Results 211 to 240 of 332
Thread: Erfworld 78, Page 72
-
2007-09-24, 01:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Well I meant, was she planning to tell him "after she croaked a few dragons". If not for Ansom's rescue, Jillian would not have been able to say much of anything at all.
Heh, you got me on that. But Wanda has the breakdown and Stanley's wrath and the all the ramifications that follow from that. It does seem as though Wanda has nothing left except to wait for the inevitable while Jillian is the being welcomed back with open arms.
Indeed. Like Webinar said, Jillian will betray us all.Last edited by ag30476; 2007-09-24 at 01:20 PM.
Arena Initiate Referee
-
2007-09-24, 01:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
-
2007-09-24, 01:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
To paraphrase G'Kar, no one here is exactly as they seem from first impressions.
I think it was Girl Wonder who noted that Wanda was originally presented in a very sympathetic way (intelligent underling saddled with PHB trying to clean up PHB's mess) and Ansom initially came across as a bit of a jerk (setting forth his can't-miss plan in between attempts to hit on subordinate). Jillian initially came across as strong and capable; only later did it become clear how much of a mess her difficulty in deciding what she wanted was getting her into.
-
2007-09-24, 01:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
This is, actually, a possible scenario I gave for Wanda's spell backfiring on her in a thread a few weeks ago- Jillian leading the charge to capture Wanda so that she can decide what happens to Wanda as a prisoner, and thus keep her safe from getting croaked by Ansom and other warlords who might be less sympathetic.
If you start with the premise that the two of them genuinely care for each other on some level (spells and other manipulations aside), then this result actually makes sense, even though it didn't seem fairly likely back then. Of course, with Jillian having to confront the issue directly by not being able to get out of taking down Wanda's side a notch would precipitate the change in attitude. If she has to fight Wanda's side, at least she can try to get into a position where she save Wanda in the end.
Note that this applies regardless of whether or not the spell is intact, if we simply assume Jillian has some feelings for Wanda.
And, of course, I assume Jillian might not mind throwing Wanda into a bit of turmoil for a while, even if she does care. After all, Wanda hurt her, too, and put her in a bad spot. Emotional revenge can be really satisfying, right up until you see what a mess it made of things.
-
2007-09-24, 01:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Well, the fact of the matter is that we humans have complex psyches. As childish and cartoonish the erf-worlders look, they certainly seem to have adult complex psyches just like us.
And, unlike Miho, we have no proof that Wanda has manipulated anyone. Miho reveled in it, even bragged about it if memory serves. We don't see Wanda doing that, thus we are unsure she IS manipulating Jillian.
Unless, of course, she WANTED to be captured again. She could have hidden in the trees or something, but no.
As I said before, getting captured may be Jillian's way of performing recon. She gets a lot of juicy info out of Wanda, neh?
No matter who is the manipulator, at that point Jillian WANTED to be captured.
-
2007-09-24, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- The Ice Fields of Iowa
- Gender
-
2007-09-24, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Alternately, perhaps you could learn that pity, kindness, and compassion are not entirely synonymous with each other, even though you attempt to use them as such.
As for any 'lessons' that I, as a person need to learn, please bear in mind that this is a discussion about an online comic with imaginary characters, not a forum to offer moral instruction to your fellow posters.
-
2007-09-24, 01:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Indeed.
And, unlike Miho, we have no proof that Wanda has manipulated anyone. Miho reveled in it, even bragged about it if memory serves. We don't see Wanda doing that, thus we are unsure she IS manipulating Jillian.
For that matter, we've seen her manipulate Stanley about other things (the summoning, keeping him too "relaxed" to interfere while Parson executes his plan) onscreen.
-
2007-09-24, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
The posts in defense of Wanda's character and behavior to date are reminding me more and more of the old 'Belkar is not evil!' posts from the Order of the Stick. The more the evidence piles up that Wanda is cruel, abusive, and manipulative, the more the claims that she is 'not at all any of those things and here's why' get more and more strained. In OOTS, even after Mr. Burlew came out and said definitively that 'Belkar's evil... get over it', the debate trundled on for a while.
I doubt we will get any such confirmation from Mr. Balder about Wanda. After all, breaking the fourth wall is -not- a convention of Erfworld the way it is in OOTS, but barring that, I can only wonder how far the arguments that Wanda is, in reality, none of the things she has been specifically depicted as being will continue to stretch credulity.
