OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Kalmageddon]

Gotta disagree with you there. Stories primarily exist for entertainment The purpose of delivering messages or morals or information is always secondary. A story that delivers a solid message but in a boring fashion fails as a story and is usually forgotten very quickly.

But an entertaining story with a horrible message can still be enjoyed for itself. Hell, the moral of the movie version of The Little Mermaid seems to be "it’s okay to change who you are and give up your identity for love." The Iliad boils down to: "It's worthwhile to start a war to kidnap an adulterous woman, but afterwards, you should kill her for letting you fight a war over her." Fight Club: "Reactionary masculinity is the only cure for the consumerist malaise. No girls allowed." The Lord of the Rings even contains this gem: "Progress is bad."

I agree.
It's true that some stories are made worthwile by the message alone, while others are ruined by it, but in general a story can be about nothing at all and still be entrataining and emotionally involving, especially when it's comedy.

Could I ask you, by the same token: is there something inherently wrong with escapism for people who aren't you? Personally, I'm pretty damn pleased by this strip. Having people who reflect me and identities I have makes it easier, not harder to enjoy escapism. I wish people could enjoy the abundant representation they already have instead of complaining whenever other people aren't actively excluded from seeing themselves in media. People like Bandana exist, and a casual mention of a girlfriend isn't anymore "forced" than a casual mention of a boyfriend, which, I suspect, you wouldn't even have noticed.

Uhm... I don't understand what you mean by this.
You are talking as if I complained about the subject of the strip, which I clearly didn't. I simply asked the Giant a question after reading his comment.
Care to clarify?

[Keltest]

I agree.
It's true that some stories are made worthwile by the message alone, while others are ruined by it, but in general a story can be about nothing at all and still be entrataining and emotionally involving, especially when it's comedy.

I agree as well. Stories are about getting people's attention. What you do with that attention once you have it is up to you as the author, and Rich is more than welcome to use that attention to get a message across, but that is his choice, not something that stories themselves do.

[Lathund]

What about Shojo?

Oof, was he chaotic? I do recall him being an aristocrat instead of a paladin, but that's about as far as my memory goes.

Still, Shojo is far from an archetypical leader. There are far more lawful, successful leaders to be found in the OotSiverse imho than chaotic ones. Both when it comes to leading something big (a country, a adventurers party) and in leading something small (like Celia usually getting what she wants). But I may have missed more counterexamples.

[Sikon]

Hell, the moral of the movie version of The Little Mermaid seems to be "it’s okay to change who you are and give up your identity for love."

Nitpicking here, but wrong. I'm tired of hearing that argument. In fact, it's Anderson's original Little Mermaid who's driven solely by love. Ariel is obsessed with the human world before even meeting the prince, and her father did not accept that until the very end of the movie. For her, it was about escaping into the world where she belonged.

[Gnome Alone]

This is such a good comic; it's so low-key and character development-y. I loved Bandana right away; I even did one of those "something something chairman of the Bandana fanclub things" signatures for about two seconds. Glad she's sticking around so far.

Y'know, sometimes Haley almost seems more like the leader than Roy. The way these two are poring over logisitics here... Of course, that may have something to do with how Roy's been mainly just holding a rope for the majority of his time in this book so far.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I didn't think it did...

You are right, I was confusing her desert armor for the armor she wore before that. Complaint withdrawn. (Here is a strip that shows both.)

The Message here was a little hamfisted but Rich makes a good point: a lot of the reason why it comes across that way is that it's different from the years of strips before it. Also, us forum readers have seen the author denounce (say) the gendered insults Haley and Crystal threw at each other, but AFAIK this is the first in-strip denunciation of it. We've "heard it before" because of Rich's commentary, but most readers probably won't feel that way, because they won't have read those comments.

[Doug Lampert]

Sinfest wasn't always that way. It used to be good. It used to be fun. It used to be entertaining and worth reading. Then the author converted to Feminism, and published a comic repudiating the patriarchal oppression present in his past works.

http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2012-07-22

Since then it has been the way it is today. And since then I've always had a terrible sense of foreboding whenever any author starts expressing regret or guilt over perceived past sexism: I don't want to lose another great comic!

