Dumbing of Age

[BiblioRook]

So I'm really kind of surprised at the lack of a thread for Willis' Dumbing of Age. I mean considering the popularity of Questionable Content, I would find it very hard to believe people don't know about it much less read it.

That being said, if I'm to make a topic on it I kind of feel like I have to set up something of an introduction. I've probably been reading comics by David Willis for as long as I've known about webcomics period. Back when the comic was about college roommates, to alien abduction, to secret agents fighting said aliens, to working at a toy store, and now back to college students again.

For those unfirmilar with the comic, Dumbing of Age is a complete reboot of his comic world placing every character back into an ordinary college setting with not an alien in sight (aside from the cartoon variety), even characters that had nothing to do with the original college roomate comic.

[EternalMelon]

Jen Aside:
The problem I foresee in a dumbing of age thread is that Willis often writes story lines about religion and politics. Because of our forum rules it might be hard to have lasting discussions without verging into off topic territory.

That being said it would be folly not to at least try.

I've been reading the comic for a while now (can't remember off the top of my head when I started exactly) and I really enjoy it. I find it better than the other stuff I've read of Willis's, but I haven’t read much more than a spattering of Shortpacked! any ways. I like how it manages to be very accessible while maintaining inside jokes to his other comics, or so I've been told.

[BiblioRook]

Jen Aside:
The problem I foresee in a dumbing of age thread is that Willis often writes story lines about religion and politics. Because of our forum rules it might be hard to have lasting discussions without verging into off topic territory.

Yeah, this very much did occur to me and was wondering if it was the case for not having it's own thread. Though it's not as if that that is exclusively what the comic is about and considering how Joyce is developing maybe a bit less as it goes on (Mary is a whole other story however), I honestly would be more worried about getting heavily side-tracked on LGBT talk more actually...

[Prince Zahn]

I wouldn't be surprised of it did get sidetracked, yes. I would love to talk for ages about Joyce who is a(nd always was) without a doubt my favorite character, you come for the innocent big blue eyes and that wake-up-at-7-on-a-Sunday attitude and stay for the sick, twisted character development.

I'll say it like this,

Spoiler: my general analysis

Show

David Willis writes about hard topics of discussion, and every single one of his main characters is built around those challenging topics. Every single one of them deals with problems revolving the values of family, Religion, relationships (whether straight or LGBT) and identity/orientation, those who don't face these issues either helps with and/or instigates those problems of others. But on a large scale the most recurring motif is that all the things the primary characters learned or expect about life is put to the test when they enter the real world.

Thankfully, Becky is starting her new life on the right foot, she has some of her personal information now, she's getting along with everyone, she's in a relationship and sports a new "banging haircut" even though I don't care for it, personally. Though she's pulling Joyce deeper and deeper into her situation, I don't want to know how the Browns will ultimately react to the new Becky, and the new Joyce. But this might be either a critical development point in Joyce or it could end up being a major sacrifice if her parents confront her and try to make her give up on Becky.

[halfeye]

I'm pretty sure we did have a thread about this author, maybe even this strip, but there is a fairly short thread necromancy deadline (A month? not exactly I think, but less than two months I'm pretty sure) on these forums.

Some comics just can't keep a thread going, I've personally started a couple for "Daily Grind" and they died (I think without a reply both times), and one for A Girl and her Fed, that got one reply. It's long enough ago now that if they were reopened they'd be locked by mods for thread necromancy, if I want to write about those again, I'll make a new thread or respond to someone else's new thread.

I do read Dumbing of Age, I kind of like it, but it hasn't made it into my bookmarks yet, I dunno why.

[Takver]

I read Dumbing of Age, after having read none of Willis's work previously. It's OK. The "newspaper comic" type format really limits the art. Webcomics have an infinite canvas, and DOA has four very small panels in a row. No room for a nice big splash panel. The art is good for what it is, though. Nice clean lines.

