V's Gender Debate IV [Official]

[Random832]

I'm doing what to the what now?

"V started out as male" does not refer to any point in V's personal history, it refers to the development history of the comic. A change in the comic [i.e. deciding to keep V's gender ambiguous] does not have to be accompanied by "some kind of magical transgender surgery offscreen."

And, you know what? No, we don't know that, anyway.

[DarkElfGangsta]

"V started out as male" does not refer to any point in V's personal history, it refers to the development history of the comic. A change in the comic [i.e. deciding to keep V's gender ambiguous] does not have to be accompanied by "some kind of magical transgender surgery offscreen."

And, you know what? No, we don't know that, anyway.

I wasn't arguing from a reader'spoint of view. more of a resident of the OOTS universe point of view. I was using things from the comic itself, and nothing outside of it, such as the author's comments. like I just said, let's all enjoy oots the way we feel like it.

[Kish]

I wasn't arguing from a reader'spoint of view. more of a resident of the OOTS universe point of view. I was using things from the comic itself, and nothing outside of it, such as the author's comments.

From a "resident of the OotS universe" point of view, Roy established (On the Origins of PCs) not knowing what gender Vaarsuvius is, before he called Vaarsuvius, "V-Man." Some people have referred to Vaarsuvius as male, and other people have referring to Vaarsuvius as female. I gather that, if you were a resident of the OotS universe, you would refer to Vaarsuvius as male.

[DarkElfGangsta]

From a "resident of the OotS universe" point of view, Roy established (On the Origins of PCs) not knowing what gender Vaarsuvius is, before he called Vaarsuvius, "V-Man." Some people have referred to Vaarsuvius as male, and other people have referring to Vaarsuvius as female. I gather that, if you were a resident of the OotS universe, you would refer to Vaarsuvius as male.

Yes. That is correct.

[lio45]

See why I don't want to speculate on what gender Vaarsuvius was originally, lio45?

In fact, he's wrong with his point #3... V did have "some kind of magical transgender surgery offscreen" at some point before comic #100 (approximately). V also probably underwent offscreen alignment surgery, since it's likely that Rich created V as Good.

Clearly, the author simply changed his mind, and since he hadn't already irreversibly committed to a specific gender in-comic, the possibility of making it officially ambiguous was still open. He chose to do it.

Usually, in that type of webcomic, the story isn't planned THAT far ahead. Do you think Rich knew for sure his comic would be running for so many years when he started? It's not unusual to notice a few little things in early comics that are slightly incoherent with things that happen several hundred comics later.

Anyway, since you say you don't want to speculate, let's try to stop the speculation. Quoting you:

It's a commonly accepted fact that Vaarsuvius wasn't originally conceived as gender-ambiguous. That, Rich has stated.

Really? If that is fact, then it's pretty much case closed IMO.

You'd be insulting Rich's intelligence, or at the very least his thoroughness, if you thought that he wouldn't have had Roy in comic #0009 address the party's wizard, Vaarsuvia, as "V-girl" (or something like that) had he chosen the "other" gender instead for his character.

As always, you're free to disagree, but I know you're smart enough to understand my point and I don't see how you can argue against it.

[lio45]

P.S. My paragraphs #2 and #3 are meant for DarkElfGangsta, not Kish.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Really? If that is fact, then it's pretty much case closed IMO.

You'd be insulting Rich's intelligence, or at the very least his thoroughness, if you thought that he wouldn't have had Roy in comic #0009 address the party's wizard, Vaarsuvia, as "V-girl" (or something like that) had he chosen the "other" gender instead for his character.

As always, you're free to disagree, but I know you're smart enough to understand my point and I don't see how you can argue against it.

I'm confused by your point. I'd like to note, before I post this, that I am again drowsy, so ignore incoherence and please forgive any errors in comprehension.

Case closed, as in... V's a guy, case closed? And saying otherwise insults Rich's intelligence? If this is truly what you're saying, I'm going to disagree. What V's gender originally was is irrelevant, V is now androgynous. And besides, Rich could ret-con V's gender to be something other than male.

