What is V's gender

[Mightymosy]

This isn't complicated. People tend to leave groups hostile to them, which doesn't have to be personal - consistent hostility to a group they're in does just fine there. It also doesn't require the hostility to come from everyone, just a large enough group and enough lack of push back from outside parties.

Given that this leaving is precipitated by the actions of other people it's entirely reasonable to characterize it as pushing out.

Said hostility can also be expressed indirectly via talking about fictional characters. To use a more overt example, Roy is black. If a significant fraction of the forum constantly referred to Roy as "a n*@&%#" it would make the forum hostile to actual black people. That Roy is a fictional character means approximately jack-all in this context. Neither does that particular example representing a particularly extreme lack of finesse in hostility, far below what people here are capable of. Finding a more sophisticated way to express the same basic idea doesn't make it less hostile, or change the irrelevancy of fictional characters being the object of discussion.

So you are saying that black people would get offended if we used derogative terms for black people when talking about Roy.
Okay. I get that.

What I don't get is the point where Extinguisher feels offended. I got that it is somehow related to V, and about gender. But which words? What word are we not supposed to use? Genderqueer? Trans?
I'm sorry, but I looked through this thread, and I just can't get a concise answer, like "calling V n*gga is bad because it insults black people". Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I just can't make sense of what's wrong here....

Were were talking about which sex/gender Rich had in mind when he wrote OotS 1-10, or at least that's my impression. Some people thought male, and some female. Some people said that V is NOW considered genderqueer by word of Rich - which doesn't answer how he designed V at firsrt, but ok.....or, not ok??? Are we not supposed to call V that because it offends genderqueer people? Or trans people?

ETA (to avoid double post, for whatever reason :rolleyes:):

...come again? There's no way for the Order of the Stick to be actually gender-balanced. You point that out yourself: 4 men out of a six-member group is enough to say "this group cannot be gender-balanced" without looking at the other two at all. What he said was that he thought, until it was pointed out to him, that he'd made the non-Order parts of the comic appropriately gender balanced.

I don't say it is gender balanced. Not at 1:5, not at 2:4.

But you point out that his other teams consistently are 2:4.

And I got the notion that he felt that his other teams were an improvement to the OotS team, in terms of gender balance.

Which wouldn't make sense to me if the original OotS team had also been 2:4, because 2:4 to 2:4 is no improvement, at least not in pure numbers.

[Liquor Box]

So you are saying that black people would get offended if we used derogative terms for black people when talking about Roy.
Okay. I get that.

What I don't get is the point where Extinguisher feels offended. I got that it is somehow related to V, and about gender. But which words? What word are we not supposed to use? Genderqueer? Trans?
I'm sorry, but I looked through this thread, and I just can't get a concise answer, like "calling V n*gga is bad because it insults black people". Maybe it's because I'm tired, but I just can't make sense of what's wrong here....

Were were talking about which sex/gender Rich had in mind when he wrote OotS 1-10, or at least that's my impression. Some people thought male, and some female. Some people said that V is NOW considered genderqueer by word of Rich - which doesn't answer how he designed V at firsrt, but ok.....or, not ok??? Are we not supposed to call V that because it offends genderqueer people? Or trans people?

I think what is being suggested is that the discussion is offensive to trans people in a less obvious way than using clearly derogatory terms. Knaight just used a derogatory term as an obvious example.

If I understand Extinguisher correctly (and I sometimes don't), they are saying that this thread is upsetting because all the discussion is about V's sex as originally conceived, which emphasises that aspect over V's gender identity. I think Extinguisher feels that gender identity is much more important (or is perhaps the only thing that is important).

It seems to me that the reason the emphasis is on V's original sex is that that is still a (deliberate by the author) mystery, whereas most people seem to agree on V's gender identity as gender-queer.

[Knaight]

So you are saying that black people would get offended if we used derogative terms for black people when talking about Roy.
Okay. I get that.

What I don't get is the point where Extinguisher feels offended. I got that it is somehow related to V, and about gender. But which words? What word are we not supposed to use? Genderqueer? Trans?

My entire point is that it's not just a matter of "which words". The use of highly loaded terminology is the extremely low finesse option that I explicitly stated was beneath the sophistication of this forum. It's a matter of substance and not style, where exactly how an argument is presented is a lot less important than what it is.

Here's Extinguisher's beef*: There is a pattern when discussing actual nonbinary people, where people dismiss their actual gender in favor of digging into their past to find what gender someone else assigned them at some point. Here we have a thread initially made to discuss what gender V is, which got derailed by a discussion of what gender V was initially conceptualized as, implicitly setting up that derailing discussion as the more important of the two.

