The MitD outwitting Xykon.

[The Giant]

Rich, no-one is going to argue for the kind of story that they don't want to read. This is basically attacking the person and not the argument.

That's because your argument is wholly without merit. It's already been countered by every other person on this thread, why should I waste my time repeating them? You simply move the goalposts every time they do anyway. You say there's absolutely no foreshadowing of an event, and then when people link you to three things that foreshadow it, you say that's not enough foreshadowing, or the right kind, or that you forgot about that and that somehow invalidates its existence. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'm not attacking the person, I'm using what I have learned about the person to determine that they don't know what they're talking about and will never be happy regardless, so I shouldn't stress myself out about it. Listening to feedback does not mean I am obligated to listen to you, Carry2, personally. Everyone has the right to criticize the comic, and I have a right to determine that any given critic is totally full of horse****.

Obviously, you are going to argue for what you want to read, but I've read enough of your rants to know that what you want to read is not what I want to write, so I'm perfectly comfortable ignoring your criticism. In business theory, it's called "firing the customer."

Heck, the only reason I'm bothering to respond to this is so that other readers can read this and understand my position better. If this was a private email exchange, I would just have stopped responding by now.

*shrugs* But, I can take a hint. If you don't want me posting here subsequently, I can oblige. I don't think that amounts to a less biased sampling, however.

I don't know why people think this forum is the only place I ever get feedback. I do know that the feedback here is far more likely to be aggressively nitpicky in a way that other venues—where the posters don't even know I am reading—never are. Which leads me to believe that the most nitpicky people are basically just trolling for attention, either from me or other fans.

So yeah, this is by far the most biased place I could listen to, mostly to the negative. And as a result, I tend to ignore almost everything that is written here, positive or negative. I still have to read it because I need to help with moderation, but I don't let it influence me.

[The Succubus]

Here is a list of narrative contortions you must also hate:

1. Superman just happened to be sent to Earth from Krypton. What are the odds? Also, he just happens to look perfectly human, except he has superpowers. That's so unlikely.
2. Luke's father just happened to be the second-biggest Sith badass in the Galactic Empire, and Luke just happens to be the one to destroy the Empire in a one-on-one duel with his father. Come on, that's impossible. Even for a computer.
3. Oedipus just happened to kill his father and marry his mother. Jeez, contrived much?
4. The One Ring just happened to be picked up by Bilbo Baggins, in the dark. It's much more likely that Gollum lost the ring under water, not on land. It's so contrived, it breaks the entire story.
5. Peter Parker just happened to be bitten by a radioactive non-deadly-venomous spider. And got super powers, instead of getting dead.

So you should stop reading all fiction, because coincidences and convenient fictional shorthand and simplifications and abbreviations are everywhere. Go back to reading technical manuals and encyclopedia entries, because you can't evade the fortuitous.

I think the piscine young lady is right on the button with this one. Heck, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy positively embraced this as a means of moving the plot forward. Random chances occur. People win lotteries. People get zapped by lightning. And occasionally this happens.

The unlikely event is often the most fun. Embrace them. ^_^

[Tock Zipporah]

Rich, no-one is going to argue for the kind of story that they don't want to read. This is basically attacking the person and not the argument.

To touch on your other points... I do in fact enjoy a good deal of the strip's humour and much of the characterisation, which is why I haven't quite been able to simply set it aside without a second thought. But the narrative contortions needed to get from point A to point B (or to stick unambiguous value labels on the deeply ambiguous) are like having ground glass lurking somewhere in my subway sandwich. Maybe it's worth chewing and maybe it ain't, but that's not the point: Sandwiches work fine without it.

I could draw up scenarios where the characters go through the same kind of dramatic progression under rather more plausible circumstances, but it's either redundant (because we've seen it done in other media) or pointless (because you can't be bothered.) The thing is, for every strip where some out-of-the-blue event or fluke of chance dictates subsequent narration, you also have a couple of strips where you explain, in painstaking and meticulous detail, the necessary underpinnings for Event X at Location Y during Time T due to Motive W- usually for something comparatively unimportant. So in a certain sense, you are my kind of writer. I think these logical potholes do bother you. The effort is there, it's just oddly misplaced.


*shrugs* But, I can take a hint. If you don't want me posting here subsequently, I can oblige. I don't think that amounts to a less biased sampling, however.

I think you're missing a rather important point here and misinterpreting things as a result.

The "narrative contortions" as you put it aren't ground glass, some foreign and dangerous object that doesn't belong in the sandwich. They're part of the recipe. The Giant even said he LIKES putting the improbable in the story. So instead of ground glass, those narrative contortions are a type of seasoning that adds flavor.

Maybe that flavor is too spicy or salty for some people's tastes, but for others, the sandwich (plot) would be bland without it.

[Carry2]

Here is a list of narrative contortions you must also hate:

Sure, and that's totally fair. But you did imply, intentionally or not, that he would be better doing his job by adapting his style/story. Which is less fair.

The "narrative contortions" as you put it aren't ground glass, some foreign and dangerous object that doesn't belong in the sandwich. They're part of the recipe. The Giant even said he LIKES putting the improbable in the story...

