What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[crayzz]

I'll go along with the "forced into a marriage she didn't want", it's the crossbow that I'm not quite buying.

Why not? I suppose because A) Hilgya serially exaggerates her own victimhood and B) her flashback scenes also feature her feeding Ivan a poison-bottle sandwich. They get the point across without spelling it out in so many words. An actual crossbow may not have been in play any more than a bottle of poison, but the point is that somehow she was pressured into getting married.

We only know she exaggerates her own victimhood from the flashback scenes. If those scenes are a function of her own interpretation of the events, not how they actually happened, then it doesn't make sense that Ivan behaved the opposite of how she described.

Or, to go the other way, if you say "we know from the flashback scenes that she exaggerates her victimhood, so the marriage at crossbow point didn't happen" you have to explain why that specific scene is shown exactly as she describes. If we're accepting the scenes as more reliable then Hilgya, and the scenes are supporting her point, we can't say "the scenes contradict her elsewhere, so she must be wrong here." We'd have to dismiss both the scenes and her as unreliable, but the only reason we believe her to be unreliable is that the scenes contradict her.

It makes far more sense to read the flashback scenes as showing us the events she's referring to as they actually happened. Sometimes she got it right. Sometimes she didn't.

And sure, the poison could be comical hyperbole. I don't see the joke in forced-marriage-at-crossbow point, but maybe it was hyperbole too. But the poison-hyperbole was exaggerating "tried to murder my husband" to "tried to murder my husband with a ridiculous amount of poison." It didn't change the severity of what happened. If you think, based on the comically-absurd amount of poison, that there wasn't literally a guy with a crossbow at their wedding, the only reasonable place to go from there is to consider a scenario approximately equivalent, just less over-the-top which... doesn't really change how I'd read things.

(I think the poison argument is weak anyways: it was a joke in a comic. It doesn't need to be straightforwardly serious and realistic to be canon, anymore than Haley stealing a diamond from the cast page needs to be.)

[LuminousWarrior]

Alright. Here's my two cp on the flashback. They're both unreliable, but in different ways. The images are exaggerated versions of the truth meant to give a visual shorthand for the fact that she's delusional and Chaotic Evil. The crossbow is just a way of giving a visual shorthand for, yes, it was an arranged marriage that she wanted no part of, because she's Chaotic and doesn't want to be tied down by marriage and dwarven traditions. Ivan may or may not have been as nice as he's shown, but the second panel shows that, although she was forced to marry the man, Ivan is not a bad person and would have made a good husband if not for the fact that, again, Hilgya is Chaotic and saw being married as a horrible affront. And the last panel is pretty straightforward in that it shows that she tried to poison the man, simply exaggerating the poison bottle to comic proportions.

So, yes, she was forced into an arranged marriage that she hated, which is a bad thing but not uncommon in many societies. But also, yes, she is absolutely insane and delusional, and is heavily exaggerating her own victimhood.

[are]

We only know she exaggerates her own victimhood from the flashback scenes.

We also know this because a) she described Durkon as an unscrupulous casanova when clearly he has lived a rigid, honor-bound life and b) she seduced him, not the other way around. When she was left with responsibility she didn't want, her recollection of the narrative warped to a more convenient one that leaves her the victim.

[Vinyadan]

My feeling about the flashbacks was that Ivan was an idiot, happily unaware of what was happening around him: the crossbow, the poison, that Hilgya really didn't like him, and that this meant that she also didn't enjoy foot massages from him. It looked to me like they were both pushed to the marriage by clan matters. Of course, he liked it. "Im getting married? Woho! I'm getting married!"

About why Hilgya hasn't tried killing Durkon earlier, I think it was because divination would reveal that he was more or less as strong as her, and travelling with a group of adventurers capable of fighting a whole army and survive.

Or maybe she didn't care enough about that, and simply preferred to hate on him during her free time and avoid any kind of contact that would have forced her to interact in a civil manner with him, and accepted the chance when Loki gave it to her. Scorn beats turning the kid's biological father into his daddy.

Also, "quasi imagined slights". And going from flirting to flanking in 3 rounds. That's been there since the dungeon.

[Liquor Box]

I don't know about "we," but what's the evidence that she's an unreliable narrator? It's that what she's saying clashes with the images, right? That's what it is for me, anyway.