I don't read Sinfest, so I don't know how exact the parallels are, but Rich expressed regret on the forum over his treatment of women in the comic MONTHS ago, maybe over a year (I don't feel like searching for it). He then didn't bother to squeeze it into the comic for months till he had a logical and reasonable time for two women to be talking about stuff like costumes.

So I don't feel any real foreboding from this. Rich wanted to say it, but he saved it till he could fit it in the plot rather than forcing it in immediately.

Yeah, on first reading hitting the "she's gay" and "costume regret" and "slut slamming insults regret" buttons all in one comic felt to me like Rich was forcing it some and going down a checklist on gender issues. But I have to admit that I'd have no trouble with any two of them in one comic and that I can't point to which one I think doesn't belong.

And others have pointed out other known to be gay characters, so it isn't like Rich really NEEDED to include Bandana being gay as part of a gender issue regret checklist. I conclude that no such checklist existed and it was all in my head.

The comic still has plenty of humor, the action figures, the title in relation to the final panel, the self depreciating humor about the historical need to bond or murder each other.

[Cactuar_Tamer]

Uhm... I don't understand what you mean by this.
You are talking as if I complained about the subject of the strip, which I clearly didn't. I simply asked the Giant a question after reading his comment.
Care to clarify?

Sure. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

I read your comment as another "Why can't comics just be comics" kind of comments, of which the had already been a couple, and going by that reading, I was annoyed by the phrasing because I don't think anything in the strip negated escapism. Buuuuut. It looks like I may have interpreted you totally wrong, so, again, apologies if that is the case.

[Doug Lampert]

Another possible real world example are Gladiatrix's - I know Gladiators had the various forms of arms and armour, but did their female counterparts do so as well? Or did they just fight in less ritualised attitre? Did they even have their own forms? (Seriously, does anyone know of a good book on the subject?)

There is fairly little known about female gladiators, little enough that I'd wager any such book would need to be original research or made up. (You can do original research on this sort of subject, mostly by looking at burial inscriptions which often give information about someone's life and which exist in very large numbers.)

Wikipedia matches my memory and indicates that there are fairly few references, but that those references don't seem to treat them as some strange novelty. I've encountered at least one historical reference not mentioned on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make the subject common or well covered.

There is some evidence mentioned on Wikipedia that the women fought bare breasted, but with helmets and limb armor. Unfortunately the evidence they go into is from a relief, so I'm dubious, as Roman military reliefs and statues often showed gear known to be incorrect or anachronistic as the artist wanted something more artistic than the actual functional gear.

Note that gladiatorial combat was a show first, and a fight second. Ties were fairly common and losers often allowed to live if they put on a good show, so torso armor wasn't all that necessary as protection, your foe was presumably largely going for limb shots as part of the "try not to kill the valuable gladiator" part of the show.

[zimmerwald1915]

And others have pointed out other known to be gay characters

Nah, according to the Giant, those characters didn't count.

[TheMiningDwarf]

Ya know I read this comic and I had no problem with it. The character development for Bandana was nice. Bandana's gay, pan, bi? W/e. The self mockery and the action figures got a laugh out of me. And then the forums had to get all Tumblr on me and start arguing over gender representation or something.

[Shining Wrath]

Heterosexual couples can adopt too, you know.

Yes, I know. But same-sex couples don't conceive, except in D&D, where various sorts of polymorph exist. In fact, I recall Sabine revealing that she'd switched over to being a man sometimes for Nale's entertainment - which means we need to add Nale to the list of possibly bisexual major characters.

Is Sabine, polymorphed into a male body, transgendered?

[rodneyAnonymous]

The children were made adopted precisely to obfuscate Vaarsuvius's sexual orientation. Assuming that adopted children means homosexual parents doesn't make sense whether or not you consider authorial intent, which was explicitly to "answer" that question with a shrug.