I don't mind having the improbable in the story either- as long as it's in moderation, or not regularly plot-critical, or as long as we're not supposed to take its Deep Moral Implications terribly seriously. It's the combination of all of these factors that kinda gets to me. The author basically wants the characters to slip off the roof on banana peels while we shake our heads and solemnly intone "He was slain by his own hubris."

And, yes- I honestly believe that the OOTS plot could be restructured with fewer out-of-the-blue surprises, sometimes in very minor ways, in a way that would feel less rickety without impairing humour or characterisation. I can't prove this without actually rewriting the whole thing, of course, but I did try to give an example of how recent events might be restructured, which in theory still gives the same characters openings for drama.

That's because your argument is wholly without merit. It's already been countered by every other person on this thread, why should I waste my time repeating them? You simply move the goalposts every time they do anyway. You say there's absolutely no foreshadowing of an event, and then when people link you to three things that foreshadow it, you say that's not enough foreshadowing, or the right kind, or that you forgot about that and that somehow invalidates its existence. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I honestly don't think I've made up the bulk of the sound and fury here. But yes, while I may have overlooked a few details, I also think their import is exaggerated, and that the bulk of my arguments have not been soundly countered. And no, I don't intend to reiterate these, because repetition or weight of numbers do not constitute an argument.

As regards my other rants- I do have a certain tendency to focus on the finer points of 'if X, then Y', but that's not always an indication that I actually want Y. For example, I actually rather consider Shojo and Tarquin to be well-rounded, interesting characters, and neither do I actually want to see a story where amnesiac paladins detect-and-smite-on-sight. I just think that D&D alignment metaphysics- which I'd happily discard- leads to certain conclusions in these areas. (And I don't particularly want a Superman story that's all about nation-building, though it would be nice if it popped up once in a while.)

[The Recreator]

But the narrative contortions needed to get from point A to point B (or to stick unambiguous value labels on the deeply ambiguous) are like having ground glass lurking somewhere in my subway sandwich. Maybe it's worth chewing and maybe it ain't, but that's not the point: Sandwiches work fine without it.

This brings to mind the documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Jiro is considered by many to be the best sushi chef in all of Japan, probably the world. However, the dining experience at his restaurant is challenging, to say the least. You get about a minute per course, and alterations to the menu are only made for dietary reasons. Still, he is revered as a national treasure in his home country.

We live in a world where we expect to be able to customize our orders. At Subway, nobody puts ground glass into your sandwich unless you specifically ask for it (and even then...).

This is not the case with art. While the author certainly is not immune to criticism, it is ultimately his decision whether or not the final recipe requires glass to convey his vision. If the final serving isn't to your taste? That's a shame. If everyone else finds the dish appalling? Then the chef may want to reconsider using that ingredient. However, no one expanded the boundaries of art by sticking to the list of known and approved ingredients. Tomatoes were believed to be unfit to eat at one point in history.

If you believe that a superior dish can exist without the use of ground glass though, I'm going to recommend that you learn to cook, and learn to cook well. Train yourself to use all the spices of the rack, all the produce of the local market, and all the cookware of the kitchen. Find yourself a teacher. Experiment. Make some mistakes. Learn from them. Only then will you have a dish that truly satisfies you.

[orrion]

And, yes- I honestly believe that the OOTS plot could be restructured with fewer out-of-the-blue surprises, sometimes in very minor ways, in a way that would feel less rickety without impairing humour or characterisation. I can't prove this without actually rewriting the whole thing, of course, but I did try to give an example of how recent events might be restructured, which in theory still gives the same characters openings for drama.

That example isn't exactly "a minor way." In the former case of your example, you say that the Order would need to maneuver past RC/Xykon. Problem is that the entire plot for this story arc has been set up on the premise of beating Xykon to this gate, so it would then be a little weird to then say "oh, they beat you here" or "oh, here they are guys. Your efforts for the past ~240 comics were worthless." As for the latter case, what exactly would have been the point of Xykon showing up weeks late? You want a story of the Order playing a game of D&D inside the gate room for a few weeks while they wait for Xykon to show up?

Also, I might add that the plot for the last gate is setting up exactly like that. The urgency for this arc was beating Xykon here and setting up to stop him. Cue the dramatic when they are no longer equipped to do so. In fact, I'd posit that that was the best way to set up some drama. By definition we know this couldn't be the final confrontation.

The urgency for the last gate arc looks like it will be to stop Xykon from performing the ritual.

So basically you might get the story arc you want. Without kicking out the stairway first.

[neriana]

I don't mind having the improbable in the story either- as long as it's in moderation, or not regularly plot-critical, or as long as we're not supposed to take its Deep Moral Implications terribly seriously. It's the combination of all of these factors that kinda gets to me. The author basically wants the characters to slip off the roof on banana peels while we shake our heads and solemnly intone "He was slain by his own hubris."

Here's an idea. Why don't you name a story you like. Because frankly, at this point, I'm failing to come up with any you possibly could.