The stories are decently interesting, with some good character beats. I agree that Joyce is the most interesting character. My big problem storywise is the preachiness. The comic tells you exactly how to feel about Becky's dad, Amber's dad, Mary, Joyce's mom, the politician sister, etc etc. My politics mostly agree with Willis's, but I still roll my eyes a little at these flat villains.

I think of it as a better Questionable Content. I had it on my RSS feed for a while, but I got frustrated with the minimal content of the updates. I found it works best for me to just forget it exists most of the time, and check it once every two or three weeks.

[EternalMelon]

How can you say a comic with characters like Marcus has flat villains?
Seriously, Marcus is like, the worst person to ever grace the earth, but since introduction has done nothing but add variety and nuance to the grey and grey morality comic we now find ourselves in. Combining truly chilling lines and speeches with honest but heart-warming kick/pet the dog moments, the comic has introduced a charecter that will no doubt be an icon in pop culture for decades to come.

But yeah, the preachyness is sometimes heavy handed and the villians cartoonish, but the main characters are decently flawed and multi-dimentional. A lot of the casts problems arn't with other people, its with themselves. Still does make me wish some of the villains were better handled.

[Prince Zahn]

The stories are decently interesting, with some good character beats. I agree that Joyce is the most interesting character. My big problem storywise is the preachiness. The comic tells you exactly how to feel about Becky's dad, Amber's dad, Mary, Joyce's mom, the politician sister, etc etc. My politics mostly agree with Willis's, but I still roll my eyes a little at these flat villains.

How can you say a comic with characters like Marcus has flat villains?
Seriously, Marcus is like, the worst person to ever grace the earth, but since introduction has done nothing but add variety and nuance to the grey and grey morality comic we now find ourselves in. Combining truly chilling lines and speeches with honest but heart-warming kick/pet the dog moments, the comic has introduced a charecter that will no doubt be an icon in pop culture for decades to come.

But yeah, the preachyness is sometimes heavy handed and the villians cartoonish, but the main characters are decently flawed and multi-dimentional. A lot of the casts problems arn't with other people, its with themselves. Still does make me wish some of the villains were better handled.

Yeah, Marcus is the worst!

On the topic of flat villains, I have a feeling it was intentional. A story like DoA is trying to deliver some strong messages, and Willis isn't trying to be subtle about them. These flat villains aren't more complex than they need to be to fulfill their part. Look at Toedad, for example. He's a over- zealous, self-righteous father who thinks he can "fix" his daughter by taking her from her friends' campus at gunpoint. This simple, flat, and extreme role exists to make Becky's life harder, and more profound, and probably traumatized (even though Becky's making an effort to hide it). Toedad isn't to be rooted for or sympathized with because that's missing the whole point of Toedad, same with Blaine or Gashface. That's why he's demonized by both the story and by Willis. He's literally saying in his DoA that that kind of behavior is blind and dangerous, and abusive. In short, I completely agree: the villains are caricatures, but it's also intentional, but these sort of people, - and these kinds of issues they cause to the main cast - aren't unheard of.

[Discus-Spinner]

On the topic of flat villains, I have a feeling it was intentional. A story like DoA is trying to deliver some strong messages, and Willis isn't trying to be subtle about them.

The problem with that is that the only readers who won't be more irritated by than approving of the preachiness are the people who agree with you already. So you're likely to lose the others, and end up preaching to the converted. Which surely removes the point of the preaching in the first place? Telling people that they're right just makes you and them look smug, and doesn't make the world a better place.

[halfeye]

Which surely removes the point of the preaching in the first place? Telling people that they're right just makes you and them look smug, and doesn't make the world a better place.

However, if it brings in the money, maybe that's okay?

[eschmenk]

Which surely removes the point of the preaching in the first place?

