Incidental Straightness in the Comic

[golentan]

It's mentioned in the Silmarillion that Morgoth captured many of the Eldar and and tortured them until they somehow magically became another species.

"All it required was a cocktail of dangerous, experimental surgery and a willingness to ignore the unnecessary suffering of perfectly innocent beings! Also, I shot magic into their chromosomes until they turned inside-out. Evolution is my bitch."

[Lexible]

And there i thought i had read this in the Silmarillion... i guess i have to look for my copy to refresh my memories.

The forumite you quoted is correct: As revealed in his Letters, Tolkien was quite unsettled about the origin of the Orcs (issues about free will, immortal souls, the Halls of Mandos, etc. See What Is the True Origin of the Orcs on the Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange, or, the Wikipedia article on Tolkien's Orcs.

[Darth Paul]

He might respond with some variation of "I don't care about minor details of characters who were only in one strip as a throwaway gag."
Or he might make something up on the spot about them.

I was kind of hoping The Giant might take notice of my little question, it would be a personal first. Guess not, though.

[Morty]

It's mentioned in the Silmarillion that Morgoth captured many of the Eldar and and tortured them until they somehow magically became another species.

It's a belief held by the wise. And if true, it would be Morgoth's most heinous transgression. But there's no certainty on the matter. Look it up if you like.

The forumite you quoted is correct: As revealed in his Letters, Tolkien was quite unsettled about the origin of the Orcs (issues about free will, immortal souls, the Halls of Mandos, etc. See What Is the True Origin of the Orcs on the Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange, or, the Wikipedia article on Tolkien's Orcs.

Also, this. Tolkien had moral and religious doubts over the origin of orcs.

[littlebum2002]

I don't really agree with your decision to not include ANY references from the main 6. I think that there are many blatant references from these characters which definitely deserve to be mentioned.

Case in point: Comic 690. It's a penis joke (and a pretty bad one at that), has absolutely no bearing on the plot, and is about as forced as a comment can be.

[Keltest]

I don't really agree with your decision to not include ANY references from the main 6. I think that there are many blatant references from these characters which definitely deserve to be mentioned.

Case in point: Comic 690. It's a penis joke (and a pretty bad one at that), has absolutely no bearing on the plot, and is about as forced as a comment can be.

Its not like its news at that point, and Haley and Elan's relationship is a part of Haley's character development anyway. Also also, Haley is bi anyway.

[goto124]

That straightness is not incidental. Elan and Haley were already established to be lovers.

[Lvl45DM!]

That straightness is not incidental. Elan and Hakey were already established to be lovers.

That instance of the heterosexuality however had nothing to do with anything. Compare when Haley is talking about how her money shouldn't come between their love. THAT is character development and tangentially related to plot. Them having sex on a giant phallus monster cos 'lol wieners' is incidental (though IMHO, hilarious). And while, yes one can make the argument that its not 'straightness' cos Haley is bi, its still Elan being totally straight.

[goto124]

THAT is character development and tangentially related to plot. Them having sex on a giant phallus monster cos 'lol wieners' is incidental (though IMHO, hilarious).

The giant worm scene establishes Elan and Haley's character as a horny (immature?) couple. Not all that incidental.

[littlebum2002]

EVERYTHING is going to have SOME sort of character development behind it. I say unless it's directly related to the plot (Haley declaring her love for Elan, or them sneaking away from Tarquin to go have sex) we include it.

[SaintRidley]

I've been watching how this line of discussion has developed. I agree with littlebum that #690 is purely incidental (and I note that if I were including main character relationships, that moment would be one of the top moments). Determining the standard by which to include those, however, is not going to be the easiest thing.

I'm open to ideas toward that end. How do we determine, for instance, which of Roy's passes at Miko are incidental and lacking in plot relevance and which ones contributed toward him getting over his chauvinism? That's the thing I need to have an idea how to deal with in order to feel comfortable including the main characters properly.

[137beth]

I've been watching how this line of discussion has developed. I agree with littlebum that #690 is purely incidental (and I note that if I were including main character relationships, that moment would be one of the top moments). Determining the standard by which to include those, however, is not going to be the easiest thing.

I'm open to ideas toward that end. How do we determine, for instance, which of Roy's passes at Miko are incidental and lacking in plot relevance and which ones contributed toward him getting over his chauvinism? That's the thing I need to have an idea how to deal with in order to feel comfortable including the main characters properly.

Well, his initial passes were relevant in that they were a reason for the Order to follow Miko in the first place. His reminding us of his straightness after Miko kills Shojo ("Honey, we're out of milk. Clearly this means the gods want me to kill you!") is probably borderline (since he could have given a similar speech without references to his heteronormativity).

Also: Elan's rapier is drawn completely straight!

[goto124]

His 'rapier' sunders when someone shouts too loud, though.

[Blue_C.]