You know what's super improbable? The individual human beings posting on this board exist. What are the odds of any of us having been born? That there is life on this planet at all is a HUGE coincidence, dependent on a whole bunch of other coincidences. That a tiny portion of it is life that can argue over stick figure comics posted on a world wide web over which people can communicate vast distances -- pfft. Unbelievable. Life is made of coincidences.

[jidasfire]

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but when the author of the comic comes along and says something akin to "your endless unpleaseable criticism suggests that you will never enjoy the comic, so please go away," my response might be something akin to, "Hey, I'm sorry. I let this little intellectual exercise spin out of control. I'm a fan and the last thing I want is to bite the hand that has given me hundreds of hours of entertainment for free. I shall leave and be more reasonable in the future, or failing that, just leave."

But then, you know, internet.

[Tock Zipporah]

I honestly don't think I've made up the bulk of the sound and fury here. But yes, while I may have overlooked a few details, I also think their import is exaggerated, and that the bulk of my arguments have not been soundly countered. And no, I don't intend to reiterate these, because repetition or weight of numbers do not constitute an argument.

The bulk of your arguments are entirely subjective, and in expecting them to be "soundly countered," you are drastically missing the point.

You say "I don't like X, Y, and Z about the comic, and here is why." You then seem to think that unless people refute your reasons why, that it somehow means they haven't countered your points. Did you stop to consider that it doesn't MATTER why? I happen to like all of the coincidences, improbable events, and deep moral complications. I don't want them in moderation. I like seeing them frequent. I like seeing them be plot critical.

Why? Because I'm entertained. Which means the storyteller is doing his job.

I'm a professional writer. I have a degree in writing, and I get paid to tell stories. My job is to tell the best story I can, and hope people like it enough for me to sell more stories. If enough people like my writing, I can pay my rent. As a professional writer, however, I know that some people will love or hate my stories based on their personal tastes.

Your tastes aren't something to be proven or disproven. Tastes cannot be "soundly defeated." If the OotS were changed in the way you suggest, YOU might like it more, but I would not. I'd miss seeing someone slip on that banana peel. I'd be less entertained than I am now.

If you believe in "soundly defeating" an argument, I defy you to defeat this one: I argue that, because of my personal tastes, I like the OotS the way it is now. Prove me wrong.

[Zorn]

I think you're missing a rather important point here and misinterpreting things as a result.

The "narrative contortions" as you put it aren't ground glass, some foreign and dangerous object that doesn't belong in the sandwich. They're part of the recipe. The Giant even said he LIKES putting the improbable in the story. So instead of ground glass, those narrative contortions are a type of seasoning that adds flavor.

Maybe that flavor is too spicy or salty for some people's tastes, but for others, the sandwich (plot) would be bland without it.

At the risk of belaboring the point, Carry2, I'd like to add to this:

You walk into a sandwich shop - a sandwich shop that exclusively serves BLTs with calamari. Above the sandwiches is a sign that reads "BLTs with a twist." Upon being asked, the sandwich-maker will list the ingredients: bread, mayonnaise, bacon, lettuce, tomato, and calamari. The other customers will tell you much the same. At no point was the product trying to be ambiguous or misleading; a little research before trying it would answer any questions you had.

You still grab a sandwich. Whether this is because you stopped at BLT and didn't bother inquiring or because you wanted to try something new, I can't say. You take a bite, though, and the taste isn't to your liking. In your opinion, a regular BLT would've been better.

You approach the sandwich maker and tell him as much. Now, he could say, "I wanted to try something different, but since calamari doesn't seem to be universally liked I won't put it in sandwiches anymore." Instead, he says, "I'm aware that calamari isn't for everyone, but I think it's an improvement - it brings a unique taste. I'm going to continue putting it in sandwiches in the hope that others will try something different. They might even prefer it. Thanks for checking the place out, but there are other shops which would better suit your needs."

You're welcome to come back the next day; just don't expect the menu to change. If you've tried it a few times and still don't like it, take his advice and try somewhere else.

Personally, I was one of the customers who, upon taking the first bite, lept out of my chair to go shake the sandwich-maker's hand. I've been coming back to his shop ever since.

I understand that your opinion differs from my own, and I'm happy you're willing to share it. Please, though, don't say, "this shop doesn't make good sandwiches." Instead, say, "the sandwiches didn't appeal to me, but if you like calamari you should give it a try."

[Kalmegil]

To touch on your other points... I do in fact enjoy a good deal of the strip's humour and much of the characterisation, which is why I haven't quite been able to simply set it aside without a second thought. But the narrative contortions needed to get from point A to point B (or to stick unambiguous value labels on the deeply ambiguous) are like having ground glass lurking somewhere in my subway sandwich. Maybe it's worth chewing and maybe it ain't, but that's not the point: Sandwiches work fine without it.

Pretty much every time you complain about the story, especially here, you are basically advocating for removal of something I actively like about the story and the way its told. Conclusions about literature are largely subjective, but when they are based on factual assertions, they can be objectively refuted. And despite your protestations, they have been here: your specific complaints about the MITD's convincing Xykon to go to the next gate have been soundly, convincingly, and overwhelmingly addressed multiple times.

