On the topic of recent tweets sent out by the Giant

[oppyu]

I read her with a kind of working class British accent for some reason... like you'd expect from one of those old-timey English sailors.

[ChristianSt]

I wish he had done it more officially, keeping it between Ookoodook and himself and then making an official statement about it in a newsletter or on the News thread, not just as a snarky response to this guy on an online social networking service. But i know that no matter what I say, I won't change your view, which i respect, and that what is done is done, and may the comics continue to flow in the direction it is going.

EDIT. what the giant wrote on the first page was good, and i just wish it had been executed more in that manner. That is all.

Basically The Giant posted this as an official statement (through Twitter). While it might read like an snarky response, it is no response. It is just a post The Giant made on his Twitter. Which he also uses for official statements.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Her remark that she goes both ways refers to her TN alignment. Sometimes she does Evil things, sometime Good, sometimes she's Lawful, other times she's Chaotic. It says nothing about her sexual preferences. All indications are that she likes boys.

Surely if she meant that her actions vary on the good-evil and lawful-chaotic ranges, she's have said something like "I'm true neutral, I go any way I want"?

I've never understood people like the one mentioned in the twitter post especially when it comes to works of fiction. Authors and Comedians should have a little leeway to use things that people might find offensive in the process of creating their material. You don't go into a comedy club and interrupt the comedian you paid to go see because the joke that was just told included something you find personally offensive. You have three options, ha ha ha, no ha ha ha, or leave. If you make an ass of yourself by interrupting, the staff or security at the venue will make you leave.

Guess you've never heard of heckling then, and seen how comedians deal with their hecklers - but most comedians will pull back if they've unintentionally gone over the line and someone's spoken out.

Only the ones who set out to be as offensive as possible won't.

[Keltest]

I read her with a kind of working class British accent for some reason... like you'd expect from one of those old-timey English sailors.

I read her with a different accent every time. There are like 4 quadrillion different accents in Pennsylvania, and im waiting for her to come to an area where she says "Crick" instead of "Creek".

[littlebum2002]

It took a while before I finally realized what I was looking at. And it was bizarrely thrilling--I'd never seen it before, never.
I'm really not sure how Bandana's all that different.

This is a great way of putting it.
I have a friend who believes that all LGBT characters in media should put their sexuality out there and make the story about being LGBT. I told her no, you've REALLY hit a milestone when you can take a straight lead out of a movie, replace them with an LGBT lead and the movie stays the same.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Given how thin the characterization is in most movies, you can do that pretty easily. Not much of a milestone. Don't believe me? One word: Dumbledore.

[Kish]

Dumbledore is not a lead.

If Harry being gay would make no difference to the movies from Goblet of Fire on, all I can say is, wow, they changed even more than I thought they did after they changed enough from the books that I stopped watching the movies.

[Dr. Gamera]

I'm convinced that "awkward" is the new "filler" or "deus ex machina" around here. Everything that people don't like but can't express exactly why they don't like it is "awkward."

I hold all of the following viewpoints simultaneously, and they don't seem particularly contradictory.

1. I appreciate the diversity in "backgrounds" (ethnicity, skin color, or however you want to think of that kind of diversity) that OOTS has always had.
2. I appreciate the respect for women that OOTS has shown, and the shift to a more obviously respectful tone. I didn't feel uncomfortable about my now nine-year-old daughter reading Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, including OOTS #35 (Rogues Gone Wild), but I now actively appreciate the female role models that she has in OOTS.
3. I appreciate the diversity in sexuality that OOTS has had, both before OOTS #959 (It Was Not) and since.
4. The explicit LGBT diversity of an important character in OOTS #959 (It Was Not) was certainly worth any awkwardness.
5. I understand how The Giant's real-world life experience affects his ability to write LGBT characters, as he wrote here.
6. I understand the constraints of the story, and that we're therefore not going to have a pointlessly tangential flashback about Bandana's prior relationship with her girlfriend.
7. The diversity in backgrounds has been a very natural part of OOTS from the beginning. Respect for women has been in OOTS from the beginning, and has improved since then. LGBT inclusion has not always been quite as smoothly handled.

So because I see OOTS #959 (It Was Not) as, yes, a little "awkward" in places, I feel compelled to try to articulate why. This is not criticism; at most it's a critique, and it's a critique without any suggestion of how it could have been improved, as I don't actually know how it could have been improved, nor whether such an improvement was possible when subject to the already-noted constraints. I'm also not saying that I "don't like" anything about that strip; I'm just trying to analyze every detail of my reaction to it.