[DarkElfGangsta]

What V's gender originally was is irrelevant, V is now androgynous.

I can't stay away. why would it be irrelevant? my point was, if I was V myself, and started out a certain gender, i wouldnt be a different gender later. yes rich changed V's gender from male to ambiguous, but OOTS-character V still has the same gender, as hard to disecern as it is.

[lio45]

Case closed, as in... V's a guy, case closed?

No, as in: if you admit that V was conceived by Rich with a gender in mind, then V was originally created as a guy, case closed.

What V's gender originally was is irrelevant, V is now androgynous.

Sure. Well, I would argue that it's slightly relevant (already explained why in a reply to Kish on last page) but I still agree 100% that V's gender is undefined now.

And besides, Rich could ret-con V's gender to be something other than male.

Sure. In fact, he did. V's been officially ambiguously-gendered for about 600 strips now.

[lio45]

my point was, if I was V myself, and started out a certain gender, i wouldnt be a different gender later.

Yes, but you're not a fictional character.

First example that comes to mind: consider how James Bond went from dark-haired to blond, brown-eyed to blue-eyed, etc. over the years in spite of the fact it's still supposed to be the same character.

To some, like you maybe, V will always be male and Bond will always be Sean Connery. You can choose to see it like that if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the fictional character actually changed over time in a way that would never happen to anyone in reality.

[DarkElfGangsta]

Yes, but you're not a fictional character.

First example that comes to mind: consider how James Bond went from dark-haired to blond, brown-eyed to blue-eyed, etc. over the years in spite of the fact it's still supposed to be the same character.

To some, like you maybe, V will always be male and Bond will always be Sean Connery. You can choose to see it like that if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the fictional character actually changed over time in a way that would never happen to anyone in reality.

I take medicine for that.

again, that is not my point. in my standpoint I'm not viewing OOTS as the webcomic, I'm trying to view it in a non-fictional sort of way, as if I was in the story myself. kind of like, a bookhave you ever read "monstrous regiment" by terry pratchett? if so, then maybe it'll be easier for me to express my explanation

[HotAndCold]

As is said in some circles, IC=/=OOC. OOCly, V was created male, then subtly retconned into being ambiguously gendered. But ICly, V is ambiguously gendered and always has been. That's what a retcon is. Anything that contradicts the retcon is irrelevant, because it's been retconned. In the world of the comic, V did not start out as definitively male and therefore did not require any off-panel surgery to become no longer definitively male. V has always had an ambiguous appearance in the comic world.

[J.J.J-H-Schmidt]

yeah, i think it is kinda the whole point. V will be what V will be. the only way you could be "wrong" in assuming (s)he's sex is by assuming it in the first place.

i don't know if it is a ploy to intentionally upset readers who may not be entirly comfortable with there own gender assignment, or if it was as said above: V started out male, but through abiguity and the fact that it came into question later was made to be a running gag.

either way its great for the comic, and i think that the introduction of V's mate totally played up well to the whole "it's pat" shtick

[Selene]

Yes, but you're not a fictional character.

First example that comes to mind: consider how James Bond went from dark-haired to blond, brown-eyed to blue-eyed, etc. over the years in spite of the fact it's still supposed to be the same character.

To some, like you maybe, V will always be male and Bond will always be Sean Connery. You can choose to see it like that if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the fictional character actually changed over time in a way that would never happen to anyone in reality.

Oh, gods. Don't start saying Bond is blond. I have nightmares like that.

(I'll accept either Sean or Pierce, though.)

[J.J.J-H-Schmidt]

[/QUOTE]Oh, gods. Don't start saying Bond is blond. I have nightmares like that.

(I'll accept either Sean or Pierce, though.)[/QUOTE]

its all about lazenby, baby

[sparkyinbozo]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0028.html

Hey, I just noticed this...it's like the Roy calling V "V-man," here Belkar implies that he suspected something about V being gay in the 6th panel; at least, that's how I read it. Other interpretations are always welcome.