Going from there to "so the one image that fits her words rather than the other images must be some kind of fabrication" defeats the purpose of the entire exercise; either the images are reliable or, hey, there's no reason not to trust her words and conclude Ivan was actually a thoroughgoing Tarquinish brute.

We do know she's an unreliable narrator from her recent strips. She describes Durkon as having used her for fun then tossed her aside, which does clash with what we saw happen in the relevant strips.

[Emanick]

And sure, the poison could be comical hyperbole. I don't see the joke in forced-marriage-at-crossbow point, but maybe it was hyperbole too. But the poison-hyperbole was exaggerating "tried to murder my husband" to "tried to murder my husband with a ridiculous amount of poison." It didn't change the severity of what happened. If you think, based on the comically-absurd amount of poison, that there wasn't literally a guy with a crossbow at their wedding, the only reasonable place to go from there is to consider a scenario approximately equivalent, just less over-the-top which... doesn't really change how I'd read things.

I agree with this take 100% (and with the rest of the post, too; just quoting the most relevant part to highlight it). I’d also like to add that Rich has said the being-married-at-crossbow-point thing was supposed to be a shotgun marriage joke, so I’m not sure we’re intended to take it literally, or at least seriously.

For my money, it’s one of his least effective jokes, but given that it is at least confirmed to be a joke, you can arguably consider the crossbow hyperbole on the artist’s behalf.

[Mad Humanist]

I had some thoughts on a possible plot twist.

Spoiler

Show

Hilgya now knows that at the time Kudzu was conceived, her husband had divorced her in absentia and remarried.

This makes Durkon's behaviour seem even more reprehensible in her eyes, but also permits an eventual reconciliation.

EDIT: Also it seems to me Hilgya is dominated by the Mind projection fallacy. We are all guilty of this to some degree, but she has it particularly badly. In this way she is a typical of human beings and no politically incorrect stereotyping is required.

[King of Nowhere]

We only know she exaggerates her own victimhood from the flashback scenes. If those scenes are a function of her own interpretation of the events, not how they actually happened, then it doesn't make sense that Ivan behaved the opposite of how she described.

Or, to go the other way, if you say "we know from the flashback scenes that she exaggerates her victimhood, so the marriage at crossbow point didn't happen" you have to explain why that specific scene is shown exactly as she describes. If we're accepting the scenes as more reliable then Hilgya, and the scenes are supporting her point, we can't say "the scenes contradict her elsewhere, so she must be wrong here." We'd have to dismiss both the scenes and her as unreliable, but the only reason we believe her to be unreliable is that the scenes contradict her.

It makes far more sense to read the flashback scenes as showing us the events she's referring to as they actually happened. Sometimes she got it right. Sometimes she didn't.

And sure, the poison could be comical hyperbole. I don't see the joke in forced-marriage-at-crossbow point, but maybe it was hyperbole too. But the poison-hyperbole was exaggerating "tried to murder my husband" to "tried to murder my husband with a ridiculous amount of poison." It didn't change the severity of what happened. If you think, based on the comically-absurd amount of poison, that there wasn't literally a guy with a crossbow at their wedding, the only reasonable place to go from there is to consider a scenario approximately equivalent, just less over-the-top which... doesn't really change how I'd read things.

(I think the poison argument is weak anyways: it was a joke in a comic. It doesn't need to be straightforwardly serious and realistic to be canon, anymore than Haley stealing a diamond from the cast page needs to be.)

I think the scenes were correct but potentiallly hyperbolic. I mean, that jar of poison in the sandwich clearly wasn't there in that form because, even if ivan was an idiot, he couldn't have been so idiot. but the sandwich was poisoned for sure, and hilgya herself mentions the racial +2 against poisons in her narration, which confirms she tried to poison him.

[Jasdoif]

My feeling about the flashbacks was that Ivan was an idiot, happily unaware of what was happening around him: the crossbow, the poison, that Hilgya really didn't like him, and that this meant that she also didn't enjoy foot massages from him. It looked to me like they were both pushed to the marriage by clan matters. Of course, he liked it. "Im getting married? Woho! I'm getting married!"

Pretty much.