The awkwardness may come from the somewhat contrived nature of the interaction. Panel 1: Haley and Bandana are discussing money, which naturally leads from the conversation in OOTS #956 (Moving On). Panel 2: Haley mentions selling her old armor, which leads Bandana to a discussion of having loaned it and of how it fits Haley. Panel 3: That discussion leads to Haley's contrasting her figure with Bandana's figure, and bam, we're at the explicit LGBT inclusiveness.

Maybe the awkwardness comes from too much happening all at once in the same strip, or maybe from the discussion progressing too quickly? I hesitate to attribute any awkwardness to anything like "too much" or "too quick", because I love the richly intricate storytelling of OOTS. (For example, the brilliance of Stick Tales comes in large part from this rich intricacy.) But a lot happens in that strip and a lot of it involves some interaction with the fourth wall: explicit LGBT inclusion AND lampshading OOTS's turn away from "offensively gender-charged insults" AND a fourth-wall joke (which works very well for me) about OOTS action figures AND an explanation of the change to Haley's visual depiction (it's not an art upgrade or anything; she's just wearing different armor). If Haley's intention to sell her old armor, or her having borrowed armor from Bandana, had shown up in an earlier strip, maybe the transition to Bandana's ex would have been a little smoother here.

Sorry that I had no easy explanation. One interesting point that I realized in analyzing that strip more closely is that the discussion about Haley's and Bandana's body types is very smoothly handled.

[Bulldog Psion]

I read Bandana with a heavy Brooklyn-type accent.

[DaggerPen]

I thought the Bandana and Haley strip was pretty well done. The only thing I'd consider as potentially awkward is the conversation shift from "we are talking about action figures" to "by the way, I know how hard it can be to suddenly become a leader," but that's at most tangentially related to representation. It's a seam between two scenes the writer wanted to put into the same comic so as to have a decent sized update with a good punchline, and while the stitching occasionally shows, I really doubt people would have commented on it were the comic about a less hot-button issue, as it's the type of thing OOTS - and everyone, really - does all the time. Transitions between conversation topics mid-comic are just a consequence of the medium, and while there's always room for improvement and all, I don't really think this one was anything out of the ordinary.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I tend to think that Bandana has a light southern accent.

Also, I didn't find 959 to be awkward.

[Cantalooping]

I think one thing that might make 959 feel awkward to some is that it's crammed with several topics (explicit inclusion of non-one-off-/gag-character LGBT character; treatment/depiction of women in stories; comment on past mistakes). These topics are obviously quite important to the Giant, and I do agree that putting them out there in the strip was a good idea. It might have been a bit "smoother" if not of all it happenend within one page.
I must confess that when re-reading the strip after the discussion about it, it did kinda feel like ticking off items on a list so the story/plot/rest can go on. (Though I also have to say that nothing really bothered me during the initial read... Maybe all that discussing just made me (and some others?) a bit hypersensitive.)

Oh well. Everything looks awkward if you stare at it long enough.

[Apollanaut]

I'm convinced that "awkward" is the new "filler" or "deus ex machina" around here. Everything that people don't like but can't express exactly why they don't like it is "awkward."

SMBC is a great comic, but it has the freedom to introduce any character it wants in any situation it wants and then discard it the next strip. If I showed Banadana with her girlfriend, that would mean that I was stuck with the character Bandana's Girlfriend, for whom I have no plans or story beats and would serve no narrative purpose (and, indeed, occupy time better spent focusing on Bandana's dreams and aspirations). Would it be better to have an extra gay character if that character's literal only purpose was to point to another character and say, "SHE'S GAY"? I don't believe so, no.

As a gay man myself, I can say that I am completely happy with your portrayal of an extremely diverse and fascinating array of characters. I agree that introducing, say, a token gay character merely to make a point would be both heavy-handed, and unnecessary from a narrative perspective. Not to mention it wouldn't even be very funny!

[brian 333]

How do we know Durkon isn't gay? There is no mention of a wife waiting at home, or a girlfriend he's pining for. All we know about his sexual identity is that a Loki priestess seduced him in the dark. Who knows, that may have been his only real life experience with sex, or his first girl, or whatever.

The fact is, if sexuality isn't a component of the story, then why bring it up at all, other than to pander to particular audiences? Sure, if my story were targeted to publication in a Boy Scout magazine, I would include depictions of Boy Scouts. Otherwise, if putting Boy Scouts in the story has no story-based function then I don't add to the story by so doing.

Now, I'm not saying it was a bad thing to include a gay character. In fact, I never really noticed the incident, other than as it applied to how Haley got her new suit of armor. The same with the gay cop in Cliffport. It was, to me, a story relevant element. Good job, Rich.