[Selene]

its all about lazenby, baby

The pain.

[J.J.J-H-Schmidt]

george lazenby portrayed the character of bond just as well as sean almighty himself.

i also believe that aside from bond getting married, on her majesty's secret service was the best story of all the bond films. the only reason he isn't more widely accepted is because he only did one movie. which is an utter shame.

if he had half the screen time that moore did, than i am sure he would give connery a run for the "ultimate bond" title

[DarkElfGangsta]

getting off topic...

[NothingButCake]

yes rich changed V's gender from male to ambiguous, but OOTS-character V still has the same gender, as hard to disecern as it is.

Well, not necessarily. V's gender identity could very well has changed over the course of the story.

[The Dark Fiddler]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0028.html

Hey, I just noticed this...it's like the Roy calling V "V-man," here Belkar implies that he suspected something about V being gay in the 6th panel; at least, that's how I read it. Other interpretations are always welcome.

That's how I read it, and I'm pretty sure that's how Rich meant it to be read (Disclaimer: I am not Rich). And? That just means that Belkar thinks V's a guy.

[DarkElfGangsta]

I think more characters called V a guy than characters who calle V a girl.

[Kish]

Allowing, for the sake of argument, just for a moment, that that's the case. What of it?

[DarkElfGangsta]

That's how I read it, and I'm pretty sure that's how Rich meant it to be read (Disclaimer: I am not Rich). And? That just means that Belkar thinks V's a guy.

I simply noticed that other people (sabine for example) reffered to V's gender in a confident manner to which V did not react as if this was incorrect.

[Lira]

I simply noticed that other people (sabine for example) reffered to V's gender in a confident manner to which V did not react as if this was incorrect.

OOTS #252 - Sabine: The elf dude is old and highly skilled at magic... and an apprentice would be young and barely competent!
OOTS #385 - Sabine: You got it, sister.
As you can see, Sabine doesn't know what gender V is.

V's been called male or female by various people and hasn't reacted, so we can't make any judgments based on that.

[DarkElfGangsta]

OOTS #252 - Sabine: The elf dude is old and highly skilled at magic... and an apprentice would be young and barely competent!
OOTS #385 - Sabine: You got it, sister.
As you can see, Sabine doesn't know what gender V is.

V's been called male or female by various people and hasn't reacted, so we can't make any judgments based on that.

zactly. that was my point.

[HotAndCold]

So your point is... that you don't have a point? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

[Nimrod's Son]

From your reply --quoted below-- I thought I was speaking with someone sharing Nimrod's Son's view, since you didn't correct or answer me when I pointed out he made it seem like it was a commonly accepted fact that V started comic life as a male... saying this instead:

Hang on a minute. As far as I can tell, Kish and I do agree on the issue of V's gender: it is and always will be ambiguous. Whatever V was originally intended to be is pretty irrelevant - I believe it was Rich's intention for V to be male, yes. I have no problem admitting that; Kish is keeping schtum on the matter. But what we're both saying is this: whatever Rich originally intended doesn't matter any more, and so shouldn't even figure in this discussion.

The clincher here is that we know that early on Rich intended the Oracle to be female, but when he turned up in the story he was reinvented as a snarky male kobold. So unless anyone here wants to claim that the Oracle remains female, you can't use the "V-man" remark as proof of anything here.

[DarkElfGangsta]

So your point is... that you don't have a point? I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

naw. my point being is that because other characters in the comic gave a gender to V (Roy: V-man, Sabine: sister, dude) and V did not react as if this was true or untrue to both, therefore we cannot rely on what other charcters say regarding V's gender.

Pretty much I think only 4 people know what is V's gender: V, Kyrie, V's teacher (probably) and Rich.

[SadisticFishing]

How the heck does V-Man imply anything more than all the he's and she's thrown around in the comic?

What do you want Roy to call V, "V-Elf"? That just sounds silly.