In an era where definitive statements often immediately get picked apart by many who seldom offer any assertive statements of their own for similar inspection, I shall hazard to make three. Posited:
Wanda is cruel.
Wanda is abusive.
Wanda is manipulative.
I can stand by those statements and defend them against all comers with examples from the comic. She is not a nice person, no matter how much anyone might want her to be. Even if she DID have some secret, noble agenda, or felt true love for Jillian (and I do not, currently give much weight to either of those) it does not prevent any of the above statements from being any less true.
Moreover, I would offer that continuing to argue the three statements above is largely a waste of posting energy that could be better spent in examining where the character may go from here. Wanda is all of those things, but, clearly, we are at a pivotal moment for that character (just as we were with Jillian a few posts ago), and whatever Wanda IS or WAS, she is at a point in which she is very likely able to move in a new direction, and perhaps better herself. Is it likely? I do not know. I think so. And I have posted that I hope it happens at least twice before. Were Wanda a real person, I would greatly hope that she could, for the sake of herself and those around her, grow beyond what she has been up until now, and I would even help her if I saw indications of her trying to move in that direction. But if it happened, it would be because she found it within herself to become so, and -not- because I or anyone else found a way to excuse it.
That's my compassion for her. And it is entirely devoid of pity.Last edited by Girl Wonder; 2007-09-24 at 02:15 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
-
2007-09-24, 02:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
-
2007-09-24, 02:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
-
2007-09-24, 02:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
-
2007-09-24, 02:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Er, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say -- does anybody seriously assert that it was Jillian's plan?
I think a close reading shows that it's Wanda's plan, with part of Wanda's manipulation being to leave the Tool with the impression that it's Parson's idea (so he, and by extension Wanda for summoning him, will look good if it works, and so he will take the blame if it doesn't).
EDIT: "Jillian" was a typo for "Wanda" (see below). That said, I stand by my conclusion that a close reading shows that the initial bait-and-ambush plan was Wanda's -- for one thing, Stanley specifically says that he doesn't like the idea, but is willing to go with it for a chance at Ansom, perhaps some other enemy warlords, and the Arkenpliers.Last edited by SteveMB; 2007-09-24 at 03:07 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 03:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
-
2007-09-24, 03:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Well, they are synonyms... http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pity
Re-reading what I posted it really does come across preachy... though whether it is an online comic with imaginary characters or a real event is immaterial.
Still, you are right that I should not be preaching.
Yes, she does manipulate.
The summoning, no, that was logic, not manipulation. I don;t think of you as manipulating me, or the other way around.
The other instances all fall under the heading of manipulating one person to prevent harm to another. Wanda does not 'relax' Parson so he can move the troops free of Stanley's influence, she is trying to convince him not to disband Parson. For that matter, one could make the point that she is doing it for Stanley's own good (if she believes that Parson will save Stanley's boops)
To be clear I am not specifically defending Wanda. Nor did I ever doubt that Belkar was evil.
What I am doing is playing Devil's Advocate. Ok, perhaps that's not the best way to phrase it .
My intention is to point out where people are making assumptions. We have seen so many plot twists that in hindsight make sense that it is very likely that we will see more. The more we shed assumptions, the clearer view can have of what is to come. Just because someone is portrayed a certain way for a while doesn't mean that's how they actually are.
Please do.
Show her being cruel in any way not related to the event commonly referred to as 'torture'.
Show her being abusive that is again not related to the 'torture'.
Show her manipulating someone when it does not in some way benefit someone other than herself.
You may be right, but please don't use this a way to not back up your statements. I will back up any of mine that you may wish, as is necessary for a debate.
Well, we agree on something here. This is a pivotal point for Wanda. It may lead her to become a better person, or it may lead her to be a worse person. Part of figuring that out involves figuring out who she was before this breakdown.
Please define the difference as you see it. As far as I can tell there is no difference between the two. If you can give tell me what you mean by them, we can avoid any semantic difficulties with these words in the future.Last edited by fendrin; 2007-09-24 at 03:33 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Disagree
No opinion
Agree
Please define cruel and abusive.
And because I honestly don't think she's black, but rather a kind of middle grey, I'd like to point out a fact about Wanda and then some interpretation of acts she did so far.