There's an obvious parallel there. More than that, if you were trying to dismiss the genders of actual nonbinary people, the low finesse way is to just do that. It's obvious, the optics aren't great, and there's roughly no plausible deniability. The high finesse way to do that is to pick a fictional parallel, use it as plausible deniability, and bury your message in the subtext.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I am saying that it's an established strategy that hostile people deliberately use. Given that it's hardly unreasonable that it doesn't go over well for the people on the receiving end of that strategy.

*As interpreted by a third party less informed than them. I don't speak for them and welcome correction.

[2D8HP]

In Second Edition AD&D, elven lifespans varied by subrace. Drow lived shorter than all the others, I remember. The longest-lived subrace (don't remember which it was) could live up to 3,000 years.

Maybe Gray Elves who could live the longest of the elf sub-races in 1e.

It went:

Drow, up to a 1000 years old

Aquatic, up to a 1200 years old

Wood, up to a 1350 years old

High, up to a 1600 years old, and

Gray, up to a 2000 years old

The next longest live race in 1e AD&D were Gnomes (which were mechanically identical to Dwarves in oD&D) which could live up to 750 years old (the same as 5e Elves).

Gray Elves also had +1 to INT in the 1e Monster Manual, but that wasn't mentioned again in the PHB or DMG, so maybe just for NPC's.

A weird thing is that I could have sworn that in 1e one of the races females had a higher max in one of the ability scores, but in looking at the PHB again, all I see is lower maximum strengths.

Memory is tricky.

But those fiddly things (like racial level limits), aren't carried over to WD&D.

I feel like I maybe should be listing other ways that characters, and settings, in what is nominally the same fictional universe, may be very different eary on than later, and how Bilbo Baggins got the Ring in the 1937 Hobbit, and the LotR's shows the benefit of retconning, and as much as I enjoy the equally useless quoting of earlier D&D rules text, I think that trying to guess how Rich "originally" thought of Vaarsuvius is a fools errand.

Laugh at the old strips, cheer, cry, gasp and sigh at the new ones, it's all we may do.

Except that Han Solo totally shot first, I mean what does George Lucas know about it?

(I really should be more sparing with sarcasm, but it's so hard!)

[Vinyadan]

I think that V was created a male, and was later andogynised. Reasons:

- The way he's drawn in the early chapters is consistent with other male characters (eye position in particular); it was later made ambiguous.
- The "I smurfetted Haley" thing.* http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=477
- The old avatars showing elves have clearly differentiated males and females.

Not that it's a big deal. I would never have noticed the androgynous thing, if it hadn't been for the comic occasionally pointing it out. I also read Vaarsuvius's name as masculine, although that's just my thing. I actually didn't understand it was from Vesuvius, and thought it was from Warsaw.

*the way I understand the post, before the comic was actually drawn, the party was projected with 6 men. Then Haley was changed to woman before she was drawn ("that one"). So V was first drawn a man. Of course, one can understand "that one" as "that one occasion", and read the post as more vague and not conceding anything about V's original sex the first time he was drawn.

Concerning V's gender being "genderqueer", I think that it's true only up to a point. Reason 1 is that genderqueer means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, depending on whom you ask, and may be a catch-all term that doesn't actually define the gender in a conclusive way, although it does mean belonging to a sexual minority. Reason 2 is the more important one and one which I haven't seen pointed out yet, which is that it was in the same phrase that defined Julio as a Latino. To put it short: "what is this Japan you speak of?". In other words, I think that the Giant was using RL terms to address RL issues in that commentary. This makes the applicability of those terms within the OotS world limited. Which doesn't mean that V isn't genderqueer. But I wouldn't extend the meaning of V's genderqueerness beyond what we have seen in the comic (blindness or lack of interest towards genders, that thing with not taking Inky's hint about the kids being out, physical androginity), in the same way I wouldn't expand Julio being Latino beyond what we have seen in the comic (he has a Spanish/Portuguese name, and a potentially appropriate skin colour, but not a place of birth in the Americas, or immigration on US soil).

[Kish]

And I got the notion that he felt that his other teams were an improvement to the OotS team, in terms of gender balance.

Which wouldn't make sense to me if the original OotS team had also been 2:4, because 2:4 to 2:4 is no improvement, at least not in pure numbers.

This is what he said:

The truth is, I thought I had included female characters. Not in the initial group of six—I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you—but in the time since. I never crunched the numbers. I was under the impression—literally until this thread—that I had done a good job including female characters.