I'm amused that various points at which Hinjo was uncomfortable entering a relationship with a woman he already had a well defined and comfortable relationship with have been brought up, but the point where he pretty much asks Roy out on a date was not. Not that asking him out is the only way to interpret that moment, but it certainly sent the board into a tizzy when it was posted.

And to the OP, great list. I think you bring up in an interesting way that everyone has their own ways of seeing the world. As a for instance, the comic I linked; if you already thought Hinjo seemed a little into Roy (which was apparent from his first in-comic scene), then you might see that line as Hinjo attempting to ask him out. Or if the idea that Hinjo was gay never occurred to you, then you probably just saw it as him trying to make amends with the one member of the Order of the Stick he was already friends with. Or both could be true!

[ti'esar]

I'm amused that various points at which Hinjo was uncomfortable entering a relationship with a woman he already had a well defined and comfortable relationship with have been brought up, but the point where he pretty much asks Roy out on a date was not. Not that asking him out is the only way to interpret that moment, but it certainly sent the board into a tizzy when it was posted.

And to the OP, great list. I think you bring up in an interesting way that everyone has their own ways of seeing the world. As a for instance, the comic I linked; if you already thought Hinjo seemed a little into Roy (which was apparent from his first in-comic scene), then you might see that line as Hinjo attempting to ask him out. Or if the idea that Hinjo was gay never occurred to you, then you probably just saw it as him trying to make amends with the one member of the Order of the Stick he was already friends with. Or both could be true!

...Huh. I'm a fan of the idea that Hinjo could be gay, but that interpretation of that scene honestly never occurred to me before.

[Blue_C.]

I don't insist on it. In fact, since theGiant hasn't really done much to build on it since, I'm no longer as certain on its validity as I once was. I will say that it was my first reading of that comic, and if I remember right, that comic started the speculation about Hinjo in the first place.

[kivzirrum]

I'm amused that various points at which Hinjo was uncomfortable entering a relationship with a woman he already had a well defined and comfortable relationship with have been brought up, but the point where he pretty much asks Roy out on a date was not. Not that asking him out is the only way to interpret that moment, but it certainly sent the board into a tizzy when it was posted.

And to the OP, great list. I think you bring up in an interesting way that everyone has their own ways of seeing the world. As a for instance, the comic I linked; if you already thought Hinjo seemed a little into Roy (which was apparent from his first in-comic scene), then you might see that line as Hinjo attempting to ask him out. Or if the idea that Hinjo was gay never occurred to you, then you probably just saw it as him trying to make amends with the one member of the Order of the Stick he was already friends with. Or both could be true!

I'm not one of those people who is convinced that Hinjo's queer (though that would be AWESOME), but this reading of the scene in 287 amuses the heck out of me. Also gives new context to Hinjo's expression in the last two panels... in such a reading, that was NOT how he was hoping his come on would turn out...

[Bulldog Psion]

...Huh. I'm a fan of the idea that Hinjo could be gay, but that interpretation of that scene honestly never occurred to me before.

I always interpreted it as a plural "you" that Hinjo was using. As in, "I'll show you chaps around the city tomorrow."

However, now that I look at it again, he says "pay for your ROOM" singular, not "rooms" plural. Now I'm starting to wonder about the significance of that scene.

[Mike Havran]

I don't insist on it. In fact, since theGiant hasn't really done much to build on it since, I'm no longer as certain on its validity as I once was.

Yep, Hinjo had a few conversations with Roy after the trial and they were purely professional.

[Zyzzyva]

Yep, Hinjo had a few conversations with Roy after the trial and they were purely professional.

Yeah, but Roy's clearly dating Celia by that point. I'd never noticed the 287 scene before either, but it definitely is going in my inner queer!Hinjo canon.

[Blue_C.]

I'm not one of those people who is convinced that Hinjo's queer (though that would be AWESOME), but this reading of the scene in 287 amuses the heck out of me.

Now I'm starting to wonder about the significance of that scene.

I'd never noticed the 287 scene before either, but it definitely is going in my inner queer!Hinjo canon.

I am happy to have brainwas-- I mean, to have introduced you all to that interpretation.

[Daywalker1983]

I am happy to have brainwas-- I mean, to have introduced you all to that interpretation.

I noticed it at the time, and it didn't struck me as out of the ordinary. Countless games have taught me to assume that my party sleeps in the common room of Inns, so I thought that fit.

In other news, I think the discussion about sexual orientation has reached a point where the comic just can't support it anymore. it's nice of the giant to give shoutouts, and to take a stance against discrimination. But ultimately this is not the comics main focus.

And I find it very ironic to make a catalogue of incidental mentions of sexual orientation, which makes assumptions based on the most superficial things on the pages. A pretty discriminating attitude towards the protagonists concerned. Furthermore, it's absolutely baseless. Even bandana, current poster girl for homosexuality, might actualy be Bi. She might be a lesbian now, she might not be next week, but might be again the week after that. And I don't care. Because she can do what she wants, when she wants to, with whoever is willing to play along.