Wanda knows about Sizemore's curiosity for magic. She proposes him to touch the spell so he can feel its power. Free, for nothing. It doesn't win her anything, not even an argument or a point or some superiority over Sizemore. Someone evil would not even consider such an act. (Page 13)
When she promotes Bogroll to Parson's lackey she has a soft face. Unless Bogroll is immune to magic it wouldn't have been a problem to erase his mind too if necessary. It's reasonable to think her motivation was different. I believe she promoted him so he wouldn't have to see the torture session, and that was an act of compassion on her behalf. In other words, she protected him. (Page 28)
"When prisoner says the easy way, she gets the easy way". She didn't have any reason to lie at that moment. We can assume it's true. (Page 30)
She offers her sushi to Jillian. It could be to manipulate her though, I agree that her motive is uncertain. (Page 38)
Not once was she mean to Sizemore or Bogroll. She didn't go out of her way to protect Bogroll when the other henchman was setting him up for a dwagon crap, but she didn't show any jubilation or joy about that fact either. It rather seemed she's used to it (since she asked about the other henchmen) and decided it was a waste of energy as it happens very regularly. She never insulted anyone, and the only person I've seen her show some kind of ressentment was Stanley (although subtle).
I stand my ground so far, it's not possible to tell if Wanda's evil or not with what we know. For the moment she looks like a true neutral in AD&D terms, just like Roy's sister.
-
2007-09-24, 03:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Do you see how you have to qualify and couch your argument, though? 'Show me how she's cruel...um... outside of the scene where she tortures someone.' 'Show me how she's abusive... um... aside from the torture.' 'Show me how she's manipulative... um... in a way that does not benefit someone else.'
My response? No, I don't need to to defend my statements with those caveats, just as I would not need to respond to the statement. 'You say E=MC squared, Miss Einstein. But show me how this is true without invoking the laws of physics.' Putting such caveats on the required proof, to me, shows the essential weakness of your argument, that it cannot stand without the caveats. "Show me that Wanda is cruel without referencing her cruelty?" Sorry, I don't care to play into that rhetorical trap.Last edited by Girl Wonder; 2007-09-24 at 03:41 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
I was thinking of her "letting slip" the existence of the cheap self-service option. While she clearly wasn't happy about having to cast the spell herself, she considered that an acceptable way to win the main argument.
The other instances all fall under the heading of manipulating one person to prevent harm to another. Wanda does not 'relax' Parson[sic] so he can move the troops free of Stanley's influence, she is trying to convince him not to disband Parson. For that matter, one could make the point that she is doing it for Stanley's own good (if she believes that Parson will save Stanley's boops)
To be clear I am not specifically defending Wanda. Nor did I ever doubt that Belkar was evil.
What I am doing is playing Devil's Advocate. Ok, perhaps that's not the best way to phrase it .
My intention is to point out where people are making assumptions. We have seen so many plot twists that in hindsight make sense that it is very likely that we will see more. The more we shed assumptions, the clearer view can have of what is to come. Just because someone is portrayed a certain way for a while doesn't mean that's how they actually are.
Please do.
Show her being cruel in any way not related to the event commonly referred to as 'torture'.
Show her being abusive that is again not related to the 'torture'.
Show her manipulating someone when it does not in some way benefit someone other than herself.
Well, we agree on something here. This is a pivotal point for Wanda. It may lead her to become a better person, or it may lead her to be a worse person. Part of figuring that out involves figuring out who she was before this breakdown.
-
2007-09-24, 03:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
I can see how it might look like that is what I was doing, but no. That's not the point of the caveats.
It's because we don't know whether it was torture or extremely rough intimacy. I've made the argument before here, and Arkenputtyknife made a few more excellent points here
I just didn't feel like repeating myself. My post was excessively long already.Last edited by fendrin; 2007-09-24 at 03:57 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Even if it were granted that Jillian enjoyed some gratification from being physically abused and that she gave full consent to Wanda to do so on an unrestricted basis without being pressured for such to occur at some point in the past, the fact that Wanda used the session to extract information under durress (all indications point to such) means that whatever else it might have been, it was ALSO a torture and interrogation session, and given Jillian's subsequent reactions once made aware of the extent to which she was being used, I can't imagine she appreciated it.
In a way, calling it 'extremely rough intimacy' helps bolster my point, I think.
To cynically extract information from another in a way that hurts their interests and helps your own under the cover of love or intimacy is abusive. To toy with another's emotions to achieve a benefit to yourself at the detriment to them is manipulative. To abuse their love (or at least very deep affection for you) without seeming regard to their feelings is cruel.