Rich is writing a compelling story that I eagerly await every installment of. The story has compelling characters who grow and change in believable ways. He has some of the best villain characterization I've ever read. The mythos is both highly original and very familiar. He is the master at doing things I've been expecting for years (such as disclosing that the guy who's holding Haley's father is Elan's father) in ways that surprise and delight me.

And he gives it all away for free.

You are (or at least were, maybe you've stopped) actively campaigning to make one of my favorite ongoing stories worse. That you repeatedly ignore relevant facts to do so just makes it worse.

[lio45]

I see your point about plausibility, Carry2, but seriously, you're forgetting the main factor IMO: this story is still happening in a stereotypical D&D campaign world.

The (DM-controlled) BBEG finding a contrived reason/justification to let the PCs get away alive when he could easily have mopped the floor with them then and there immediately passes from "really not plausible, thumbs down" to "haha, again so typical, nice" as soon as you start taking into account that one single factor.


In other words: questions like "Wait, where did the bad guy buy that bow and those arrows... and where is the bad guy actually keeping his supply of arrows?" don't really apply.

It seems just too convenient to be plausible? Well, that's because it is. In a D&D game, convenient things happen... more often than not.

I'd bet with you, Carry2, that if Rich ever writes another (more serious) story for us readers in the future that's not set in a parody D&D campaign world, that story will feel a lot more satisfying to you on that plausibility / plot convenience aspect... but in this one, don't expect anything else: it's just intrinsic to the very concept of the story.

[Porthos]

I don't mind having the improbable in the story either- as long as it's in moderation, or not regularly plot-critical, or as long as we're not supposed to take its Deep Moral Implications terribly seriously.

This is at least the second time I've seen you make this comment in the thread.

So I wonder if the real problem isn't the improbable coincidences, but the fact that Rich is trying to be funny and serious in his work of art. The fact that absurdism and social commentary can sit side by side, or at least on parallel tracks. The fact that while Rich wants us to smile, he also wants us to think.

Hate to break it to you, but he's hardly the first artist to do so.

But it does make me wonder if that is really the source of the ground glass. After all, you say you like the humor and the characterization. But given how you've Put Things In Capital Letters when discussing the social commentary in Rich's work, and from your debates in other thread, I wonder how much of that is causing at least some of the dissatisfaction. Especially if you don't particularly agree with the social commentary that Rich might be putting into his work, or if you think it isn't particularly well thought out.

To put it another way, you seem to be saying "I wouldn't mind what is to me outrageous coincidences if the comic wasn't attempting to be so serious some of the time." Or another another way, "The comic can be silly or serious: Choose. And if you choose 'serious' don't put in silly coincidences that break disbelief."

If that is indeed what you are saying, you'll basically just have to decide if the silly that you enjoy is worth putting up with the serious you seem to think is out of place in a work like this. Because Rich ain't gonna change his storytelling style, not the type of story he is telling, any time soon.

[Mollez]

Something something sandwich shop

Zorn, I honestly think that is the most beautiful and well-thought-out metaphor I have ever heard. You win. This thread is done now. /serious

[Paseo H]

Terminal inability to suspend disbelief. That's what I'm seeing here.

And no, that's not to say I'd do nothing differently, there's a lot of things I'd do differently, it's that I can take the story as it is, because I can suspend disbelief and enjoy myself, unlike certain people here.

[guguma]

Wow,

I never imagined I would see something like this in OotS, but from what I see this is a typical:

1. Someone criticizes a concept, comic, game, story etc. everyone loves including the critique
2. People respond like

-"if you do not like it do not "read it", "play it", "use it" etc.
-"if you could do better why don't you "make one", "publish one", "write one" etc.

3. The critique has to answer 1 billion ridiculous arguments to prove his point, thus making more statements that could be misinterpreted.

4. The crowd keeps the same attitude

5. Finally the critique is pissed and begins outright insulting people or thoughts

6. Victory for the resistance.

And that is why nothing IMPROVES...

Before I start making more statements let me say this:

"The OotS is the BEST story driven webcomic I have ever read, in fact it is the BEST story driven comic, I will keep reading it, and will buy the books and although I wish Rich updates every single day, I do not want the comic to end either"

Now some examples:

1. XKCD:

I used to love XKCD, now I find it revoltingly unfunny and uninteresting, this did not happen overnight but if you search through XKCD forums you would see some poor critiques, criticizing that days' comic and attacked and insulted by "Fans". Randall, seeing that people loves everything he throws at them gradually lowers quality and finally there is nothing left of the previous quality and no one understands what is wrong, not even the author.

I have similar fears for the SMBC but so far Zach has been very interesting and consistent.

2. PC GAMES especially CRPGs:

Years ago the best CRPGs were Planescape Torment, and Baldurs Gate and the like, now it is SKYRIM, why? Because you cannot criticize, if you can please compare an "item description" in Baldur's Gate 2 to the best "book" in SKYRIM and compare the storytelling quality in both. If you keep loving what someone throws at you, they will keep throwing worse stuff at you because you will keep loving it regardless.

If you do not know there is an Infinity engine modding (which is a pain) community "Spellhold Studios" and they have produced amazing content, please go to their forums and look at how they react to suggestions and criticism, they are extremely open and welcoming, which results in amazing content.