And although Sabine's "real" form is a female humanoid, demons don't exactly have a sex. In a general sense, sure she is a girl, but in a technical sense, she can't be trans, any more than disguising herself as a paladin affects her alignment.

[TheMiningDwarf]

Yes, I know. But same-sex couples don't conceive, except in D&D, where various sorts of polymorph exist. In fact, I recall Sabine revealing that she'd switched over to being a man sometimes for Nale's entertainment - which means we need to add Nale to the list of possibly bisexual major characters.

Is Sabine, polymorphed into a male body, transgendered?

That would depend if you think shapeshifters have any true gender from which to be trans. Personally I like the idea that incubi and sucubi are really just a demon that can change between the two sexes at will.

[Jormengand]

Although her "real" form is a female humanoid, demons don't exactly have a gender. In a general sense, sure she is a girl, but in a technical sense, Sabine can't be transgendered, any more than disguising herself as a paladin affects her alignment.

Demons are intelligent, so they should have a gender identity. If they don't, then they're still under the trans umbrella, so to speak, by virtue of not even having a gender.

Though, given that she can swap sexes at will, calling her trans when she becomes male-bodied would be both entirely correct and entirely pointless.

[runeghost]

New comic is eight kinds of awesome. Thank you, Giant.

[Shining Wrath]

Demons are intelligent, so they should have a gender identity. If they don't, then they're still under the trans umbrella, so to speak, by virtue of not even having a gender.

Though, given that she can swap sexes at will, calling her trans when she becomes male-bodied would be both entirely correct and entirely pointless.

Which gets to the point I was trying to off-handedly make; in a D&D world sexual identity and gender don't line up, exactly, with our world. There's more possibilities. There's also inter-species sex (Nale and Sabine; Roy and Celia) which is considered pretty odd in this world.

In summary, projecting our mores into OotS world poses difficulties. And vice-versa.

Which in turn means that Mr. Burlew's attempt to tell a story that means something to our world will occasionally hit a snag.

[runeghost]

Sinfest wasn't always that way. It used to be good. It used to be fun. It used to be entertaining and worth reading. Then the author converted to Feminism, and published a comic repudiating the patriarchal oppression present in his past works.

You're certainly free to have that opinion. Personally, I found the "old" Sinfest to be occasionally amusing, while the "new" Sinfest is reliably good to excellent and one of my must-reads.

[BenjCano]

Nitpicking here, but wrong. I'm tired of hearing that argument. In fact, it's Anderson's original Little Mermaid who's driven solely by love. Ariel is obsessed with the human world before even meeting the prince, and her father did not accept that until the very end of the movie. For her, it was about escaping into the world where she belonged.

I'm more than happy to replace the "sell your soul and voice in exchange for a chance to be with a man you've never spoken to" moral of the Little Mermaid for the "love your abuser" message of Beauty and the Beast, if you'd rather.

[Sikon]

I'm more than happy to replace the "sell your soul and voice in exchange for a chance to be with a man you've never spoken to" moral of the Little Mermaid for the "love your abuser" message of Beauty and the Beast, if you'd rather.

Point taken. At least Disney is improving recently, if a certain insanely popular animated movie is any indication :)

[rodneyAnonymous]

Demons are intelligent, so they should have a gender identity.

Yes, Sabine's gender identity is female. Her sex is none. Shapeshifting into a man doesn't affect her sex or gender, just like shapeshifting into a paladin doesn't affect her class or alignment.

You could make a case for something like cross-dressing, but that'd be a pretty weak point. Who cares?

[endoperez]

Yeah, on first reading hitting the "she's gay" and "costume regret" and "slut slamming insults regret" buttons all in one comic felt to me like Rich was forcing it some and going down a checklist on gender issues. But I have to admit that I'd have no trouble with any two of them in one comic and that I can't point to which one I think doesn't belong.

And others have pointed out other known to be gay characters, so it isn't like Rich really NEEDED to include Bandana being gay as part of a gender issue regret checklist. I conclude that no such checklist existed and it was all in my head.