Say what you wish about Wanda's feelings for Jillian, whatever they may be, but the fact that she did what she did even with these feelings only, in my opinion, heightens her level of misdeed.Last edited by Girl Wonder; 2007-09-24 at 04:12 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 04:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
If you think Wanda's evil then you must think humans are evil by nature, and only a few of them are actually above the mass...
The only violence she seemed to enjoy so far was the "torture", and it seems the reason why she enjoyed it is because of the sexual connotation it had, not because she could hurt someone to her heart's content.
As I pointed out, she's been good on at least one occasion, and we can argue she's been good on several others. She had plenty of occasions to harm others, belittle them, mock them, disrespect them, dominate them, be unfair to them.
Yet, she didn't.
Stanley on the other hand did, several times. And we didn't see him act good once so far. He's the real evil character so far.
And about manipulation. We're all manipulative every day. We all have a role we play in public, and we try to convince others that we are that image we put up. We lie to hide truths to avoid shame, we lie to create attention or to go unoticed, we selectively tell truths because we know it will serve us. Sure some of us are more manipulative then others, it doesn't make them evil. Pride, lust, hate, anger, fear, greed, sloth, gluttony, we all fall into those regularly and are more prone to some than others on an individual base. Same goes for manipulative people.
-
2007-09-24, 04:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Oregon, USA
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
While I agree with your general theme, I'm curious why you chose the word "cruel" in particular. Wanda doesn't appear to enjoy causing pain or distress to others. She looks to have a detached efficiency about it, where she doesn't like it but will do so when it's appropriate to the situation at hand.
FeytouchedBanana eldritch disciple avatar by...me!
The Index of the Giant's Comments VI―Making Dogma from Zapped Bananas
-
2007-09-24, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
-
2007-09-24, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Can't agree more with Jasdoif.
More seriously, he promised to maintain Parson, Wanda, and Sizemore's upkeep, even after concluding that they'd either betrayed him or failed him.
-
2007-09-24, 04:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
I'm not sure who this is directed at, as it seems both SteveMB and I are making similar points about Wanda, but for my own part...
My post did not posit that Wanda is evil (though I believe it arguable that she is), only that she is cruel, manipulative, and abusive. However, from that, I really can't see how your logic follows: Wanda is human. I (presumably) think Wanda is evil. Therefor I think most humans are evil.
For your statement above to make sense to me, I assume that you think Wanda is like 'most people.' She certainly isn't in my world. Instead, she seems to be an amalgam of the worst boss I ever had, the most abusive boyfriend I ever had, and the most callously self-centered relative I have. Most people I know aren't nearly as angry, as cynical, or as manipulative. They laugh sometimes. The smile in casual conversation and seem to value others input much of the time. They don't boil over in rage at their associates as an initial reaction to their opinion being question. They don't manipulate their romantic partners for their own professional goals without the partner's full knowledge and consent. They care about people even when it doesn't directly affect their own goals and desires.
In point of fact, I have GREAT faith in people, and think they are essentially good. That is why anamolous individuals like Wanda bother me so much, they give my species a bad name. Moreover, I have noted in other threads and in this very thread my belief in the redeemability of Wanda, which I should hope speaks to my faith in people, even people whose actions I have found to be utterly reprehensible.
It is very much the fashion to avoid passing judgement on anyone or anything, and I sense a lot of this about Wanda. 'She pet a puppy once, so she can't be bad. Nobody is 100% evil, how dare you find fault with her character or behavior?' Well, I can, and I do, and I could honestly care less about whether she pet a puppy once. If she's really not a bad person, then I want to see real effort on her part not to be bad, and honest contrition for the bad she has performed in the past. To date, she has not shown to put much effort into either. She hasn't even shown the capacity to admit error. Maybe she has it, maybe she doesn't, but I suspect we shall find out soon.Last edited by Girl Wonder; 2007-09-24 at 04:58 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 04:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
Hmmm. I would say that enjoying it would be 'sadistic.' I haven't seen evidence for or against Wanda being sadistic. However, I would say that causing hurt (physical and emotional) with a detached efficiency and no apparent sympathy for the suffering she is causing is cruel.
Basically, I am viewing cruel as 'Causing hurt without remorse' whereas sadism is 'Causing hurt for personal pleasure,' if you can see the distinction? Perhaps if I said 'Remorseless' rather than 'Cruel', it would have been clearer to others what I mean.Last edited by Girl Wonder; 2007-09-24 at 04:54 PM.
