre-published version of the story and that Rob and Jamie already said a lot will be edited when the book is published. So don't criticize this draft as if it were a final copy.

Fourth: varying gravity. It's a different world, with different rules, but Wanda should have been all over the Arkenpliers here, and not having to wait until the end of the story. Sure, it would have changed the endgame, but if the authors could just stop cheating Parson to advance the story, it would have been much more satisfying.

I can only assume you are not familiar with normal RP conventions but this is simply the "Talking is a free action" mechanic present in nearly every tabletop RPG. Someone can stand two feet away from you and shoot you in the face, and you can still get off a short speech before the bullet hits. It has nothing to do with gravity.

[DoomedPaladin]

Nawsome!!

I like how Parson declares that he is a player, and as such, Effing the plot is exactly what he will do.

[Tanaar]

Is your opinion right?

Yes.

Words only have the power and meaning they are given, and the meaning given that word by Jamie and Rob is completely unrelated to its common usage. As it is the common usage that you object to, your objection to it here is close-minded and nonsensical. You applied meaning that was not intended by the writers; ergo the vulgarity you perceive is non-existent.

[docstrange]

What a fantastic ride! I'm looking forward to the next book, and seeing what Parson does with his newfound power to curse.

Thank you Rob and Jamie--among other inspirations, your success (and Rich's with OOTS) encouraged me to start a serial webnovel of my own.

[Jamin]

Yes.

Words only have the power and meaning they are given, and the meaning given that word by Jamie and Rob is completely unrelated to its common usage. As it is the common usage that you object to, your objection to it here is close-minded and nonsensical. You applied meaning that was not intended by the writers; ergo the vulgarity you perceive is non-existent.

When you use a vulgar word it is vulgar any way you use it.

[Decius]

So my opinion is less than yours because you are writer. Kay in that case as a comedian I decide all that is funny in the world. Wait no that isn't how it works. we all human and deserve to have our voices heard.

Ok, but you took a position different than any of us. "Cussing is never justified."

My position is "Cussing is seldom justified. This is one of the cases in which it is." Had Parson actually cussed every time he was booped, it would have been excessive. That Parson tried to cuss excessively is part of his character.

In this case, the line "I am a player. F- YOU." is several acts of rebellion against reality fantasy(?) that literally cannot be conceived or understood by anyone else. It is further justified by the fact that Parson is responsible for the permanent death of killed the only entity that was his friend in Erfworld- Bogroll.

He has declared that he is not a Pawn, and not a King, but a Player. The sword, which was within the rules, no longer applies to him. The censorship, which is also part of the rules, no longer applies. He wants to know that, and he needs to let the readers and the world know that as well.

Words only have the power and meaning they are given, and the meaning given that word by Jamie and Rob is completely unrelated to its common usage. As it is the common usage that you object to, your objection to it here is close-minded and nonsensical. You applied meaning that was not intended by the writers; ergo the vulgarity you perceive is non-existent.

Um, words have no meaning. Maps do not have mountain ranges, and blueprints do not have mill scale. Words signify meaning, and I give Jamie and Rob credit for choosing the right words: Ones that their audience will interpret to mean what they wanted them to mean. To imply otherwise is a slur upon the authors, and I don't think you intended that. What the audience reads into the work is what an artist actually creates.

While there is a school of thought that says that "Only author intent is real", even they admit that the author cannot intend for the work to be created in a vacuum. "Author intent" is a cry to ignore history that the author was unaware of (Such as things that happened after production of the work).
If we look at the meaning of the phrase "F- YOU", as it was in the time and culture in which it was written, (I.E. a few days ago) it IS vulgar. In its current context, I don't think it is obscene, but that matter is open to discussion.(See above)


EDIT:

When you use a vulgar word it is vulgar any way you use it.

As regards language,
vulgar: spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally
obscene: offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved

vulgar and obscene are almost mutally exclusive: One is what is in common use, the other is what goes beyond the pale.

To say that vulgarity is offensive is to assert that one is in a class distinct from the common class. Is that what you intend?

[Lamech]

Well, I'm back. I said I wasn't going to post after Stanley made his run for the mysterious Stealthy Mountains, and I meant it. But now that the story is over, I do have a few observations to make, both story and audience.

<snippity>

Third, can't these guys count? Seriously, "one" does not equal "many," in any math text book I ever studied. Now I'll admit I was a Liberal Arts major (History and Political Science, and a Master's of Education), and took the easiest Algebra class I could find for my math credits, but HERE it says GK has one metal golem, while here there are four more. Now before you try to say the metallic color is the same as the soft rock golem, Golem (sorry, didn't want to dig up the umlat, but I know it belongs there) must be the same as the Christopher Cross golem, let me cut you off right there with a "Don't even try it!" Golem more or less equals Kiss, and Beth not withstanding, Kiss was metal through and through. The Hard Rock Golems were presented as brown, in this panel, so if Golem was only a Hard Rock unit, the color shift needs to be explained in story. If Sizemore upgraded his Hard Rockers into Metal, we kind of need to see that somewhere, otherwise it is what is commonly known as an asspull.