The comic still has plenty of humor, the action figures, the title in relation to the final panel, the self depreciating humor about the historical need to bond or murder each other.

It seemed to me that this comic was both funny, filled with jokes, yet another tongue-in-cheek explanation of a clothes change...

and also a way to point out various ways a comic could include social issues without detracting from the story. I think it was artfully done. Imagine this in a book - not a whole update you'd ruminate on for a long time, but a page you pass by. None of the things here are something you'd bat an eye at, individually. You only notice that there's dots to connect it if you're familiar with this stuff, so the page needed lots of dots to work even in print. I like it!

[rodneyAnonymous]

Imagine this in a book...

Furthermore, imagine it being read by someone who hasn't read Rich's forum posts on those subjects. Those sentiments would all be news.

[Porthos]

Nice! :D

*clap clap clap*

Gracias.

Darn it Porthos, quit ninjaing me!

Danke.

Yes. Thank. You get it spot on, you nail it onna head, you whip it, whip it good. Thank thank thank. Many goatblessings to you, fair stranger.

Many thanks in return for your response.

Sinfest wasn't always that way. It used to be good. It used to be fun. It used to be entertaining and worth reading. Then the author converted to Feminism, and published a comic repudiating the patriarchal oppression present in his past works.

http://sinfest.net/view.php?date=2012-07-22

Since then it has been the way it is today. And since then I've always had a terrible sense of foreboding whenever any author starts expressing regret or guilt over perceived past sexism: I don't want to lose another great comic!

I can't really comment on Sinfest as much as I would like to for a couple of reasons.

A) The last thread we had about Sinfest had to be locked because it descended into unholy union of flamewars and personal attacks. So, yeah.

B) It's pretty much Off Topic to this thread any way.

But what I can say is that, IMO, Rich Burlew has more understanding of how characters work and writing believable people (with both positive and negative traits) in his little finger than the creator of Sinfest has in his entire body.

Summarizing what I've said before, and what I think would be allowable in the present context, it wasn't the plot lines that made Sinfest Terribad, it was the how the plot lines were executed and the characterizations that occurred. Ironically, what made me quit Sinfest wasn't the infamous plot line that everyone talks about, but one of the secondary ones that didn't as get much attention. When I stopped to think about them, I realized that not only was I hoping in vain that Sinfest would ever get better, but that it was becoming apparent that he just couldn't pull off the types of stories he wanted to tell.

In short, the stories weren't bad on their face, the writing was. That, again, is the difference between OOTS and Sinfest.

...

Well, that and the fact that this isn't even remotely close to anything Sinfest put out. And I say that as a person who read that comic for years before going away, never looking back*.

* Well, not quite true. I tried to give it another chance last year to see if it got better.

...

Haven't looked back since then tho.

=======

Really really REALLY hope Lewis's Law doesn't have to get invoked soon, but I'm doubtful.

Sometimes I hate being right.

[Doug Lampert]

Nah, according to the Giant, those characters didn't count.

His comment doesn't count. :)

Seriously, the question here isn't actually "is Rich going down a checklist", I don't care if he is. The question is, "is Rich going down a checklist in a way that distracts ME from the story?"

And for that the question of "is this something I think Rich might reasonably think he needs to cover in a gender identity checklist" is more relevant than "is this something Rich himself thinks he needs to cover in a gender identity checklist".

I think Rich has covered adequately that there are gay and bi characters in this world in the past. That it wasn't all that noticeable makes it, IMAO, BETTER for his intended purpose of including such characters, if it's a major facet that you have to be explicit about then it isn't just being treated as part of the world. So IMAO he's covered it already, so it isn't evidence of a checklist, I don't actually care if Rich says in a forum post that he has such a checklist beside him and checked the box next to "include lesbian character" when he had Bandana make her comment. (I lie, I would care about such a comment, because it would start the foreboding of what else might be on the checklist given that it was specific enough to have an "include lesbian character" box.)