OKAY, now back to OotS and Carry2,

I am not saying that Rich is going to gradually decrease quality. BUT Carry2 is right about strip #901.

1. First of all Xykon is NOT that stupid or absent minded, the most obvious example being (From The Start of Darkness):

Spoiler

Show

His observations about Right-Eye and Redcloak

2. It would take them 2 rounds to destroy OotS (not much of a team B keeping them busy)

3. It is more plausible for Xykon to be extremely mad about the destruction of the gate and obliterate people who did that.

4. Most importantly MitD's way of making his statement etc. is seriously just poor. It is like two guys are facing eachother and:

Guy1: "There is a bear behind you!"
Guy2: "Oh, why don't I feel it then?"
Guy1: "Oh you better run, you cannot feel it because it is a bear wearing slippers, it is walking veeeery slowly but it is coming after you"
Guy2: "Oh, hmm ok I better run then"

Ok, Now let me tell you why I am criticizing that particular strip and why I think Carry2 is criticizing that strip.

We are criticizing that strip because we do not understand why Rich chose to make that strip as it is when there were probably a hundred better ways of:

-Making OotS survive
-Making Team Evil take off
-MitD demonstrating its intelligence

In the same strip. I am not saying that "I" can come up with a better way, but knowing Rich's storytelling abilities, I BELIEVE that he could have come up with a hundred better strips than #901 and #901 is below Rich's regular quality.

After someone reads through the Redcloak, Tsukiko encounter and remembers how excited they were to see how Redcloak would cover all these up and manage to trick Xykon, and how Rich ended that amazingly well, the twist at #901 is just "meh", I am sorry but it is.

[FujinAkari]

Spoiler

Show

Wow,

I never imagined I would see something like this in OotS, but from what I see this is a typical:

1. Someone criticizes a concept, comic, game, story etc. everyone loves including the critique
2. People respond like

-"if you do not like it do not "read it", "play it", "use it" etc.
-"if you could do better why don't you "make one", "publish one", "write one" etc.

3. The critique has to answer 1 billion ridiculous arguments to prove his point, thus making more statements that could be misinterpreted.

4. The crowd keeps the same attitude

5. Finally the critique is pissed and begins outright insulting people or thoughts

6. Victory for the resistance.

And that is why nothing IMPROVES...

Before I start making more statements let me say this:

"The OotS is the BEST story driven webcomic I have ever read, in fact it is the BEST story driven comic, I will keep reading it, and will buy the books and although I wish Rich updates every single day, I do not want the comic to end either"

Now some examples:

1. XKCD:

I used to love XKCD, now I find it revoltingly unfunny and uninteresting, this did not happen overnight but if you search through XKCD forums you would see some poor critiques, criticizing that days' comic and attacked and insulted by "Fans". Randall, seeing that people loves everything he throws at them gradually lowers quality and finally there is nothing left of the previous quality and no one understands what is wrong, not even the author.

I have similar fears for the SMBC but so far Zach has been very interesting and consistent.

2. PC GAMES especially CRPGs:

Years ago the best CRPGs were Planescape Torment, and Baldurs Gate and the like, now it is SKYRIM, why? Because you cannot criticize, if you can please compare an "item description" in Baldur's Gate 2 to the best "book" in SKYRIM and compare the storytelling quality in both. If you keep loving what someone throws at you, they will keep throwing worse stuff at you because you will keep loving it regardless.

If you do not know there is an Infinity engine modding (which is a pain) community "Spellhold Studios" and they have produced amazing content, please go to their forums and look at how they react to suggestions and criticism, they are extremely open and welcoming, which results in amazing content.

OKAY, now back to OotS and Carry2,

I am not saying that Rich is going to gradually decrease quality. BUT Carry2 is right about strip #901.

1. First of all Xykon is NOT that stupid or absent minded, the most obvious example being (From The Start of Darkness):

Spoiler

Show

His observations about Right-Eye and Redcloak

2. It would take them 2 rounds to destroy OotS (not much of a team B keeping them busy)

3. It is more plausible for Xykon to be extremely mad about the destruction of the gate and obliterate people who did that.

4. Most importantly MitD's way of making his statement etc. is seriously just poor. It is like two guys are facing eachother and:

Guy1: "There is a bear behind you!"
Guy2: "Oh, why don't I feel it then?"
Guy1: "Oh you better run, you cannot feel it because it is a bear wearing slippers, it is walking veeeery slowly but it is coming after you"
Guy2: "Oh, hmm ok I better run then"

Ok, Now let me tell you why I am criticizing that particular strip and why I think Carry2 is criticizing that strip.

We are criticizing that strip because we do not understand why Rich chose to make that strip as it is when there were probably a hundred better ways of:

-Making OotS survive
-Making Team Evil take off
-MitD demonstrating its intelligence

In the same strip. I am not saying that "I" can come up with a better way, but knowing Rich's storytelling abilities, I BELIEVE that he could have come up with a hundred better strips than #901 and #901 is below Rich's regular quality.

After someone reads through the Redcloak, Tsukiko encounter and remembers how excited they were to see how Redcloak would cover all these up and manage to trick Xykon, and how Rich ended that amazingly well, the twist at #901 is just "meh", I am sorry but it is.