I'm not seeing a logical way to get "he thought other adventurer teams being 4 male/2 female was an improvement over the Order of the Stick" out of that. If he was thinking solely or primarily of other adventuring groups, it's obvious at a glance that they don't constitute "a good job including female characters." If, as seems a far more likely reading of his words to me, he's thinking in terms of the overall population of the world having enough women to counterbalance his adventuring parties being lopsided toward male...then that doesn't say anything about the other adventuring parties being less lopsided than the Order. (Although, again: The Order has, present tense, one explicitly female character, and one character who is genderqueer. If Vaarsuvius originally had and still has a vulva, that doesn't change the fact that the Order has one (1) cis woman, which is fewer than the other groups I named; regardless of Vaarsuvius' original and current anatomy, it has four cis men, which is the same number as the other groups I named.)

[Mightymosy]

My entire point is that it's not just a matter of "which words". The use of highly loaded terminology is the extremely low finesse option that I explicitly stated was beneath the sophistication of this forum. It's a matter of substance and not style, where exactly how an argument is presented is a lot less important than what it is.

Here's Extinguisher's beef*: There is a pattern when discussing actual nonbinary people, where people dismiss their actual gender in favor of digging into their past to find what gender someone else assigned them at some point. Here we have a thread initially made to discuss what gender V is, which got derailed by a discussion of what gender V was initially conceptualized as, implicitly setting up that derailing discussion as the more important of the two.

There's an obvious parallel there. More than that, if you were trying to dismiss the genders of actual nonbinary people, the low finesse way is to just do that. It's obvious, the optics aren't great, and there's roughly no plausible deniability. The high finesse way to do that is to pick a fictional parallel, use it as plausible deniability, and bury your message in the subtext.

I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I am saying that it's an established strategy that hostile people deliberately use. Given that it's hardly unreasonable that it doesn't go over well for the people on the receiving end of that strategy.

*As interpreted by a third party less informed than them. I don't speak for them and welcome correction.

Let's wait for Extinguisher then, because, honestly, this seems just overly complicated to me.

The fact what gender V is was seemingly decided as genderqueer by a word of the author quotation, so people started wondering about other questions which were related to that - namely, what gender Rich initially had in mind, since people knew that he had a gender in mind and then later changed that to ambigous, and then later to genderqueer. And appaerantly, there were different opinions as to what the initial designed gender might have been.


As far as OotS thread derailments go, this was one of the mildest cases I have ever seen.
What is V's gender?
to
What was V's gender in the mind of the author at the writing of the first strips?



And that is taken as an offense?




Also, one more thing about a specific point by you:
"implicitly setting up that derailing discussion as the more important of the two."
More important to whom? Why is this such a big deal to---anyone?
It might have been the more important question to the one "derailing" the conversation......so what? People have different interests.

Hell, in this case it might even have been me. I am more interested in what gender Rich had in mind when designing V first, than in what gender V is now.
Because V's gender is V's gender, not my business. Why should I care? If it affects the story, fine, if not: unimportant for me. Let people be what they want to be. Why make such a fuss?

The only reason to care about it, other than story, is for representation sake. Ok, do it. People can talk about that if they want.
But why can't I - or anyone else - bring up questions we want to talk about, questions that are clearly and closely related to the opening topic?
This is a free forum (apart from some rules). It's not as if people now can not discuss what V's gender is anymore, after someone asked what V's gender was designed as in the beginning.

I see what you describe as "pattern", but really, if that's seeing intent, it's seeing ghosts. I remember having asked Kish what they thought initially V's gender was, and at that point I wasn't even thinking about genderqueer/trans/whatever things at all. At that point I cared for their impression, and nothing else. If they wanted to answer, fine. If not, fine. If other people want to talk about the actual gender and queerness thereof, fine by me.
Seeing malicious intent? Not so much fine.


Oh man, this all makes so little sense, I think I have to sleep now. G'Night y'all

I think that V was created a male, and was later andogynised. Reasons:

- The way he's drawn in the early chapters is consistent with other male characters (eye position in particular); it was later made ambiguous.
- The "I smurfetted Haley" thing.* http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=477[...]

Thanks for the post! I quote the Giant here:
"The truth is, I thought I had included female characters. Not in the initial group of six—I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you—but in the time since."

For me that reads pretty definitive: No females in the initial group of six until he smurfetted Haley, with the added clarification: No, not even V, even if you (the reader) reads as female to you.

Hmmph. Nice to know, but I think I would have left that a mystery until the making of, when OotS is finished. Why must I click on the link? Curiosity kills the cat, I guess.