-
2007-09-24, 05:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
You know, Girl Wonder, the main thing I took exception to was that you implied that people shouldn't feel sorry for Wanda; that that emotion is inappropriate because Wanda is evil.
Which gets us to the whole argument on how evil she is, etc.
Wanda has a complicated and seriously messed up view of the world, quite obviously. In order to redeem her, we need to feel some sympathy for her. If she were just a villain who had the, "I'm evil and I'm okay with that," attitude, she wouldn't be nearly so interesting.
-
2007-09-24, 05:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
For your statement above to make sense to me, I assume that you think Wanda is like 'most people.' She certainly isn't in my world. Instead, she seems to be an amalgam of the worst boss I ever had, the most abusive boyfriend I ever had, and the most callously self-centered relative I have. Most people I know aren't nearly as angry, as cynical, or as manipulative. They laugh sometimes. The smile in casual conversation and seem to value others input much of the time. They don't boil over in rage at their associates as an initial reaction to their opinion being question. They don't manipulate their romantic partners for their own professional goals without the partner's full knowledge and consent. They care about people even when it doesn't directly affect their own goals and desires.
She's angry? She got mad at Parson because he could have destroyed their best asset to win the war. Hardly makes her an angry person. I find her rather self-controled most of the time
She's cynical, I give you that. How does that make someone bad?
She's manipulative. Fine, I agree with that. Again I don't understand how that's unusual or bad. It can hurt others, but not always. Most of the time the aim is just to protect ourselves or to serve our interests (that in turn are often to protect ourselves from a perceive danger like fear of rejection, fear of being perceived as weak, etc...).
Wanda doesn't laugh. Yes, but it's hard to say if it's because she's evil or because she's living in an environment that doesn't provide occasions to laugh. In 5 days she might croak, the only 2 other humans we saw so far are a nice but shy guy that lacks self-confidence, and an total egoistical guy that thinks he's the center of a divine plan. I might not laugh a lot either in such a situation.
Same remark goes for smiling, although we saw her smile on a few rare occasions, and once in a chat with Parson (okay, it was not the nice, carefree kind of smiles you seem to talk about).
Who's opinion didn't she value? Sizemore's? Wasn't that because she was afraid of facing the fact her spell was maybe not what she pretended it was? Or because she didn't want to loose points with his toolship? She was pretty okay with Sizemore in magikland. Or maybe this is what you were refering at when you mentioned "boil over in rage at their associates as an initial reaction to their opinion being question". I've grew up with such a person, and he's very good hearted. He just had that temper because he lacked self-confidence.
"They don't manipulate their romantic partners for their own professional goals without the partner's full knowledge and consent.". Okay, guilty.
"They care about people even when it doesn't directly affect their own goals and desires". She does. She's been nice to Sizemore for free, and arguably she's been nice for Bogroll for good reasons (she could have sent him somewhere else without promoting him to lackey if getting rid of him was her intention. And being promoted made Bogroll's day).
I just can't agree with the way you depict her. She's no angel for sure, but she's no devil either. She's somewhere in between, more towards the middle in my opinion although what's to come could show her in a new light to us, in one direction or the other.
-
2007-09-24, 05:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Virginia, USA
- Gender
Re: Erfworld 78, Page 72
I never said anything of the sort. Here, for reference, is the relevant part of my early post on the matter:
I am very much in agreement that she deserves no one's pity, and she shan't get mine. However, just because she doesn't deserve it doesn't mean people aren't free to pity her out of the charitableness of their hearts. Sadly, such charitableness would, were Wanda real, be seen as an exploitable weakness of theirs, and she'd put it to her own uses for certain, at least the Wanda we've known up to now would, and really, the people who gave her their pity would have been asking for it, knowing what she is.
I said she deserves no one's pity, but I never said people should or should not offer it up to her... that's their choice, but that any pity for Wanda is by nature charity, it is not deserved given what we have seen of her so far. Moreover, given what we have seen of her so far, it seems unlikely this charity would be returned in kind by Wanda, were she real.
I said nothing about inappropriateness or Wanda's 'evil.' If only those things that were deserved were to be considered 'appropriate', there would be a lot less charity in the world. My point was, and is, that if you feel sorry for Wanda, you are being charitable. If she were a real person, I think it would be far more constructive to feel sorry for those she's harmed and save the concern for Wanda's wellbeing once she's started rehabilitating herself.