<slicity>

I'll see you guys over on the Erfworld page! I'm using the Erf version of my GiantITP avatar, so feel free to tell me in all the myriad ways I am wrong, and Rob and Jamie wrote nothing but pure perfection.

First off... 1, 2 and 4 have been better answered than I could. Now, 3; ask your self how are golems made? Magic. Now how could Sizemore pop all those units? No way he has that much juice, he would need some sort of convient storage method for spells. Notice those scrolls? They store spells until needed? I think he might have used those.
My alternate theory is golems are like pokemon and evolve as they level; which presumably happened a lot.

[Island Gorilla]

I would post George Carlin's "7 words you can't say on TV" link here to youtube, but I'm not sure how some would see that.

When you use a vulgar word it is vulgar any way you use it.

"But there are some two-way words, those double-meaning words. Remember the ones you laughed at in sixth grade?
'And the coc|< crowed three times--'
'Hahaha, the coc|< crowed three times hahaha, it's in the Bible hahahaha...'"

[Jamin]

Look it is fine that you guys think it was a cool swear. More power too you. You feel that swearing is justifiable and I don't. We disagree about how we see page 162. This is a forum for discussing Erfworld. I, Jamin Big huge stick in the mud that I am think Erfworld is offensive and confusing. Others see it as a amazing and well thought out comic. I won't be reading book 2. Others will. Who is right? Everyone is right.
Look all I am trying to say is that my opinion is equal to yours not better or worse just the same . But you seem to feel that your world view is right and mine is close-minded. Well maybe mine is but who among you can say that there is not at least one thing you are close-minded about and that is okay
here come the attacks
Jamin Out

[Suicide Junkie]

You can argue all day that dwagons cannot ever exist.
But if everybody around you is talking about how awesome it is to be riding these toothy winged things around... you should consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Empirical evidence trumps opinion.

[Jamin]

50 million french Men can't be wrong

[Gez]

50 million french Men can't be wrong

It's well know French men have no problems with profanity. That's why the English say "Pardon my French".

Anyway, you're taking a rigid, dogmatic and close-minded approach to the issue. "Profanity is bad, m'kay" and the thought stop here. No room left for context, register, verisimilitude, characterization, build-up, and other literary elements.

As was remarked before, the story was full of profanity -- just censored with a cutesy "boop" -- since Parson appeared; even before if you consider "crap" to be profanity (shouted loudly in the first batch when Erfworld debuted with several pages all at once). It has also included gruesome violence and sex scenes, two other things which you've said you never like. So why did you read all 162 pages of Erfworld if it's full of stuff that is never acceptable in a story, no matter how and why it's told?

[Jamin]

I only read like 40 pages than stopped than saw it was over looked into.
Also just what do you guys want to say anyways

[Decius]

Look it is fine that you guys think it was a cool swear. More power too you. You feel that swearing is justifiable and I don't. We disagree about how we see page 162. This is a forum for discussing Erfworld. I, Jamin Big huge stick in the mud that I am think Erfworld is offensive and confusing. Others see it as a amazing and well thought out comic. I won't be reading book 2. Others will. Who is right? Everyone is right.
Look all I am trying to say is that my opinion is equal to yours not better or worse just the same . But you seem to feel that your world view is right and mine is close-minded. Well maybe mine is but who among you can say that there is not at least one thing you are close-minded about and that is okay
here come the attacks
Jamin Out

I do not refuse to consider points of view because they are not my own, and I do not refuse to consider attempts to convince me to change my point of view. I am not aware of anything that I am close-minded about, even though it has been over a year since I changed a significant aspect of my belief system.

You expressed an opinion different from ours. We asked why you felt that way. You restated your opinion in different terms, without explaining why.

I think that profanity is seldom justified- It is a tool that dulls quickly when overused. I found p.150 a very appropriate use of profanity.

You, however, assert that profanity is never justified- what appears to be a small difference of opinion. But you cannot have the same reasoning as I do.

Now, since your opinion is "equal" to mine, and I explained mine, would you mind explaining why "Swearing is not justifiable"? Because the only line of reasoning that I can see is 'Somebody said so'. There's nothing immoral or unethical about that line of reasoning, it's just that I lack the mental/social skills to understand it or empathize with someone who is constrained by it.

[Jamin]

In my opinion using a bad word for art is like using poo to make art sure it is a good use for it but there is always something better to use.

[Decius]

Nevermind then. If you want to assert that there is such a thing as a bad signifier, then I think the chances of you having an insightful reasoning are vanishingly small. Also, that you changed your viewpoint when asked to clarify indicates that you had not yet challenged it yourself, so you didn't have your own reason in any case.