It's nice to see that the giant tries to cerate a diverse world, and to me, he absoluetly suceeded. But I think it's important to note the it's perfectly okay to assume someone is straight until proven otherwise. Because however you put it, however much you want to argue sexualtity being a sliding scale, the majority of people is straight. Whether it's 90 or even as low as 30%, depending on how much you are willing to trust others with claims about their sexuality, straight is the majority, and therefore a sensible first assumption upong meeting new characters. And incidentially, I find nothing problematic in this attitude. In light of that, Bandana being gay was nothing more than a blip on theradar, and incremental change in the picture I had of her character in my head. So what? Once again, I don't care about people's preferences.

I also knwo that I'm not the authority on what to discuss on the boards. But I think with this thread the discussion about imaginary charater's orientations has reached a critical point, where the comic is just a starting point to whatever agendas people have. And I think that's a shame, because I feel that sataments like Bandana (which the Giant has outright confirmed to be political) are most powerful if not nitpicked into oblivion. I feel it should have ended with the few morons that stopped reading because of it, because it would have been strong statement that no one really cares about such backwards attitudes. The current discussion more or less proves just that we are willing to make such a topic much more than it is, and that's not a sign of equality.

[Cizak]

Even bandana, current poster girl for homosexuality, might actualy be Bi.

Most probably not. We've only heard of an ex girlfriend and she's never felt the need for a wand (har har).

She might be a lesbian now, she might not be next week, but might be again the week after that.

Sort of an offensive idea. Fluid sexuality is a thing, but how assuming the homosexual person is always homosexual unless s/he tells you otherwise?

[ahdok]

I'm pretty sure the "Incidental straightness" in this comic started with #103. Everything before that was waaaaaay wonkier.

[Daywalker1983]

Most probably not. We've only heard of an ex girlfriend and she's never felt the need for a wand (har har).

You said it, probably. Nothing more can be deduced from her statement.

Sort of an offensive idea. Fluid sexuality is a thing, but how assuming the homosexual person is always homosexual unless s/he tells you otherwise?

You misread. I was sepculating about Bandana, a fictional charcter who can't tell me anything besides that what happens in the story. Where she specifically did not tell me she was gay. She merely hinted at it. I did not assume anything, I just tried to prove how in vain all the speculation about sexual orientation of characters is. Because there is no evidence to the contrary on the pages. And as I said: The comic can't support all the readings people try to glean from it.

[Goosefarble]

You misread. I was sepculating about Bandana, a fictional charcter who can't tell me anything besides that what happens in the story. Where she specifically did not tell me she was gay. She merely hinted at it. I did not assume anything, I just tried to prove how in vain all the speculation about sexual orientation of characters is. Because there is no evidence to the contrary on the pages. And as I said: The comic can't support all the readings people try to glean from it.

I love that. I love that every character is assumed straight until proven otherwise, and even when a gay character comes along, people go "Nope, nope, doesn't prove it. They didn't say it outright. I expect a written declaration of gaiety on my desk on Monday."

I'm being facetious, of course, but c'mon man. Do people really need to explicitly come out and say "I'm gay" for it to be confirmed?

[Fawkes]

Do people really need to explicitly come out and say "I'm gay" for it to be confirmed?

I mean, kind of, yeah. Technically, any of the characters could be bisexual, although I think Roy and Belkar and maybe Nale have stated that they don't swing that way.

[Zyzzyva]

I mean, kind of, yeah. Technically, any of the characters could be bisexual, although I think Roy and Belkar and maybe Nale have stated that they don't swing that way.

*eyeroll*

...What's your source for Roy and Belkar? Nale definitely calls himself "heterosexual" in Cliffport, but I can't recall Roy or Belkar explicitly saying they're straight...

[brian 333]

It has taken me a long time to speak up in this topic because I have had to do a good deal of research. My best findings indicate that in the U.S. about 2% of the population identifies as LGBT. Even if we assume a massive degree of under-reporting, the ratio of LGBT to 'straight' is below 1:10, and that would include single incident same sex interactions, (but would not include autoeroticism or 'non-contact' sexual experiences.)

The Giant, by the OP's listing, showed a 1:5 ratio of LGBT to 'straight' incidental situations or comments.

That's 20% of all incidental sexuality, or 10 times the reported incidence of homosexuality in our culture, and at least twice the 'best case' scenario if we stretch the definition of LGBT quite a bit.

While I realize the OP wanted to highlight the non-reaction of straight people to incidental examples of 'straightness', I believe he has instead highlighted how The Giant has been extremely 'inclusive' of LGBT persons in his fiction from the very beginning.