[ti'esar]

The fact is, if sexuality isn't a component of the story, then why bring it up at all, other than to pander to particular audiences?

I'd probably look a lot less skeptically on this argument if I ever saw it being used to object to a character being established as heterosexual.

(Not to mention that it relies on the whole skewed definition of "relevant to the story" that drives the idea of conservation of detail).

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Who knows, that may have been his only real life experience with sex, or his first girl, or whatever.

Actually, we know, because he says so.

[Gwynfrid]

How do we know Durkon isn't gay? There is no mention of a wife waiting at home, or a girlfriend he's pining for. All we know about his sexual identity is that a Loki priestess seduced him in the dark. Who knows, that may have been his only real life experience with sex, or his first girl, or whatever.

It was his first time.

The fact is, if sexuality isn't a component of the story, then why bring it up at all, other than to pander to particular audiences?

Sexuality is a component of Durkon's characterization. He's depicted as a guy who liked his fling with Hilgya a lot, but decided his sense of duty was a bigger priority. This decision to suppress his sexual desires and forgo any chance of romance with Hilgya, and instead answer a higher call is a big part of what defines him.

And of course sexuality is a big component of many other characters' stories, including most of the lead cast. The only possible exception is V, whose marriage is depicted without any obvious sexual component. In OOTS, sexuality is very much there, from a large number of jokes to plot-driving events, such as Tarquin's forceful pursuit of women, Nale's impersonation of Elan, etc.

[littlebum2002]

Given how thin the characterization is in most movies, you can do that pretty easily. Not much of a milestone. Don't believe me? One word: Dumbledore.

You can, but no one does. Never noticed that? Think about the last 20 non-LGBT themed movies you have watched. How many had an LGBT lead?

Dumbledore would have been a great example, except that if you only read the books and watch the movies, and never read ms. Rowlings interviews, you wouldn't know he was gay.

A better example? Imagine if during the series Harry had fallen in love with George Weasley instead of Ginny Weasley. Exact same plot, exact same motivations, but do you honestly think it would have been nearly the blockbuster franchise it was? I don't.

(Now imagine if he fell in love with FRED Weasley, and how amazing that plot would have gone. Talk about motivation to kill.)

[Jay R]

I understand the constraints of the story, and that we're therefore not going to have a pointlessly tangential flashback about Bandana's prior relationship with her girlfriend.

Don't make any bets. This story is sufficiently complex that anything might become relevant.

I never thought we'd get back to the polearm salesman, but we did.

There was a brief reference to Elan's father in Strip 50, good for only two panels, but he eventually showed up again.

And as soon as you deduce what the MitD's species is, you'll know that we haven't seen the last of Baron Pineapple, either, and why it's important that Laurin's daughter Hannah is a plumber.

[brian 333]

I'd probably look a lot less skeptically on this argument if I ever saw it being used to object to a character being established as heterosexual.

(Not to mention that it relies on the whole skewed definition of "relevant to the story" that drives the idea of conservation of detail).

Good point, but then I often ask myself, "Why is this in here?"

I don't go on talk shows and make an issue of it, but I feel gratuitous inclusions of sexuality in a story really does nothing to enhance the story. Hetero, homo, or autoerotic sex which exits only to titillate or pander is a cheap contrivance on the part of authors who are selling to an audience which would otherwise not care for their work without the sideshow. And that's all it is: a sideshow. I'm here for the circus, not the warm-up act.

Now, there is the other side of the coin: when sexuality is relevant to the story or to characterization, it should be included. I am thinking of the recent Star Trek movie in which the actor portraying Dr. Carol Marcus was shown in her underwear.

Kirk looked.

Of course.

His womanizing ways are well established in lore and in the recent movies. There was a hue and cry about the fact that it was a gratuitous scene that pandered to the adolescent boys of all ages who watched the movie. Nobody, and I mean none of the reviewers I read at the time, defended the scene, and both the director and the actor later apologized for it.

But it was a relevant detail of characterization. Not Kirk's. He's a skeezeball and we love him for it. I'm talking about the characterization of Dr. Marcus. You see, she was unimpressed with Kirk's charm, magnetism, alpha male pheromones, or whatever it is that keeps the green girls jumping into his bed. Not only was she unimpressed, she was not intimidated by him, enough so that she was able to change uniforms with him in the room, and she was able to assert her sexual dominance over him by forcing him to look away. We found out Dr. Marcus is one tough girl who won't be a playmate for Kirk, no matter what he may want. Perhaps she will force him to grow up a bit, or whatever may come of it, but she is now established as a personality rather than a job title and skillset.