The fact that 'art' was involved is trivial; as well, there are many great uses for feces. The key issue is that profanity, along with vulgarity, vernacular, slang, and a host of other "pejorative language" is perfectly fine.

In deference to the medium, I'm going to self censor here, even though it confuses my point slightly:

The biggest difference between "I am a PLAYER. F- YOU!" and "I am a player. Your position on the matter is irrelevant." is intensity: The former uses an intensive form of "You don't matter.", while the latter uses a simple descriptive.

Keeping the intensive and superlative forms rare is economy in language: In order for any one thing to be 'exquisite', many lesser things must be 'good', 'great', 'excellent', and so on. If, however, NOTHING can be 'exquisite', then of necessity, the other degrees of intensity lose some precision in meaning.

[Jamin]

Well okay than. Now I see the error of my ways you guys where right and using your huge space brains your belittled me and my one small voice into seeing the light of day. Thanks for saying that reasoning is so unfounded and that I don't have huge insight the way you all do. Now that I have grown up like you said I see that I was wrong the whole time. what was I thinking taking a word that is supposed to offend people as offensive. I really liked how people said I had to wrong because everyone else was going the other way. What a good truth to live by.
there happy now
Jamin Out

[VariaVespasa]

I'm sensing.... petulance.... :P

[Majutsukai]

Here's what's actually happening here.

Jamin states his opinion. Fine, great, more power to you.

A few other people say, "I think you're wrong, and here's why." Fine. Great. Two opinions have been stated.

Jamin responds by saying that this is unfair, and if people disagree, they should only ever do it by saying "I disagree". If they support with why they disagree, then they're devaluing his opinion and saying he isn't allowed to have that opinion.

This isn't a place to go and never have your opinion challenged. It's a discussion thread, and that kind of thinking goes against the entire idea of discussion.

So... no. When somebody says "Here's why I think you're wrong", they're not saying that you're not allowed to have an opinion. They're stating their opinion. And that's what this thread is here for.

[DoctorJest]

I only read like 40 pages than stopped than saw it was over looked into.

In other words, you didn't even read enough to understand the context of the last page?

Congratulations, I have never seen someone invalidate their own opinion so very effectively in one sentence.

[DoctorJest]

So... no. When somebody says "Here's why I think you're wrong", they're not saying that you're not allowed to have an opinion. They're stating their opinion. And that's what this thread is here for.

Correction, you're allowed to have an informed opinion.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'm sensing.... petulance.... :P

No kidding, the Scarcasm-o-meter is in the red!

In my opinion using a bad word for art is like using poo to make art sure it is a good use for it but there is always something better to use.

Actually, in this very instance, it was probably the only appropriate thing to do to convey the feeling. The very reason Parson said **** is because of the presence of the censor present in the comic.

He did not said **** to express rage, to talk about sexuality or disapointment. He said **** to be able to beat the very mechanic of the world he lives in. To prove that he was beyond those mechanics.

However, the only mechanics that effectively had an influence on him were... the Censorship, the Loyalty, and the "You will obey the order of Stanley". Now, both of the latter have a very distinct plot favor that might influence the events that will follow, while the Censorship issue is... irrelevant to the plot.

Thus, the ONLY way to show us that Parson could break the rules of the world without having to further the plot in a major way was to violate the profanity filter. There was just no other way around it, if you really want to end Book 1 with: "Parson can be master of his own destiny". Throwing the sword away was slightly ambivalent, we needed to be shown a strong and clear violation of the world's rules.

It's well know French men have no problems with profanity. That's why the English say "Pardon my French".

French-speaking in general (specially Quebecois). But they aren't as liberal with profanity as you might think. And the general French stereotype you might had is more of a "Parisian" reality/stereotype.

Yes, they are a little more liberal than the average Englishman or American on average when it comes to profanity, but you will find prude or Haddock-type on both sides of the language barrier.

Look all I am trying to say is that my opinion is equal to yours not better or worse just the same . But you seem to feel that your world view is right and mine is close-minded. Well maybe mine is but who among you can say that there is not at least one thing you are close-minded about and that is okay

Actually, it is not. Many people's opinion is not equal to other people's, either because of lack of data on the topic, or because of hindering personnal philosophy that simply cloud one's jugement over the argument. You aren't telling your opinion about the comic, you are simply reciting a mantra. There is no value in that, and that is why I disregard what you say as something of a lesser intellectual value as most other people that posted beforehand.

And don't think I say this because your mantra is opposed to my point of view on the topic of the conversation. People who are reciting the mantra "Free speech should never be stopped" are about as intellectually valueless as your statements.

Now, if you came and gave me a good (and not dogmatic) reason why **** You was of bad taste in this comic, I might disagree with you, but your arguments will actually be interesting and of value, and treated with respect by many here (peoples will probably argue against it, but they will not deride what you say as they do now)