I haven't read the comic, but according to the about page, Willis had a very intense Evangelical Christian upbringing, so he would have been subjected to tons of preaching. Much of that preaching would have taught him that he, in turn, must preach to others. Apparently he has rejected much of what he was taught, but perhaps he still believes in the importance of preaching as a religious belief? Maybe it's just what is natural for him because he never learned how to not do it? Maybe it's hard for him to accept that it's not effective, given how much emphasis was put on it in his youth? Or maybe he just realized how much people enjoy feeling smug and recognized the commercial possibilities of helping them feel that way (halfeye's point)? Or some mixture of these reasons?

Added: To be fair though, maybe in some cases people have made a decision and they need reassurance. In that case, as long as they made the right choice, reassurance would be a good thing. If people stop there and don't go all the way to smug, there probably isn't a problem.

[Pluto!]

I tried to get into this comic, but the comic relies so hard on its drama being taken seriously while at the same time every character is so one-dimensional and unrelatable, every single plot point is so hamfistedly forced and every individual strip operates at such a different degree of realism that I kept finding myself digging into the comments to see whether I'd missed something, or whether the comic that day just wasn't worth caring about.

...Kind of like Mark Trail but with better color.

The thing that continually made me uncomfortable with the comic is that many of the ideals that are being heavy-handedly pushed are ideals I actually share. But the comic treats opposing viewpoints as so egregiously inhuman and incomprehensively-motivated that the whole comic continually left me with the rank aftertaste of rhetorical sleaze.

[Takver]

Vividly put! And I find it hard to disagree with any of it. "Rhetorical sleaze" is a phrase I'm going to have to put in my pocket.

[halfeye]

There's already a Dumbing of Age thread.

My bad. Presumably I didn't look carefully enough.

[Knaight]

The thing that continually made me uncomfortable with the comic is that many of the ideals that are being heavy-handedly pushed are ideals I actually share. But the comic treats opposing viewpoints as so egregiously inhuman and incomprehensively-motivated that the whole comic continually left me with the rank aftertaste of rhetorical sleaze.

This would be much more convincing if it weren't for the entire characters of Joyce, Joyce's dad, etc. Sure, there are some flat villains - but its their effect on the main cast that is relevant most of the time anyways, and even then they are frequently presented with understandable motivations.

[Max_Killjoy]

I tried to get into this comic, but the comic relies so hard on its drama being taken seriously while at the same time every character is so one-dimensional and unrelatable, every single plot point is so hamfistedly forced and every individual strip operates at such a different degree of realism that I kept finding myself digging into the comments to see whether I'd missed something, or whether the comic that day just wasn't worth caring about.

...Kind of like Mark Trail but with better color.

The thing that continually made me uncomfortable with the comic is that many of the ideals that are being heavy-handedly pushed are ideals I actually share. But the comic treats opposing viewpoints as so egregiously inhuman and incomprehensively-motivated that the whole comic continually left me with the rank aftertaste of rhetorical sleaze.

First, this comic can't seem to find a consistent tone, wandering between the verge of the previous Shortpacked's wacky hijinks tone, and dead-drama-serious. The incongruity is at times striking.

Second, Willis suffers from a deep state of "convert's fallacy" and no lack of arrogance. His comments make it clear that he views opposing opinions as detestable, backwards, and ignorant, and never lets facts get in the way of his beliefs (and that's no small degree of irony).

Third, the comments section is overall an echo-chamber for a very particular crowd, with unwelcome viewpoints and even inconvenient facts shouted down, insulted and belittled, and then eventually blocked from posting by none other than Willis himself. Many of the people are quite intelligent, kind, and open-minded, but the collective effect is that they're smelling their own butts and thinking "Mmmmm, roses!"

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm generally the first to complain about tonal dissonance, but DoA has never struck me as a major offender on that score. There are hijinks, and there is drama, but the hijinks tend to consist more of characters saying funny stuff than pointedly violating physics, and the drama doesn't veer into the realm of, say, torture-porn and ethnic cleansing. (Unlike, uh, certain webcomics I could mention.)