You may want to take a closer look at the thread, because I feel your synopsis is extremely inaccurate.

It may be helpful to review what the author has said in regards to the thread, as he as already addressed a number of your points. I am talking about this post and this post specifically.

Anyone is able to criticize the comic, and some of the best discussions the forums have ever had came out of rational debates about the direction of the comic. However, this thread began with a number of assertions which were summarily either disproven outright or baseless to begin with, and so there was little to actually discuss except to disagree with the OP. Whenever critique of a work of art is based in opinion, then there is no actual discussion to be had.

That said, I personally find it bewildering how many people think the MitD fooled Xykon. I think Xykon saw through it like a wet t-shirt, but I also think Xykon is frustrated with delays and the MitD -did- actually make a good point... why waste EVEN MORE time in a squabble for a freaking -crater- when there is another gate completely unaccounted for?

The only dissenting explanation I've seen is "Well, Xykon should be horrifically pissed! He should want to kill something!" That doesn't match how Xykon is presented in the comic. Xykon is shown killing out of boredom or killing to solve a problem, but he isn't shown as someone who murders as a way to vent.

[Domino Quartz]

Wow,

I never imagined I would see something like this in OotS, but from what I see this is a typical:

1. Someone criticizes a concept, comic, game, story etc. everyone loves including the critique
2. People respond like

-"if you do not like it do not "read it", "play it", "use it" etc.
-"if you could do better why don't you "make one", "publish one", "write one" etc.

3. The critique has to answer 1 billion ridiculous arguments to prove his point, thus making more statements that could be misinterpreted.

Have you read the answers to his criticism? If you did, you should have noticed that a lot of them were actually quite well thought out. People have already provided reasonable arguments as to why the MitD was able to persuade Xykon. Saying that the only responses were "don't like don't read" or "let's see you do better" is insulting to the people who actually came up with reasonable arguments, and is in fact plain untrue. The responses became "don't like don't read" only after Carry2 persisted in refusing to accept the arguments against his critique - and the "don't like don't read" responses still only make up a minority of the responses to Carry2.
EDIT: Also, as stated below, the "don't like don't read" responses are directed entirely towards Carry2. They aren't directed towards readers in general.

[ti'esar]

While I admire where you're coming from, I think you're misreading/misjudging something. Neither Rich nor anyone else has made generalized "don't like don't read" statements, and Rich has in fact specifically denied that interpretation of what he's said. All comments to that effect have been directed to a specific poster whose history has left it difficult if not impossible to imagine any way in which he could be said to like the comic.

For a long time now, Carry2's posts have consisted of almost nothing but negativity and nitpicking. I personally set my forum profile to ignore him some time ago because, while he may be a perfectly nice person in general, I can simply no longer imagine having a constructive conversation with him about this comic. "If you don't like it, read something else" comments in this thread are not across-the-board statements that criticism is not welcome, they're attempts to tell someone who genuinely does not appear to enjoy the comic in any way that he might prefer reading something that he did enjoy instead.

Edit: And large numbers of people posting in the thread to disagree with him isn't some kind of blind groupthink, it's the natural product of the fact that the majority of people here do enjoy the comic. It's only natural to be disagreed with after saying "I don't like X" in the middle of a large number of fans of X, and there's nothing wrong with that unless either side is actively stifling the other's ability to state their opinion.

[Bird]

The author basically wants the characters to slip off the roof on banana peels while we shake our heads and solemnly intone "He was slain by his own hubris."

Without commenting on your argument -- I have to say that these turns of phrase are really funny.

[Bulldog Psion]

We have no real idea of what the MitD is.

Therefore, we have no objective information on the basis of which to decide whether or not he is capable of outwitting Xykon.
---------------
Or, if you prefer:
---------------
To say that the MitD is incapable of outwitting Xykon is contrary to the facts. We know that MitD is capable of outwitting Xykon because we just saw him do it.

That's what I think off the top of my head.

[JBiddles]

I thought I was very believable. Xykon isn't particularly emotionally invested in the Gates - if Kraagor's Gate explodes as well, he'll be irritated, shrug, vapourise Redcloak and move onto the next scheme for world domination, because he has the assets to do so. However, he ''is'' very concerned about protecting himself and his phylactery; if Xykon discovered Redcloak's treachery, Redcloak would be waking up with the Dark One in less time than it takes for Miko to reach a conclusion. Last time Xykon listened to Redcloak, he only just managed to save his phylactery and would've been reduced to ash by two Epic spellcasters and an androgynous elf if not for V's arrogance.

The MitD has consistently been shown to have high Intelligence (he plays Go adequately after a brief period and identifies a ritual that neither Xykon nor Tsukiko could understand at a casual glance) and abysmal Wisdom (he lacks the willpower to think for himself, thinks of Tsukiko as "not that bad" and honestly believes Xykon and Redcloak to be his friends). The MitD was able to appeal to Xykon's paranoia about Redcloak tricking him into dilly-dallying again and also preset a valid point. Xykon may outmatch the Order, but four high-level adventurers with a rift in the fabric of the universe to play with don't go down easily. If Redcloak had phrased his request differently, Xykon might have acceded, but as it was he said the worst possible thing.