I can't believe I have to be specific about this, but no, their marriage was never consummated and he probably was completely unaware that she was forced into it (because he is not very smart or perceptive, obviously). And one could have extrapolated that fact if one thought for one moment about what the obvious intended joke of the scene was, which was to contrast Ivan's pleasant personality with Hilgya's exaggerated and inaccurate description.

(Incidentally, this pretty much rules out Hilgya having Ivan's child; which may be why the Giant was specific about this particular detail in advance)

---

I’d also like to add that Rich has said the being-married-at-crossbow-point thing was supposed to be a shotgun marriage joke, so I’m not sure we’re intended to take it literally, or at least seriously.

I don't think "shotgun wedding reference" is synonomous with "shotgun wedding joke".

[goodpeople25]

I agree with this take 100% (and with the rest of the post, too; just quoting the most relevant part to highlight it). I’d also like to add that Rich has said the being-married-at-crossbow-point thing was supposed to be a shotgun marriage joke, so I’m not sure we’re intended to take it literally, or at least seriously.

For my money, it’s one of his least effective jokes, but given that it is at least confirmed to be a joke, you can arguably consider the crossbow hyperbole on the artist’s behalf.

Joke? I know it was confirmed to be a reference to that but did he ever actually put it that way?

[Kish]

No........

[Mad Humanist]

We learnt from Gontor's vampire that he had been married and had left that marriage. I wonder if that was a crossbow wedding too.

[zimmerwald1915]

We learnt from Gontor's vampire that he had been married and had left that marriage. I wonder if that was a crossbow wedding too.

Not quite. His clan had arranged a marriage for him, we don't know whether there ever was a marriage. Whether Gontor ran out on his engagement or on his marriage is left ambiguous, probably because it doesn't matter all that much.

[Mad Humanist]

Not quite. His clan had arranged a marriage for him, we don't know whether there ever was a marriage. Whether Gontor ran out on his engagement or on his marriage is left ambiguous, probably because it doesn't matter all that much.

I think it would add some supporting flavour to Hilgya's view of things. Actually when Hilgya first came back I thought maybe Gontor had been Hilgya's husband. However we have lots of evidence that is not the case. That's a shame in my opinion.

[Lord Joeltion]

Of course, doesn't need to fit Hilgya's background, but I feel the need to point out the Historical Elephant-in-the-room for the crossbow situation:

Arranged marriages in warlike societies were usually performed so to prevent wars between clans and further division into opposing factions. Most of them served a political/militaristic purpose more than anything else.

So I don't see why we should necessarily assume there wasn't a crossbow or (on the other hand) that the crossbow was specifically about her. We know Hilgya's individualistic philosophy distorts her perception of reality to make her fit in the privileged altar she built for herself in her own mind (i.e: she thinks it's everything about her). Maybe there WAS a crossbow during the wedding; maybe it WAS intended to enforce the marriage; but it could be that she imagined the proverbial sword was meant for her specifically, when maybe it wasn't. Then again, maybe it was her own father who put the crossbow on her back because he needed the other clan's money and wasn't really gonna allow her to refuse. We don't really know. Speculating on the verisimilitude of the drawing it's pointless anyway, because there are arguments available to make a case for a "hyperbolic" or "literal" enforcement. I think it's best to take the crossbow literally; but be open to interpretations that go against Hilgya's version.

[Fyraltari]

So I don't see why we should necessarily assume there wasn't a crossbow or (on the other hand) that the crossbow was specifically about her.

That was a shotgun wedding reference, it does not work if the crossbow is not here for her.

[Vinyadan]

Btw, I don't think that the choice of dumb Ivan as the groom was random. Great chance of striking an alliance by at the same time sending away the murderous girl! And the beauty of it is that he won't notice!

[The_Weirdo]

Ivan may or may not have been as nice as he's shown, but the second panel shows that, although she was forced to marry the man, Ivan is not a bad person and would have made a good husband if not for the fact that, again, Hilgya is Chaotic and saw being married as a horrible affront. And the last panel is pretty straightforward in that it shows that she tried to poison the man, simply exaggerating the poison bottle to comic proportions.

No.

One, she very much is a victim in this context. So is Ivan, for that matter, though he's way too simple to understand it.