I don't think that Toedad or Joyce's near-rape(?) are a particular strength of the series, and I can't speak for the author or general readership's tolerance of diverse opinions, but I enjoy it for the general humour and charm, the broadly harmless main cast, and the deceptively simple art that grows on ya.

[Lacuna Caster]

I haven't read the comic, but according to the about page, Willis had a very intense Evangelical Christian upbringing, so he would have been subjected to tons of preaching. Much of that preaching would have taught him that he, in turn, must preach to others.

Yeah... if he's willing to shed his former metaphysical beliefs, social circle and politics, I'm betting that anything left over is probably genetic. But that's a topic for another day.

There's an interesting video clip with Penn Jilette which touches on the subject, in that, despite being an atheist, he often finds it easier to get along with fundamentalist Christians than he does with religious moderates. (I've actually found that myself, on a few occasions.) "I think in a certain sense, I'm a preacher. My heart is there."

[Max_Killjoy]

I haven't read the comic, but according to the about page, Willis had a very intense Evangelical Christian upbringing, so he would have been subjected to tons of preaching. Much of that preaching would have taught him that he, in turn, must preach to others. Apparently he has rejected much of what he was taught, but perhaps he still believes in the importance of preaching as a religious belief? Maybe it's just what is natural for him because he never learned how to not do it? Maybe it's hard for him to accept that it's not effective, given how much emphasis was put on it in his youth? Or maybe he just realized how much people enjoy feeling smug and recognized the commercial possibilities of helping them feel that way (halfeye's point)? Or some mixture of these reasons?

Added: To be fair though, maybe in some cases people have made a decision and they need reassurance. In that case, as long as they made the right choice, reassurance would be a good thing. If people stop there and don't go all the way to smug, there probably isn't a problem.

The problem is that he ditched the specific beliefs, but clearly retained the smug confidence in his own rightness and disdain for differing opinions.

Yeah... if he's willing to shed his former metaphysical beliefs, social circle and politics, I'm betting that anything left over is probably genetic. But that's a topic for another day.

There's an interesting video clip with Penn Jilette which touches on the subject, in that, despite being an atheist, he often finds it easier to get along with fundamentalist Christians than he does with religious moderates. (I've actually found that myself, on a few occasions.) "I think in a certain sense, I'm a preacher. My heart is there."

As an agnostic and empiricist, I've found that nothing offends people who really, really believe in any particular thing... more than moderation.

[Lacuna Caster]

Are ya positive ya don't like preaching Max? Just a little bit?

One of the commenters, entirely fairly, pointed out that the moderates are less likely to launch an actual crusade, but the thing is- and I've heard Jilette talk about this before- if you genuinely believe that doing X could send you to hell or doing Y could prepare you for heaven, then it's entirely reasonable to do everything in your power to convince other people that it's true. It's also entirely fair for you to criticise the empirical basis for said beliefs, but... just telling fundies to shut up and mind their business is essentially asking them to be self-serving social cowards for the sake of convenience.

[Max_Killjoy]

Are ya positive ya don't like preaching Max? Just a little bit?

One of the commenters, entirely fairly, pointed out that the moderates are less likely to launch an actual crusade, but the thing is- and I've heard Jilette talk about this before- if you genuinely believe that doing X could send you to hell or doing Y could prepare you for heaven, then it's entirely reasonable to do everything in your power to convince other people that it's true. It's also entirely fair for you to criticise the empirical basis for said beliefs, but... just telling fundies to shut up and mind their business is essentially asking them to be self-serving social cowards for the sake of convenience.

Well, my problem is that the person in question has simply traded one sort of "this is TRUTH, if you don't believe you're a dangerous fool who needs to be silenced" orthodoxy for another set of "this is TRUTH, if you don't believe you're a dangerous fool who needs to be silenced" orthodoxy. It's just another set of beliefs that they don't want challenged.

If there's someone telling people to shut up, it's not really me.