This is what he said:

The truth is, I thought I had included female characters. Not in the initial group of six—I totally cop to having Smurfetted that one, even if V reads as female to you—but in the time since. I never crunched the numbers. I was under the impression—literally until this thread—that I had done a good job including female characters.

I'm not seeing a logical way to get "he thought other adventurer teams being 4 male/2 female was an improvement over the Order of the Stick" out of that. If he was thinking solely or primarily of other adventuring groups, it's obvious at a glance that they don't constitute "a good job including female characters." If, as seems a far more likely reading of his words to me, he's thinking in terms of the overall population of the world having enough women to counterbalance his adventuring parties being lopsided toward male...then that doesn't say anything about the other adventuring parties being less lopsided than the Order. (Although, again: The Order has, present tense, one explicitly female character, and one character who is genderqueer. If Vaarsuvius originally had and still has a vulva, that doesn't change the fact that the Order has one (1) cis woman, which is fewer than the other groups I named; regardless of Vaarsuvius' original and current anatomy, it has four cis men, which is the same number as the other groups I named.)

Me neither. What I think of the quote now that I have the full version available, see above.

Is that all he said about having improved gender representation? Because I had the feeling that there was more, thus my notion. Anyways, I really am too tired for this stuff, so good night!

[Kish]

Uh...okay...

I have no clue how you could take that to mean "I created a bunch of male characters and then made one of them female." That's not even what happened in the actual Smurfs. Now I'm getting a really strong impression that you were looking for justification to think of Vaarsuvius as male.

The answer to the question "What is V's gender" is "genderqueer." I pointed out Dr. Zero's dismissiveness toward the idea that that's an actual answer, and thus--the derail, apparently about something that at least one of the people asking thinks is relevant to Vaarsuvius now.

Goodnight.

[zimmerwald1915]

Uh...okay...

I have no clue how you could take that to mean "I created a bunch of male characters and then made one of them female." That's not even what happened in the actual Smurfs. Now I'm getting a really strong impression that you were looking for justification to think of Vaarsuvius as male.

The answer to the question "What is V's gender" is "genderqueer." I pointed out Dr. Zero's dismissiveness toward the idea that that's an actual answer, and thus--the derail, apparently about something that at least one of the people asking thinks is relevant to Vaarsuvius now.

Goodnight.

Makes you wonder why people bother creating threads that have practically no legs. Is it just to troll the Extinguisher?

[137beth]

The same reason i argue in a lot of threads that upset, frustrate and insult me. Because i refuse to be pushed out of talking about the thing i like because other people that like it are trying to push me out.

Sure V is not real, but there are real non-binary people who read the comic and they deserve a place to talk about it that doesnt casually dismiss their identity

Also, 'cause there may be other people reading the thread who aren't commenting but still get some joy from reading your posts.

Like, a big part of the reason I'm reading this thread is for your posts. The rest is mostly 2d8HP's posts

[Vinyadan]

Uh...okay...

I have no clue how you could take that to mean "I created a bunch of male characters and then made one of them female." That's not even what happened in the actual Smurfs. Now I'm getting a really strong impression that you were looking for justification to think of Vaarsuvius as male.

The answer to the question "What is V's gender" is "genderqueer." I pointed out Dr. Zero's dismissiveness toward the idea that that's an actual answer, and thus--the derail, apparently about something that at least one of the people asking thinks is relevant to Vaarsuvius now.

Goodnight.

I understand "smurfetting" as "adding one female character to an otherwise all-male cast". I don't know how else it can make sense, in this context. I don't think that Rich sent a female cast member to sow dissent among the Order, or that he turned a brunette into a blonde when she stopped being evil.

[Kish]

There is (note the present tense, it's important) one cis woman in the protagonist group. That's established, and also true of the Smurfs.

Assuming that not-female=male, assuming that "Rich was talking not about the Order as it is but about the Order as he originally conceived it before Vaarsuvius became genderqueer"...those are on you (and actually say a lot about how much there really is to the idea that people insisting that Rich somehow indicated Vaarsuvius is originally male aren't trying to say anything about Vaarsuvius as they actually are now).

Rich has spelled out that Vaarsuvius, not Haley, was the last character he added to the party and the one who almost wasn't there, so the interpretation you're arguing for is flatly impossible; he may have initially planned a party with one woman or, when he decided Roy wouldn't be the mage, with two, but he did not come up with a party with zero and then add a woman to it after all the men (or even after all the not-women).