Two, she very much was Chaotic Evil and maybe even delusional in how she saw Ivan; both of those facts are irrelevant to the fact that she was a victim of a serious offense against herself. Ivan's niceness is irrelevant in light of the fact that she was in a marriage in which she did not wish to be.

Being married is not an affront to her because she's Chaotic. Being married against her will, at crossbow point, to someone she did not like was an affront to her because she's a person.

Her being Chaotic just means she's more likely to rightly want to rain destruction on her clan, for which I would compliment her.

[Lord Joeltion]

That was a shotgun wedding reference, it does not work if the crossbow is not here for her.

FWIW, a "shotgun reference" would usually aim for the groom, not the bride. What is your point exactly anyway? "Reference" doesn't imply "actual depiction of the facts". Specially when it's part of a running gag (her narrative bias)

[Darth Paul]

No.

One, she very much is a victim in this context. So is Ivan, for that matter, though he's way too simple to understand it.

Two, she very much was Chaotic Evil and maybe even delusional in how she saw Ivan; both of those facts are irrelevant to the fact that she was a victim of a serious offense against herself. Ivan's niceness is irrelevant in light of the fact that she was in a marriage in which she did not wish to be.

Being married is not an affront to her because she's Chaotic. Being married against her will, at crossbow point, to someone she did not like was an affront to her because she's a person.

Allow me to reply with my own "No".

By our societal norms, yes, it's offensive to be placed in an arranged marriage. But by the norms of almost every society for most of human history, that was the normal course of affairs (especially for the nobility) and was largely accepted by both parties. And every indication is that it's the accepted norm in dwarven society as well.

Again, it's not clear that there was a crossbow pressed to Hilgya's back, any more than there was a bottle of poison in Ivan's sandwich. The visual shorthand indicated that she was forced into marriage; that's all. I never once imagined that there was an actual crossbow there during the proceedings, just a case of her relatives telling her in no uncertain terms that she was getting married, "or else!"

[Lord Raziere]

Allow me to reply with my own "No".

By our societal norms, yes, it's offensive to be placed in an arranged marriage. But by the norms of almost every society for most of human history, that was the normal course of affairs (especially for the nobility) and was largely accepted by both parties. And every indication is that it's the accepted norm in dwarven society as well.

Again, it's not clear that there was a crossbow pressed to Hilgya's back, any more than there was a bottle of poison in Ivan's sandwich. The visual shorthand indicated that she was forced into marriage; that's all. I never once imagined that there was an actual crossbow there during the proceedings, just a case of her relatives telling her in no uncertain terms that she was getting married, "or else!"

"normal" means nothing morally speaking. evil can be considered normal. some evils often are.

[Fyraltari]

FWIW, a "shotgun reference" would usually aim for the groom, not the bride. What is your point exactly anyway? "Reference" doesn't imply "actual depiction of the facts". Specially when it's part of a running gag (her narrative bias)

The shotgun would be aimed at the unwilling party, obviously. Traditionnally it's the groom, but I see no reason why itcould notbe the bride.

My point isthat claiming that if there was a crossbow it was not aimed at Hilgya does not make sense. Now, you can claim the crossbow was a comedic hyperbole and was not really there.

[Darth Paul]

"normal" means nothing morally speaking. evil can be considered normal. some evils often are.

You've defined all arranged marriages throughout history as evil, by the fact that they were arranged.

Agreed, some were. Then again, some were merely a way of making the social contract between two families, where the kids were introduced, an attraction was there, and the relationship was formalized. Others were (and still are) hideous ways to marry off a girl to a rich old man who essentially bought a child bride. We don't know from the text what the dwarf marriage usually is, but as most dwarfs are Lawful Good, I suspect it's a social contract where both participants are usually willing.

What the circumstances were around Hilgya's wedding, we can't know as yet. We can only speculate. Given her personality, maybe she was a "wild child" and was being forced into marriage in an attempt to settle her down. I don't know. But I don't accept that Hilgya was a victim to the degree she portrays, or that she played no part in getting to that point- especially considering how we've seen her exaggerate the narrative of her affair with Durkon to cast herself as the victim there. She's an unreliable expositor in the extreme.

[Lord Joeltion]

The shotgun would be aimed at the unwilling party, obviously. Traditionnally it's the groom, but I see no reason why itcould notbe the bride.