[halfeye]

Well, my problem is that the person in question has simply traded one sort of "this is TRUTH, if you don't believe you're a dangerous fool who needs to be silenced" orthodoxy for another set of "this is TRUTH, if you don't believe you're a dangerous fool who needs to be silenced" orthodoxy. It's just another set of beliefs that they don't want challenged.

Fundamentalists of one belief becoming fundamentalists of another without apparently transitioning through any doubt, is allegedly/apparently something that happens IRL.

[Lacuna Caster]

I remember reading somewhere that agitated young men would switch between the nazis and the communists in weimar germany almost at the drop of a hat, regardless of how compatible their camp's philosophies might be. Can't remember the quote, though.

I think the implication was that the internal consistency of belief systems wasn't really the crux of membership- simply the sense of belonging and/or the opportunity for venting at external adversaries. Without getting into 'fair and balanced' territory, I'm sure that's not unique to the rustbelt.

If there's someone telling people to shut up, it's not really me.

Oh, I'm not saying that you do personally. I'm just trying to explain Jilette's perspective- that he'd rather have an honest argument than a quiet life (or worse, an echo chamber.)

[Lacuna Caster]

Given some recurring themes in the strip, I thought this might make for interesting reading.

"Letting people fixate on their fantasies of righteous violence hurts the cause. But asking them to do otherwise hurts your position within the cause."

[Max_Killjoy]

Given some recurring themes in the strip, I thought this might make for interesting reading.

"Letting people fixate on their fantasies of righteous violence hurts the cause. But asking them to do otherwise hurts your position within the cause."

I experienced that on the comments section there -- the "righteous wrath" and utter disdain they express towards people who don't share in the echoes of their chamber can only hurt their causes, but to point that out to them makes you persona-non-grata.

[Lacuna Caster]

I experienced that on the comments section there -- the "righteous wrath" and utter disdain they express towards people who don't share in the echoes of their chamber can only hurt their causes, but to point that out to them makes you persona-non-grata.

I'll occasionally look at the comments sections for Strong Female Protagonist, and while I think it's a great strip with some excellent perspectives and surprisingly nuanced discussion of ethics, there are times when it's target audience seem dazzlingly unaware of how far it can veer into self-parody.

(To be fair, I sometimes get a similar feeling from reading the original Superman strips, which I also love.)

[halfeye]

She ruined his life by revealing what he's been doing? Rather than he ruined it by doing those things?

I hope he's about to get a much deserved beating.

That guy linked above lost me at "As Marxists".

[Lacuna Caster]

I don't think you need to be a marxist to appreciate that, e.g, poverty and unemployment are fairly objectively important issues that cut across race, religion, gender and nationality to affect tens of millions of people, and should therefore be near the top of the agenda for any political movement that wants a broad base of influence. That's not always evident in certain corners of the web.

Anyway- I'm sure that dude-with-scar-on-face-whose-name-I-don't-recall will be speedily dispatched by Amber, and I doubt that knowing her secret identity would make any difference. He's already been convicted in the court of public opinion- who would listen to him?

[halfeye]

I don't think you need to be a marxist to appreciate that, e.g, poverty and unemployment are fairly objectively important issues that cut across race, religion, gender and nationality to affect tens of millions of people, and should therefore be near the top of the agenda for any political movement that wants a broad base of influence. That's not always evident in certain corners of the web.

I am not a marxist. Anyone who claims I am, is out of order, and so far as I am concerned out of luck.

Anyway- I'm sure that dude-with-scar-on-face-whose-name-I-don't-recall will be speedily dispatched by Amber, and I doubt that knowing her secret identity would make any difference. He's already been convicted in the court of public opinion- who would listen to him?

I'm becoming less and less sure of that. If that happens it's story over for that aspect of the story, which might be good, but there's more drama to be had with him getting away somehow. Still, we should find out soon enough.

[Max_Killjoy]

I am not a marxist. Anyone who claims I am, is out of order, and so far as I am concerned out of luck.

No one said you were.