[woweedd]

Well, we know V's gender: Genderqueer. Their sex, either at creation or as of now, is wholly irrelevant to the comic, something we cannot and will not ever know, and speculating is, at best, pointless, and, at worst, actively harmful to the many real-life people in similar situations. Unless you're about to have sex with the person, their biological sex is none of your business, and that applies equally to fictional characters.

[Mightymosy]

There is (note the present tense, it's important) one cis woman in the protagonist group. That's established, and also true of the Smurfs.

Assuming that not-female=male, assuming that "Rich was talking not about the Order as it is but about the Order as he originally conceived it before Vaarsuvius became genderqueer"...those are on you (and actually say a lot about how much there really is to the idea that people insisting that Rich somehow indicated Vaarsuvius is originally male aren't trying to say anything about Vaarsuvius as they actually are now).

Rich has spelled out that Vaarsuvius, not Haley, was the last character he added to the party and the one who almost wasn't there, so the interpretation you're arguing for is flatly impossible; he may have initially planned a party with one woman or, when he decided Roy wouldn't be the mage, with two, but he did not come up with a party with zero and then add a woman to it after all the men (or even after all the not-women).

1. The term smurfette was explained to me as "all male but 1 is made female.
2. I thought Rich was talking about all six. If he was talking about the creation of 5, and meant to say that V was created later, sure, then your explanation makes just as much sense, and we're back to not knowing (V's gender at character creation)
I'll say that I am less knowledgable about Rich's exact statements than you are, so if you say that was the narrative (He talking about the creation of 5, and V later), I believe you and concede that we just don't have any proof to either way.
3. I'm not determined to find proof for V being male, neither at the start nor right now. For me, it is an open question to which I'm curious to know the answer. Since my personal guess was male, of course I was happy having "found out" my guess was right, until you said that Rich was talking about 5, not 6. If tomorrow Rich comes out and showed character sketches from 1995 with V=female, alright. No problem. Then I know my guess was wrong, yours was right, but finally there's closure.

I'm fine with V's current gender as is.I find it a cool storytelling decision, if not only for the fact that a lot of jokes with Belkar and V were simply very funny.
Plus, inclusiveness is always a nice thing.

Well, we know V's gender: Genderqueer. Their sex, either at creation or as of now, is wholly irrelevant to the comic, something we cannot and will not ever know, and speculating is, at best, pointless, and, at worst, actively harmful to the many real-life people in similar situations. Unless you're about to have sex with the person, their biological sex is none of your business, and that applies equally to fictional characters.

Well, why??

First, why should any reader limit themselves to any sort of questions about the content or the creative process about a work they are interested in?
Some questions make more sense than others, and it is ALWAYS the author's right to decide not to answer questions, but one can always ask, especially so in an open discussion forum


2. Especially when the author made the topic in question a deliberate mystery!

Didnt Rich at some point say something like: "I'll never tell! Muahahahahaha"
Or was that about Monster in the dark?

Anyway, V's sex was the focus of a lot of gags, so I feel I can wonder about it if I want.

It would be slightly different if V's gender/sex was ambigous and it never ever was the topic of any conversation in the comic.
But EVEN THEN, why should people not discuss it because they were simply curious?
There is a thread about trying to figure out any random stats about all the characters - because people just like to guess and argue. I don't see why this is an exception.

[woweedd]

1. The term smurfette was explained to me as "all male but 1 is made female.
2. I thought Rich was talking about all six. If he was talking about the creation of 5, and meant to say that V was created later, sure, then your explanation makes just as much sense, and we're back to not knowing (V's gender at character creation)
I'll say that I am less knowledgable about Rich's exact statements than you are, so if you say that was the narrative (He talking about the creation of 5, and V later), I believe you and concede that we just don't have any proof to either way.
3. I'm not determined to find proof for V being male, neither at the start nor right now. For me, it is an open question to which I'm curious to know the answer. Since my personal guess was male, of course I was happy having "found out" my guess was right, until you said that Rich was talking about 5, not 6. If tomorrow Rich comes out and showed character sketches from 1995 with V=female, alright. No problem. Then I know my guess was wrong, yours was right, but finally there's closure.

I'm fine with V's current gender as is.I find it a cool storytelling decision, if not only for the fact that a lot of jokes with Belkar and V were simply very funny.
Plus, inclusiveness is always a nice thing.



Well, why??

First, why should any reader limit themselves to any sort of questions about the content or the creative process about a work they are interested in?
Some questions make more sense than others, and it is ALWAYS the author's right to decide not to answer questions, but one can always ask, especially so in an open discussion forum


2. Especially when the author made the topic in question a deliberate mystery!

Didnt Rich at some point say something like: "I'll never tell! Muahahahahaha"
Or was that about Monster in the dark?