[Xelbiuj]

Hmm.
I felt Banana being gay was a little hamfisted because it made a simple answer (take these, they were mine) more complex but I'm sure that's mostly because I reread each comic like 10 times waiting for the next.

I understand that these aren't the minorities you, personally, are concerned about. But it's more than a little disingenuous to imply that I have only ever portrayed straight white people. If you're going to criticize my representation even after I've admitted the mistake, apologized several times, and taken concrete steps to address the problem, at least do so accurately.

This is where you screwed up, you apologized. You can't appease (and I hate to use the term) Social Justice Warriors with an apology, it will never, ever, in any circumstance, sate them.

You comic been diverse and thoughtful, and should stand on its own merits.

[Magma Armor0]

Don't make any bets. This story is sufficiently complex that anything might become relevant.

I never thought we'd get back to the polearm salesman, but we did.

There was a brief reference to Elan's father in Strip 50, good for only two panels, but he eventually showed up again.

And as soon as you deduce what the MitD's species is, you'll know that we haven't seen the last of Baron Pineapple, either, and why it's important that Laurin's daughter Hannah is a plumber.

This was the mistake I personally made when l was....slightly irked by It Was Not. I didn't realize that Bandana was actually going to be around for a while (I figured the "racing to the gate" thing would take maybe 4 strips at most) and it seemed at the time like Bandana was thrown into that scene just to serve as a "token homosexual character" and that irked me. Since then, more time has been spent with Bandana on-screen, if you will, so I now understand that she's a minor character that will be around for a bit longer at least, so the backstory is entirely justified, IMHO.

TL; DR: I misjudged Bandana's relevance initially. But now that I know she's important to the story it's cool.

[Darth Paul]

A useful way to test your reaction to these sorts of things is to mentally substitute something you find personally disgusting for "homosexual" or "abortionist" or "liberal" or whatever the key concept is in the piece you are objecting to or laughing at (I've found pedophile works pretty well in our culture) and see if your opinion changes.

I'm a latecomer to the thread, so I apologize if someone has already covered this ground, but I think it needs to be said-

The problem is that that example (the one in parentheses) doesn't really work as a substitution. LGBT is not in the same classification as "pedophile", which is (for one thing) an actual behavioral illness and (for several more things) illegal, harmful, and most of all harms non-consenting-adults. I actually think readers/viewers would be justified to react badly to a work which had a heroic portrayal of a pedophile, child abuser, etc.

To be a valid substitution, the example must be something which is legal but disapproved of; let's say "smoker", "hunter", "gun owner". Then we're in the same realm of "personally disgusting" without crossing over into "actually illegal".

[Quild]

EDIT: Also, my apology is actually 100% sincere. I do deeply apologize for not including LGBT representation more prominently, and I do wish that I had made more of an effort to reflect my values in the comic before now. That statement deserves to be made regardless of other considerations.

I thought that this was way more older:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=400

It's not in the comic but it clearly is more clear than anything that could occur in the comic and is self-explanatory about why it's not expressed in the comic anyway.

Also... Never opened it but isn't the simple existence of the LGBT thread in "Friendly Banter" also a clue about your position? It never occured to me that the mods had instruction to hunt anyone that belongs to LGBTitP (or something like that). Did I missed it?

[Squark]

I thought that this was way more older:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=400

It's not in the comic but it clearly is more clear than anything that could occur in the comic and is self-explanatory about why it's not expressed in the comic anyway.

Also... Never opened it but isn't the simple existence of the LGBT thread in "Friendly Banter" also a clue about your position? It never occured to me that the mods had instruction to hunt anyone that belongs to LGBTitP (or something like that). Did I missed it?

The fact the thread thrives does say something about the Giant's values, but only a small portion of the comic's readerbase actually frequents the forums*. We're just louder than the rest, so we forget that.


*If I recall correctly, the main comic site gets... several times the traffic the forums do. I could probably dig up the statistics if I wanted to, but work is calling now and I don't have time to do three of four google searches.

[NerdyKris]

This was the mistake I personally made when l was....slightly irked by It Was Not. I didn't realize that Bandana was actually going to be around for a while (I figured the "racing to the gate" thing would take maybe 4 strips at most) and it seemed at the time like Bandana was thrown into that scene just to serve as a "token homosexual character" and that irked me. Since then, more time has been spent with Bandana on-screen, if you will, so I now understand that she's a minor character that will be around for a bit longer at least, so the backstory is entirely justified, IMHO.