[Jormengand]

Yes, Sabine's gender identity is female. Her sex is none. Shapeshifting into a man doesn't affect her sex or gender, just like shapeshifting into a paladin doesn't affect her class or alignment.

You could make a case for something like cross-dressing, but that'd be a pretty weak point. Who cares?

Shapeshifting into a man makes her sex male, the same way that having sex reassignment surgery can change people's sex. "Paladin" and "Lawful good" are purely mental constructs, so I don't see how shape-shifting is supposed to make her either of those, but sex is physical, so surely that should change when she shifts into the shape of a male?

[thereaper]

You know, looking at those action figures, the proportions feel a little off. Is Haley's chest really supposed to be that big, or is that supposed to be another joke about female characters being sexualized?

And I just realized, I had no idea what sex Bandana was. It never even occurred to me that I didn't know or care.

[Porthos]

Nah, according to the Giant, those characters didn't count.

His comment doesn't count. :)

Seriously, the question here isn't actually "is Rich going down a checklist", I don't care if he is. The question is, "is Rich going down a checklist in a way that distracts ME from the story?"

And for that the question of "is this something I think Rich might reasonably think he needs to cover in a gender identity checklist" is more relevant than "is this something Rich himself thinks he needs to cover in a gender identity checklist".

I think Rich has covered adequately that there are gay and bi characters in this world in the past. That it wasn't all that noticeable makes it, IMAO, BETTER for his intended purpose of including such characters, if it's a major facet that you have to be explicit about then it isn't just being treated as part of the world. So IMAO he's covered it already, so it isn't evidence of a checklist, I don't actually care if Rich says in a forum post that he has such a checklist beside him and checked the box next to "include lesbian character" when he had Bandana make her comment. (I lie, I would care about such a comment, because it would start the foreboding of what else might be on the checklist given that it was specific enough to have an "include lesbian character" box.)

Before we get too far down this rabbit hole, I would remind that Conversational English is Conversational.

Rich is already on record as saying that he often speaks conversationally in forum posts and doesn't pour over every word he types to make sure they couldn't be misconstrued, especially when they are taken out of context.

Like I said, Conversational English.

When he said he hadn't included any 'obviously' LGBTQ characters in his comic and that it was about damn time he did (my phrasing, not his), he was talking, IMO, about Spotlight Characters and Not Spear Carriers. It's all well and good to dust a work of art with representative Spear Carriers. It does make it more real and believable. But when there is a noticeable gap when looking at the totality of the 'major characters', I think it is a good thing if someone decides that it's time to address the imbalance.

That Rich did it, IMO, in a fluid and natural way speaks to his talents as a writer. But, as this very thread proves, that's a subjective opinion and I fully realize that.

[Jasdoif]

...Rich expressed regret on the forum over his treatment of women in the comic MONTHS ago, maybe over a year (I don't feel like searching for it).

Let me save you the trouble, then; looks like eight months and a week ago.

That Rich did it, IMO, in a fluid and natural way speaks to his talents as a writer.

Yeah, I love exposition that doesn't feel like exposition. I'm not sure what part of this comic is supposed to be "forced", it all looks like natural conversation and standard-for-OOTS fourth-wall jokes to me.

Frankly, seeing Bandana's name misspelled in this thread is more jarring than anything in the comic. (Especially "Banana", I get confused for a split second each time )

[Socksy]

You know, looking at those action figures, the proportions feel a little off. Is Haley's chest really supposed to be that big, or is that supposed to be another joke about female characters being sexualized?

And I just realized, I have no idea what sex Bandana is. It never even occurred to me that I didn't know or care.

I think it's a dig at how different action figures look from the actual characters (compare the hair strand too).

EDIT: Completely irrelevant, but I'm glad the giant comes into the discussion threads, despite me disagreeing with a LOT of his views. I suspect the forums might have gone deep, deep into English teacher style interpretations of the comic (or just plain mischaracterisation, especially about alignments) without him doing so.