Anyway, V's sex was the focus of a lot of gags, so I feel I can wonder about it if I want.

It would be slightly different if V's gender/sex was ambigous and it never ever was the topic of any conversation in the comic.
But EVEN THEN, why should people not discuss it because they were simply curious?
There is a thread about trying to figure out any random stats about all the characters - because people just like to guess and argue. I don't see why this is an exception.

V's sex is non-existent. There is no answer. In the words of The Sesame Workshop: "They don't exist below the waist." Also, yes, V's sex is a mystery, but it's not a mystery like MITD. That actually HAS a definitive answer. V's sex is a comedic mystery, one that there is no answer to, and that's the joke. Also, while i'm all for baseless speculation, V as they currently are and V as originally conceived have as much relation to each other as my shampoo has to a coconut: There's a little connection, but it's not much to go on. It feels like a pointless thing to debate, since we're not getting a definitive answer, and it's pointless to the story.

[Mightymosy]

V's sex is non-existent. There is no answer. In the words of The Sesame Workshop: "They don't exist below the waist." Also, yes, V's sex is a mystery, but it's not a mystery like MITD. That actually HAS a definitive answer. V's sex is a comedic mystery, one that there is no answer to, and that's the joke. Also, while i'm all for baseless speculation, V as they currently are and V as originally conceived have as much relation to each other as my shampoo has to a coconut: There's a little connection, but it's not much to go on. It feels like a pointless thing to debate, since we're not getting a definitive answer, and it's pointless to the story.

1. You think V - in universe - has no genitals???
2. Most characters dont have stats either, still quite some people have a lot of fun discussing what these stats may be.
3. The point of the question which we were arguing just now was what sex/gender Rich had in mind when inventing V.
That one definitely has a definite answer.
4. The question and the answer may be irrelevant to you. Who cares? The whole comic is irrelevant. It is an imagination of an unimportant person of an unimportant species in an uncaring universe.
So what?
Some people of that unimportant species like to discuss unimportant details of an unimportant work of art that one of their peers created.
Whats the matter to you?
If you find the point unimportant, stay away, or suggest a point of discussion that is interesting to you.

ETA:
4. Also, talk about trying to bully people out of a thread......I guess I should not feel offended, because, right?

ETA ETA:
5. V's gender was a relevant plot point. Apart from being a really good basis for some of the best jokes in the comic, it was an important aspect of their relation with Belkar, with character defining moments for both of which. Which is good for a character-driven story.

[woweedd]

1. You think V - in universe - has no genitals???
2. Most characters dont have stats either, still quite some people have a lot of fun discussing what these stats may be.
3. The point of the question which we were arguing just now was what sex/gender Rich had in mind when inventing V.
That one definitely has a definite answer.
4. The question and the answer may be irrelevant to you. Who cares? The whole comic is irrelevant. It is an imagination of an unimportant person of an unimportant species in an uncaring universe.
So what?
Some people of that unimportant species like to discuss unimportant details of an unimportant work of art that one of their peers created.
Whats the matter to you?
If you find the point unimportant, stay away, or suggest a point of discussion that is interesting to you.

1. Actually, that's plausible, but I more meant in the "I doubt even Rich has an answer" sense.
2. Yeah, and nothing wrong with that, but at least THEY have something more to go on then rumors and hearsay.
3. True, but since, absent a quote from Rich, we are unable to answer it, and it bears no relevance to the comic as it stands, I fail to see anyway discussing it could result in something constructive.
4. Because these discussions are not only impossible to conclude, but, in my experience, at best, lead to no actual points that haven't already been raised and, at worst, give rise to some very vile rhetoric. There's equal evidence either way, which means i'm fairly certain no one will be convinced and all we're doing is perpetuating ideals of sex as something that actually matters outside of procreation.

[hroþila]

5. V's gender was a relevant plot point. Apart from being a really good basis for some of the best jokes in the comic, it was an important aspect of their relation with Belkar, with character defining moments for both of which. Which is good for a character-driven story.

Jokes are not plot points, and why should Belkar's attraction depend on V's gender anyway?

[Mightymosy]

Jokes are not plot points, and why should Belkar's attraction depend on V's gender anyway?

V's gender (or mystery of gender) was important for BOTH jokes AND plot (relation to Belkar).

Because Belkar is into chicks, so for him it obviously matters.