I would also venture a guess, (based only upon my own perception,) that the percentage of people who react badly to such inclusiveness is far lower than 2% of the population at large, but that their loud and angry rants on the subject magnify their apparent presence.

[ahdok]

That's not an exactly fair statement. Stats like "2% of people identify as LGBT" always suffer quite heavily from the same significant flaws.

1) There are a large number of LGBT people who would identify as LGBT, but who have been raised in such environments where it's 'unthinkable' to their peers and people close to them that someone could actually be LGBT, and such things are labelled as "illnesses" or "a phase" or "not real" - our society as a world, as a whole has only really started discussing these issues seriously in the last decade or so. There are people who are uncomfortable with their lives because they haven't really explored or understood their true sexuality, due to the environment and rhetoric and ingrained beliefs they've been exposed to for their whole lives. We can't estimate this figure.

2) There are also a large number of people who identify as LGBT, but who absolutely would not identify as LGBT to a survey, or someone asking them... even if it was anonymous. Our societies still has huge swathes of areas and people who mistreat such "minority groups", and the effort and anxiety around the idea of "coming out" makes it difficult. The very idea that "coming out" is a phrase that has a sense and meaning that we understand is an example of this - in an truly equal caring and understanding society free of flaws, there would be no preconceptions about what sexuality a person had, and the concept of "coming out" would be meaningless, because no sexuality would be thought of as "normal" and no sexuality would be thought of as "different"

There are loads and loads of other supporting points I could make, but let's not bother, I'm not the best placed person to be making these points, and I think the thrust of my statement is broadly laid out. You can find a statistic to support any idea or argument, but it's rarely possible to find an accurate statistic. As a society we genuinely don't have a good estimate of what proportion of people are LGBT and what proportion are straight, and what proportion are other orientations that these two crude pidgeonholes ignore entirely. In all honesty, there's a reasonable chance that the number of people who wouldn't identify as "straight" if brought up in a completely open environment, free from all prejudices and free to explore all orientations is well below 90%. If nothing else, it's not a set of labels, it's a whole spectrum with many axes, upon which "straight" is but a singular point.

---
---

As a second unrelated point, the above statement is kind of irrelevant in its entirety. I've done some quick research too, and as best I've managed to determine: well under 1% of the population of sapient language-speaking races on the planet are elves... yet if we look at this comic, approximately 1/6th of the screen time of the main characters is devoted to elves! Elves are fantastically over-represented in this comic, MUCH more so than LGBT people proportionately, so isn't this a more serious point?

That's obviously a completely ridiculous argument I just invented to highlight a point. Rich's fantasy world isn't our world, and while it often serves to draw meaningful insights into the human condition, it's not a comic about our world, (at least, if it is and that's what's in the rift, then we still don't know it yet.) Trying to make arguments about what's appropriate through statistical comparisons is missing the point entirely.

The point is this. People like to feel like their favourite stories and characters speak to them, that they can empathize with the characters in those stories... that they can be a part of the worlds they're sent to when they enter into the escapism offered by storytelling. For that to be possible, it helps for people to see characters that are like them. Proportions aren't relevant to this, but inclusivity is.

Even despite this, if you're going to make arguments about precise proportions and representation, you really can't look at one story in a vacuum and judge it. You need to look at the environment and ecosystem which that story lives in. I can't go out to a lake fishing, catch one trout and say "Hey, only 3% of fish in lakes in this country are trouts... THIS LAKE IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE FOR LAKES."* You have to catch lots and lots of fish to understand the lake. There are already plenty of stories out there that only include straight people, and are about strong manly man who goes on an manventure and is 'man-rewarded' with man-marrying a pretty girl** he rescues. To write a story that caters towards people with different fantasies isn't "disproportionate" it's "redressing the balance."

Whether or not a writer takes the effort to address that is important. Not to everyone, but that's irrelevant too. Nothing's important to everyone, but everything is important to some people. Mostly, it's important to the writer themselves: It's about who they are, who they want to appeal to, and what message they want to send about who's welcome and who's normal.

Maybe, a hardcore militant homophobic. (I don't really have good words for this...) Maybe someone who finds nothing but revulsion in the very concept that two people of the same gender might love each other, would be put off reading OotS. If so... good! Personally I really don't think the comic lives at the stage where (to pick the word 'rampant' purely because I find it a funny word) "rampant lesbianism" is making me feel unrepresented as a straight white cis male. I still feel like there's characters like me in this story. I'm not so self indulgent to whinge that the straight(?) white blond cis male in the main cast doesn't represent me because my hair is brown. All I can hope is that the rampant lesbians also find that there are characters that make them feel like they're a part of it too. If not, then I say we need more rampantination.

(*This statement is also true if it cuts off at "I can't go out to a lake fishing, and catch one trout.)
(**The temptation to write Man-girl was great, but it undercut my point.)