[lio45]

#901 is below Rich's regular quality.

Half the strips are going to be (at least slightly) below Rich's regular quality... To recycle a popular phrase about the world population and average intelligence: "Think of one OotS strip that you find to be average. Half of Rich's strips are worse than that one."



And I agree with the others who pointed out that the replies to Carry2 were generally civil and not as content-free as you seem to imply.

I personally somewhat agree with him, with the fundamental distinction that the strip isn't a serious story.

If I'm at the movie theater watching a super serious epic fantasy adventure story, and it it there are two separate fights taking place, with the air fight happening to produce a loose zombie dragon head at the one precise location (actually down to the square foot) that would instantly change the ground fight's elf wizard's status from "completely screwed" to "alive and victorious", I'm going to be furious at having paid money for such a bull**** story and might even consider getting up and leaving.

On the other hand, I remember fondly that time (roughly half a life ago) in a roleplaying game where our party managed to escape the equivalent of a small nuclear explosion while our too-powerful-for-us-archnemesis-who-really-really-hates-us had unknowingly entered (by a bit of pure luck for us) the room about one second before the explosion... we kinda expected him to have died (in game), but guess what, he was eventually back, and his hate for us had increased by an order of magnitude.

Without commenting on your argument -- I have to say that these turns of phrase are really funny.

Seconded!

[lio45]

---------------
Or, if you prefer:
---------------
To say that the MitD is incapable of outwitting Xykon is contrary to the facts. We know that MitD is capable of outwitting Xykon because we just saw him do it.

FWIW, that formulation completely misses the point. If, say, Nale pulls out a magic wand that's waaaaaaaay out of his WBL league to save the day for him out of nowhere, you can't just deflect criticism by saying it's "contrary to the facts: Nale is capable of having acquired such a wand because we just saw that he has one".

I know you're trying to say that MitD is a blank slate, and you might invoke that my Nale parallel isn't apples to apples, but he/it is not entirely blank to us at this point... while Nale wouldn't be entirely a non-blank slate either for the readers, for that matter. Maybe he found a large pile of gold lately, the IFCC gave him that wand, whatever. You see the point.

[Fish]

But yes, while I may have overlooked a few details, I also think their import is exaggerated, and that the bulk of my arguments have not been soundly countered.

The bulk of your arguments have not been arguments, but opinions based on an incomplete picture. They go like this: "This event was not foreshadowed at all, provided you ignore, diminish, or dismiss all of the foreshadowing. Therefore, my opinion stands."

Of course your opinion stands, if you are impervious to facts. You are welcome to your opinion, but ignoring facts makes you seem intransigent, petty, and defiantly contrary. There's no point in presenting a counter-argument to someone who simply disregards everything that proves him wrong.

[Snails]

6. Victory for the resistance.

This member of the resistance believes that everything is not perfect in the OotSverse, but to usefully critique the work in a manner that the author might find persuasive one must actually demonstrate an understanding of the genre the author is attempting to write to. Certain posters simply lack understanding of the genre of OotS -- to them what they fail to understand is a flaw. Well, I am happy to try to educate them, but if they insist that their particular kind of ignorance is a font of authority, I will eventually be less and less kind.

As for your particular interpretation of Xykon choice not to kill Roy here, you are welcome to your opinion. But if you are failing to recognize that Xykon seems to have genuine reasons for not killing Roy that have to do with the intra-team dynamics of Team Evil, rather than Roy himself, you are not paying attention.

To spell it out, here is the key comment: "We should have split Bluetown the moment the loopy beige chick broke the gem."

That has exactly nothing to do with what MitD said. It is not necessarily because of any startling ability on the MitD's part (it could easily be luck), but because Xykon has an axe to grind, and the MitD gave him an excuse to honk Redcloak off. I could go on; I have discussed this in more detail elsewhere.

Now, you are welcome to find these other reasons unpersuasive. But, again, if you do not openly acknowledge such reason, it is you who looks confused and pointlessly stubborn.

[Throknor]

I think the most important detail to come from this thread is that there exists a forum somewhere that has less knee-jerk, nit picky discussions.

To the google machine!

[The Giant]

1. First of all Xykon is NOT that stupid or absent minded, the most obvious example being (From The Start of Darkness):

Spoiler

Show

His observations about Right-Eye and Redcloak

2. It would take them 2 rounds to destroy OotS (not much of a team B keeping them busy)

3. It is more plausible for Xykon to be extremely mad about the destruction of the gate and obliterate people who did that.

This has been answered by other posters, so let me just add my support to these:

I thought I was very believable. Xykon isn't particularly emotionally invested in the Gates - if Kraagor's Gate explodes as well, he'll be irritated, shrug, vapourise Redcloak and move onto the next scheme for world domination, because he has the assets to do so. However, he ''is'' very concerned about protecting himself and his phylactery; if Xykon discovered Redcloak's treachery, Redcloak would be waking up with the Dark One in less time than it takes for Miko to reach a conclusion. Last time Xykon listened to Redcloak, he only just managed to save his phylactery and would've been reduced to ash by two Epic spellcasters and an androgynous elf if not for V's arrogance.