[kivzirrum]

Gender is overrated and V has transcended such petty concerns

Really this whole line of argument going on right now is super uncomfortable to me, cause it mirrors a lot of things that real world non-binary people hear all the time. We cant just accept the identity they say they are, we need to dig and probe until we find out what 'originally' or 'really' are

I couldn't agree more. This thread is supremely icky.

[Kish]

1. The term smurfette was explained to me as "all male but 1 is made female.

Someone in this thread asserted that. It doesn't make any sense to me, and as I said, based on Rich's described creative process it's certainly not what he did, since Haley wasn't the last member of the Order added.

I quoted what Rich said. He never addressed the Smurfetted line beyond saying it, in an acknowledgement that he didn't make the main cast gender-balanced but had only just realized how badly unbalanced the rest of the comic's cast was. Most people who talk casually about "Smurfette" as a problem, in my experience, mean, "There's only one woman in the cast." I read the Smurfetted line as "there is only one woman in the main cast." This is something that was established and obvious before he said it; Vaarsuvius is genderqueer and thus is not a woman (or a man). Again, only one female only implies all but one are male if the person seeing that implication rejects the concept of being genderqueer--in which case that person can't actually arrive at Vaarsuvius' gender.

[Mightymosy]

Makes you wonder why people bother creating threads that have practically no legs. Is it just to troll the Extinguisher?

Maybe for some people it's an interesting guessing game? For me, it certainly is.

1. Actually, that's plausible, but I more meant in the "I doubt even Rich has an answer" sense.
2. Yeah, and nothing wrong with that, but at least THEY have something more to go on then rumors and hearsay.
3. True, but since, absent a quote from Rich, we are unable to answer it, and it bears no relevance to the comic as it stands, I fail to see anyway discussing it could result in something constructive.
4. Because these discussions are not only impossible to conclude, but, in my experience, best, lead to no actual points that haven't already been raised and, at worst, give rise to some very vile rhetoric. There's equal evidence either way, which means i'm fairly certain no one will be convinced and all we're doing is perpetuating ideals of sex as something that actually matters outside of procreation.

1. I thought Rich had an answer...
2. I often skim to the Class & Level Geekery Thread, and to my impression they often have less to work with - of course, then they often don't find a definitive answer either.
3. Well, it's a fun guessing game, it provides insight into the creative process like a making-of, and it is constructive. See 4, for this. Also, it is an important plot point in the Vaarsuvius-Belkar relationship.


4. For example, I learned at least three things, of different values:
a) The "smurfette" narrative appearantly did not include V, so it is not a clue to the mystery.
b) V is now considered genderqueer by Rich. I also didn't know that. I thought V was of the "I am not telling you" gender, still. What that means, also stuff for quite interesting dicussions. Due to c), I'll never open that discussion though. Someone else may do that.
c) V's gender is an extremely hot button for some people.

So, for me this dicussion has been productive. But maybe that's my (idealistic) view of internet dicussions is one of trading arguments back and forth, while weighing which ones are reasonable, and am not discarding it as "pointless" in the first place, and try hard not to read offensive subtext where there maybe isn't even one.

Gender is overrated and V has transcended such petty concerns



I couldn't agree more. This thread is supremely icky.

Agree on both ends.

Someone in this thread asserted that. It doesn't make any sense to me, and as I said, based on Rich's described creative process it's certainly not what he did, since Haley wasn't the last member of the Order added.

I quoted what Rich said. He never addressed the Smurfetted line beyond saying it, in an acknowledgement that he didn't make the main cast gender-balanced but had only just realized how badly unbalanced the rest of the comic's cast was. Most people who talk casually about "Smurfette" as a problem, in my experience, mean, "There's only one woman in the cast." I read the Smurfetted line as "there is only one woman in the main cast." This is something that was established and obvious before he said it; Vaarsuvius is genderqueer and thus is not a woman (or a man). Again, only one female only implies all but one are male if the person seeing that implication rejects the concept of being genderqueer--in which case that person can't actually arrive at Vaarsuvius' gender.

1. It is certainly possible Rich used a different definition of "smurfetting", but we don't need to discuss that, since the sentence before says "only one woman", right? I have a little trouble reading your sentences, sorry. To clarify: Your position is:
A) "only one woman" means 5, minus V, because V was created later
or
B) "only one woman" means 6, because V doesn't count towards "cis women", because V was initially concepted as trans person?
Or something else?

[Kish]

I suspect you're having trouble processing what I'm saying because you're trying to jam it into the "Rich gave away Vaarsuvius' original sex" framework, where it doesn't fit.