My point isthat claiming that if there was a crossbow it was not aimed at Hilgya does not make sense. Now, you can claim the crossbow was a comedic hyperbole and was not really there.

But that's not what I claimed. I simply said that the crossbow didn't need to be there in order to exercise coercion on Hilgya. As in "maybe that's not the real explanation of how the crossbow ended up there in the first place". Maybe it was there because, you know, both clans are really aggressive/paranoid about the other party not fulfilling their part of the agreement. Maybe Hilgya was coerced by something else besides the crossbow in the room. It's plausible the family forced her because they are really evil and don't care about her desires; but maybe her family is the one threatened so they pushed her into doing so. Which (given what we know about her) she will surely interpret as their family not caring about her desires and blaming them anyway.

That the crossbow is a "reference of", doesn't necessarily imply that is the only plausible explanation. Maybe the real situation was literally a "shotgun wedding"; or maybe it was a wedding that looked oddly reminiscent of one. Maybe it wasn't an hyperbole. Maybe it wasn't a straight out lie on Hilgya's behalf. Maybe it was just a third option.

[KorvinStarmast]

By our societal norms, yes, it's offensive to be placed in an arranged marriage. But by the norms of almost every society for most of human history, that was the normal course of affairs (especially for the nobility) and was largely accepted by both parties. And every indication is that it's the accepted norm in dwarven society as well.[

Well said.

"normal" means nothing morally speaking. evil can be considered normal. some evils often are.

Politics is a necessary evil, but our modern society seems to be unable to function without one. From a chaotic or anarchic point of view, government of any sort is a (barely tolerated) evil but serves at least to establish something that the chaotic or anarchic sort can be against. And that ends my digrerssion toward RL stuff, back to arranged dwarf nuptials.

[The_Weirdo]

You've defined all arranged marriages throughout history as evil, by the fact that they were arranged.

Yes. He did. Because, well, it is. It's an intrusion upon the rights of an individual.

[Lord Joeltion]

Yes. He did. Because, well, it is. It's an intrusion upon the rights of an individual.

What if it's about saving the kingdom from utter destruction? What if it's to avoid the death of the father by having the other family pay his mob debts? You can't make such absolute claims without considering you may, at some point, be wrong. Or biased. Right of individuals are overrated. They are not.

Not saying the above aren't morally questionable (they still are); but you can't make a hard claim that every arranged marriage carries a negative moral weight. It doesn't seem... appropriate.

[Vinyadan]

Arranged ≠ forced, though. Rich people asking matchmakers to arrange them a marriage with someone equally rich were a thing, and these were people (both parties) at the top of the food chain, that were impossible to coerce.

This doesn't mean that forced marriages are OK, of course. The problem with Hilgya's marriage is exactly that she was coerced, and that was a wrong against her.

The problem with Hilgya instead is that she first tried to murder her oblivious husband, and only later to run away.

I think that the crossbow was there, and that it was there for Hilgya. The point was that of giving some credit to Hilgya's description of the dwarven way as completely screwed up and unacceptable, which also adds depth for what it says about Durkon.

[martianmister]

The problem with Hilgya instead is that she first tried to murder her oblivious husband, and only later to run away.

That's the biggest obstacle for us to understand Hilgya. We still don't know why she didn't simply leave. It's the key to understand her.

[DaggerPen]

Arranged ≠ forced, though. Rich people asking matchmakers to arrange them a marriage with someone equally rich were a thing, and these were people (both parties) at the top of the food chain, that were impossible to coerce.

This doesn't mean that forced marriages are OK, of course. The problem with Hilgya's marriage is exactly that she was coerced, and that was a wrong against her.

The problem with Hilgya instead is that she first tried to murder her oblivious husband, and only later to run away.

I think that the crossbow was there, and that it was there for Hilgya. The point was that of giving some credit to Hilgya's description of the dwarven way as completely screwed up and unacceptable, which also adds depth for what it says about Durkon.

This, basically. Arranged marriages are not inherently evil. The involved parties may be perfectly comfortable with the benefits of it and not interested in eschewing it to pursue other options. Forced marriages, however, are. If someone says "no, I do not want to get married," it is not okay to override that.