That said, I personally find it bewildering how many people think the MitD fooled Xykon. I think Xykon saw through it like a wet t-shirt, but I also think Xykon is frustrated with delays and the MitD -did- actually make a good point... why waste EVEN MORE time in a squabble for a freaking -crater- when there is another gate completely unaccounted for?

The only dissenting explanation I've seen is "Well, Xykon should be horrifically pissed! He should want to kill something!" That doesn't match how Xykon is presented in the comic. Xykon is shown killing out of boredom or killing to solve a problem, but he isn't shown as someone who murders as a way to vent.

---------------------

4. Most importantly MitD's way of making his statement etc. is seriously just poor. It is like two guys are facing eachother and:

Guy1: "There is a bear behind you!"
Guy2: "Oh, why don't I feel it then?"
Guy1: "Oh you better run, you cannot feel it because it is a bear wearing slippers, it is walking veeeery slowly but it is coming after you"
Guy2: "Oh, hmm ok I better run then"

This is actually the most valid criticism of the strip that I have yet heard: that the dialogue is clumsy. And it sort of is. That's because I edited it down from a three-strip strip to a two-strip strip. While the two-strip version is a little rushed, the three-version was very belabored, with the MITD and Redcloak both making their points several different ways. In the end, I decided that neither the readers nor Xykon had the patience to sit through a whole extra page of argument.

See, one of the most enduring and persistent criticisms of OOTS is that it's too wordy. I hear it over and over again. So when I'm writing and I see that I've ballooned a scene out to three pages, I've started thinking, "No, I need to cut that back." So I did. And as a result, I might have cut a little too deeply and left the conversation feeling rushed. Which means that the reason this strip may be below my usual quality is because I listened to criticism.

Which is my point: Listening to criticism is not an inherent virtue. Sometimes, it's fixing things that weren't broke. If I had left that third page, maybe you would have liked it, but I guarantee you someone somewhere would be bitching about how I used three pages when two would have done the job. So who do I listen to? Because there are enough people telling me that I screw up that there are always people on both sides. It always comes back to my own decisions.

(And as a side note, I'm really tired of this image that I live in some sort of echo chamber where I need everyone to tell me how much I suck every day or else I will imagine myself to be a creative god who can do no wrong. Let me tell you, it takes effort to not find places where they think my comic is an ugly, pandering, badly written, wordy pile of nerd-****. You think I don't know what the average person off the street says about it? Trust me, I am under no illusions that what I make is somehow perfection itself and universally beloved. I struggle with it every day, to try to make it the best I can, and the least helpful thing anyone can do is point and go, "THIS SUCKS, I'M HELPING.")

In the end, all I can do is read the criticism and either think, "Hey, that's a good point," or "Nah, that guy's full of it." I happen to think that the OP of this thread falls into the latter category, and I told him as much. You, on the other hand, have a far more valid point, at least with #4. But since it directly contradicts other feedback I have gotten in the past…I just have to sort of sigh and think, "Well, there's another bad choice, better luck next time."

[F.Harr]

I'm sorry, I've holding this in for a while.

I don't require perfection in my art. There's an episode in TRotK that really needs a rewrite, but that doesn't end my enjoyment of that chapter, that book, that volume, that novel (I think of TLotR as one novel, so sue me) or that series. I also don't think that my intelegence or knowledge or whatnot makes me qualified to say what is or is not perfect. That kind of bugs me about writing workshops. Come on, get with it. If an artist everything you would have done, it would be you who's the artist and then what would be the point?

Anyway, if Elan can get character development. If Roy can get character development. If Haley can get character development. If Durkon can get character development. If Vaarsuvius can get character development. If Redcloak can get character development. Hell, if BELKAR can get character development, why can't, arguably, the least grown-up and most kicked-around member of the cast get some?

Also, surviving slashing damage is not a distinct superpower from surviving concussive damage. He has a lot of HP. Manipulating Xykon isn't a superpower, either.

Finally, people disagreeing with your opinion is not censorship. It's free listening.

[pendell]

I struggle with it every day, to try to make it the best I can, and the least helpful thing anyone can do is point and go, "THIS SUCKS, I'M HELPING.")

Okay.

So what WOULD be a helpful thing for us to do?

I'm thinking you don't really want an echo chamber where you get nothing but praise. But it sounds like the occasional praise would not go amiss.

At the same time, there is a place for criticism, but it sounds to me as if you would prefer criticism to focus on a particular issue without getting overly emotive about it. E.g.
"The dialog in panel <> seems a bit clumsy."

Not

"Oh, this is the WORST COMIC EVAH I'm almost ready to leave because Rich just can't write dialog anymore. "

Everybody likes constructive criticism mixed with earned praise, I think. Destructive criticism is when you essentially tell someone their work is utter trash. And there's only so much of that any man can take before snapping.

ETA: On the subject of "occasional earned praise", please convey my regards to the gallant Sir Thumb. It appears Create Greater Thumbdead worked like a charm .

Respectfully,

Brian P.