My position is:
1) Your assumption that Rich was even talking about how he initially conceived Vaarsuvius is insupportable. It was a throwaway line acknowledging that his protagonist group isn't, as of when he posted it sometime in Blood Runs in the Family, gender balanced, and only has one woman, thus "Smurfette."
2) Vaarsuvius is genderqueer. This isn't actually a position; it's an established fact; Rich spelled it out in the commentary of Blood Runs in the Family.
3) The Order has four men, one woman, and a genderqueer person. Again, not a position, an established fact as of Blood Runs in the Family commentary. Again: One woman, thus Smurfette. Not "all but one men, thus Smurfette."

[Mightymosy]

I suspect you're having trouble processing what I'm saying because you're trying to jam it into the "Rich gave away Vaarsuvius' original sex" framework, where it doesn't fit.

My position is:
1) Your assumption that Rich was even talking about how he initially conceived Vaarsuvius is insupportable. It was a throwaway line acknowledging that his protagonist group isn't, as of when he posted it sometime in Blood Runs in the Family, gender balanced, and only has one woman, thus "Smurfette."
2) Vaarsuvius is genderqueer. This isn't actually a position; it's an established fact; Rich spelled it out in the commentary of Blood Runs in the Family.
3) The Order has four men, one woman, and a genderqueer person. Again, not a position, an established fact as of Blood Runs in the Family commentary. Again: One woman, thus Smurfette. Not "all but one men, thus Smurfette."

No I had trouble because of the long sentences, sorry.
Since a couple of your posts earlier I had acklowledged that Rich had - contrary to my initial reading of his post - not given away V's initial gender. Read a couple posts back, I have already conceded that.

1. I see. For me, the verb "smurfette" had the meaning "CHANGE one character to a woman so that you have one woman", that's why I assumed Rich meant the creation of the original cast.
2./3. Yes, I know. See above post by me. It's a thing I learned by participating in this thread.
The smurfette stuff I assumed was Rich telling about the creation. If thats not the case, I trust you because you know more about Rich's posts than I do.

[Sir_Norbert]

For reference as to the meaning of "Smurfette" in this context: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...fettePrinciple

[Kish]

Okay, let's talk about the Smurfs.

Smurfette was a late addition to the Smurf cast, a magical construct sent to infiltrate them by their nemesis, the sorcerer Gargamel, who defects to the Smurfs. Her defining trait, indicated by her name, is that she's female; she is Smurfette, as Clumsy Smurf is defined by his clumsiness, Brainy Smurf by his pontificating, and Papa Smurf by being the leader.

One thing she was never, is: not-female. No Smurf was changed to female. Mentioning her could evoke a single female character or a late female addition, but doesn't link to a character changing sex.

[Fincher]

Vaarsuvius is genderqueer and thus is not a woman (or a man).

This seems to be a general assertion, but genderqueer doesn't equate to being agender (or having a non-binary gender). These are ways of being genderqueer, but, for example, someone could be genderqueer by identifying as both a woman and a man.

[Fyraltari]

Okay, let's talk about the Smurfs.

Smurfette was a late addition to the Smurf cast, a magical construct sent to infiltrate them by their nemesis, the sorcerer Gargamel, who defects to the Smurfs. Her defining trait, indicated by her name, is that she's female

Nitpick but with the addition of Sassette, even later on her deining trait becomes that she's the only adult woman smurf (or the only "feminine" woman smurf depending).

[Mightymosy]

Ok, so I was wrong about the meaning of "smurfetting".
It meant that Haley was added - not changed - after Rich discovered he had no women on the team.

Which means that either V didnt count because Rich added them later, or V didnt count because V was intended to be either male or genderqueer, or trans, or whatever else which Rich would not count as cis female?

Right this time?

[woweedd]

Ok, so I was wrong about the meaning of "smurfetting".
It meant that Haley was added - not changed - after Rich discovered he had no women on the team.

Which means that either V didnt count because Rich added them later, or V didnt count because V was intended to be either male or genderqueer, or trans, or whatever else which Rich would not count as cis female?

Right this time?

No, it just means "a group of characters containing only one girl." It gives no bones about the order in which they were added. Also, V IS Genderqueer. Whatever they were originally conceived as, Haley is the only girl. Thus, Smurfette.

This seems to be a general assertion, but genderqueer doesn't equate to being agender (or having a non-binary gender). These are ways of being genderqueer, but, for example, someone could be genderqueer by identifying as both a woman and a man.

True, but given V's statements that they don't care about or, indeed, pay notice to pronouns, I would assume they're some form of Non-Binary.