TL; DR: I misjudged Bandana's relevance initially. But now that I know she's important to the story it's cool.

So one can only include a homosexual character if the character is important? Don't you think that's just as bad as not including them? It's the "Magical Negro" effect, where you've gone from marginalizing them to building them up into this stereotype of perfection. That's like complaining that a background character is a woman, or black, or given a name. Their importance in the strip is meaningless, and nobody would be complaining about a "token straight" character if a male captain had given Haley his ex girlfriend's armor.

[SaintRidley]

I thought the Bandana and Haley strip was pretty well done. The only thing I'd consider as potentially awkward is the conversation shift from "we are talking about action figures" to "by the way, I know how hard it can be to suddenly become a leader," but that's at most tangentially related to representation.

Note that resistance leader Haley is the front-most of the action figures. That's the transition point that you might be missing there.

[Morty]

It baffles me that the mention of Bandana's sexual orientation can be seen as awkward or forced. She was already an established, named character - if a new one - and it looks like she's going to stay with the story for a while, maybe even to the very end. That the clothes belonged to her ex-girlfriend is absolutely no different than if her body shape was closer to Haley's and the clothes were her own; or if she gave her ex-boyfriend's clothes to Roy or Elan. It's just there. The only reason it stands out is because non-heterosexual characters are so scarce in media. It remains to be seen if Bandana's attraction to women will ever become relevant again, but if it doesn't, it won't change anything about that strip.

[Keltest]

So one can only include a homosexual character if the character is important? Don't you think that's just as bad as not including them? It's the "Magical Negro" effect, where you've gone from marginalizing them to building them up into this stereotype of perfection. That's like complaining that a background character is a woman, or black, or given a name. Their importance in the strip is meaningless, and nobody would be complaining about a "token straight" character if a male captain had given Haley his ex girlfriend's armor.

I believe their issue was not that the character was included yet unimportant, but that a comparatively big deal was made about it for someone who (at the time) they did not think was that important. It came across to them as saying "Hey, look at this, there are gay people in the story!" for the sake of saying that the story is inclusive, rather than actually legitimately trying to be inclusive. Rather similar to how saying "Some of my best friends are XXX minority" does not actually make you a better person even if it happens to be true.

Its certainly clear NOW that that is not what the Giant was doing or trying to do, but at the time it could understandably feel like someone was trying to meet a quota required of him rather than legitimately making it part of the character.

[Jasdoif]

I thought the Bandana and Haley strip was pretty well done. The only thing I'd consider as potentially awkward is the conversation shift from "we are talking about action figures" to "by the way, I know how hard it can be to suddenly become a leader," but that's at most tangentially related to representation.

I thought the whole comic flowed quite smoothly, including that part. If I may be so bold as to repeat my analysis of the strip that I did at the time:

Spoiler: Banan-insight

Show

• Haley talking with Bandana about finances. She had explicitly said that was what she was going to do.
• Haley mentioning her old armor after saying they'll need V's assessment on the magic items. Haley purchased that armor herself, so she has first-hand knowledge of its price, making it an exception to the "need V's input" statement and thus notable.
• Bandana mentioning the loaned armor and its fit. The concept of "old armor" implies "new armor", so there's a good connection.
• Haley compares body types. Natural conversational extension of the "fits you pretty well" part.
• Bandana answers that the armor belonged to her ex. Natural response to Haley's expressed curiosity.
• Haley mentioned costume changes. Natural progression from "old armor and new armor".
• Haley mentions and envisions action figures: Resistance Leader, Desert Attack and Low Self-Esteem. Natural progression from costume changes.
• Haley offers Bandana support over suddenly being thrust into authority. Combination of Resistance Leader and Low Self-Esteem action figures reminds of low self-esteem as a result of resistance leading, so Haley is expressing her empathy.
• Bandana indicates lack of self-esteem concern. Direct response to Haley's empathy, natural conversation.
• Bandana expressing thanks for Haley's empathy, natural conversational result to Haley's concern (that negates impression of being insulted at the suggestion she might need help).
• Haley recalls history with other female figures in the comic (bonding or murder with gender-charged insults). Accurate retelling, honest conversational response.
• Bandana says "Geez, that sounds terrible." As a response to a rather vitriolic variant of "not with us is against us", seems an honest reaction.
• Haley mentions in passing that dungeon delving with a bare midriff was not a good idea. Subtle, unbidden personal remarks like this are the type that demonstrate trust in the receiver, so it seems a reasonable continuation of the bonding concept from earlier. Or it could just be extra text to flesh out "it seemed like a good idea at the time" into a better last-panel joke.