Erfworld 78, Page 72

[ag30476]

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.

Heh, and some people felt sorry for the wounded dwagons too.

Which gets us to the whole argument on how evil she is, etc.

She's not bad, she's just drawn that way.

Seriously, I think it gets us to another argument. You are meant to feel sorry for Wanda but you know that you can't feel sorry for her.

We like Wanda. So we feel sorry when she got broken.

At the same time, we know Wanda is evil so we can't feel sorry forher.

Wanda is a torturer who extracted information from a prisoner she may or may not have some other relationship too. She did it so effectively, the she impressed a minion to the point that she had to put a spell on him so that he only remembered her as "evil" -- in the minions on words. Stanley acknowledges that Wanda has a real talent for "torture and interrogation" -- Stanley's own words.

Wanda presented her control over Jillian as an asset to Parson and Stanley. Whatever S/M relationship they may have and whatever Wanda may have truly felt, Wanda was exploiting Jillian to get at the coalition.

Wanda uncroak the croaked and even Stanley jokes about their "freshness." In other words, she desecrates the dead.

Wanda suggested and participated in a spell to drag and bind Parson unwittingly, if not unwillingly, to Erfword.

Lastly, she works for the big bad evil guy, Stanley, which makes her evil too.

[Dwagon]

I feel compassion for her - con passionare To suffer with - I perceive her as someone suffering a lot.

I think that what Rumex wanted to say, is when you say

"My point was, and is, that if you feel sorry for Wanda, you are being charitable"

You're precisely telling people what their feeling is. You're denying them the freedom to think different from you.

Empathy is not based on intellect, it's purely emotionnal. When you link with someone's sufferance directly, without rationalizing anything, the notion of "deserving" is moot. It's just like that.

Lastly, she works for the big bad evil guy, Stanley, which makes her evil too.

Like Bogroll and Sizemoore you mean?

[Jasdoif]

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.

OK, that makes sense.


My current theory is that Wanda didn't realize there's anything wrong with her actions. She has social difficulties, particularly with empathy, and I can only imagine popping into existence with basic abilities intact makes it difficult to consider alternative things to do in your life.

Her extreme faith in the power of her suggestion spell is a side effect of the poor empathy. Wanda thought Jillian loved her too much to break the spell, and was unable to consider that Jillian might have different feelings then her own. When it turned out she did...she couldn't reconcile it in her mind, hence the breakdown.

This is key, because the breakdown means she's forced to figure it out before she can function again. Something will have to change, and with the display of compassion by Parson and Sizemore, it might just be a change for the better.

[Girl Wonder]

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.

Well, we're certainly each entitled to our own opinions about her, and have shared them at length. The post that originally spurred this part of the discussion wasn't about Wanda's 'Goodness' or 'Badness', however, though admittedly that's where we ended up. Instead, it was my reaction to the Wanda apologists' insistence that just because we see Wanda manipulate, doesn't mean she's manipulative. That just because she causes hurt without apparent remorse for her own purposes doesn't mean she's cruel. That just because she abused Jillian's trust doesn't mean she's abusive.

We can hypothesize on both sides of the issue what Wanda's inner motivations are, and goodness knows there have been many posts of what Wanda was 'really' doing when she seemingly did X, or Y, or Z, but until shown otherwise, I prefer to let people's actions speak louder than hypothetical inner motivations, and Wanda's actions have contained quite a bit of cruel, abusive manipulation.

I mused perhaps a week or two ago why Wanda, more than any other character, evokes this reaction in people? Why is there such a strong urge to read into her a greater degree of goodness, nobility, integrity, and cleverness than may actually be there? I am reminded of the 'Occam's Razor' posts of earlier threads, where despite all evidence to the contrary, many grasped at straws to explain why Jillian hadn't -really- escaped Wanda's control, and how this was all part of an exceedingly elaborate and intricate Wanda-Plan. They were quite adamant and vociferous about this, and about downplaying Wanda's badness while finding ways to excuse it.

I am intrigued by this, since I don't feel that for the character. I -do- have an interest in her growth, repentance, and possible redemption, but I do not feel sympathy for her acts or a need to excuse them. But some people do. A LOT of people, and I haven't really heard a good explanation as to why, yet. Someone once confessed it was because she was a 'strong female character', which bothered me, because that perception implies that being a seductive, manipulative rhymes-with-witch are strong female traits, and I really think we need to move past that image as one of a 'strong' woman.

My own opinion is that, if the 'Wanda' character were male, but otherwise essentially identical, she would be held to a far higher standard of accountability for her bad actions, and be required to show a great deal more proof of her good intentions to garner this level of apologism from the readership, and I believe this ultimately harms the depiction of women as equals in media. I want us to be viewed as men's equals... different, perhaps, but equal, and I don't think that shall ever truly happen so long as we continue to make excuses for depictions of bad behavior by female characters. If actual characterizations of 'Evil' continue to be reserved only for the Stanleys of the world, then how can we truly appreciate a woman's goodness, and the meaningfulness of her being good despite temptation, if we fail to recognize within the female the potential for evil without mitigating it with apologism?

[ag30476]

Lastly, she works for the big bad evil guy, Stanley, which makes her evil too.

Like Bogroll and Sizemoore you mean?

Sorry. Typo. I meant to say "She works for the big bad evil guy, Stanley,

• and cheerfully takes on evil tasks
• or encourages her boss to further acts of evil
• with no remorse
• and the only problem she seems to have is dealing with the stupidity of her boss not how evil his commands are
• or having to comprimise herself in order to distract or otherwise convince him

which makes her evil too."

[Girl Wonder]

I feel compassion for her - con passionare To suffer with - I perceive her as someone suffering a lot.

I think that what Rumex wanted to say, is when you say


Quote:
"My point was, and is, that if you feel sorry for Wanda, you are being charitable"

You're precisely telling people what their feeling is. You're denying them the freedom to think different from you.

No, not quite. I didn't say they were -feeling- charitable, I said they were -feeling- sorry, and that by their own admission. I said they were -being- charitable. If you donate $100 to flood relief, I am free to say you are -being- charitable without judgement, and I am not 'denying their freedom of thought.' If you donate $100 to flood relief and I say you are -feeling- charitable, that's a judgement on my part based on your actions. If you donate $100 to flood relief and I say you are -feeling- guilty because you don't live on a flood plain and your house wasn't wiped out, and moreover that's the only possible explanation, then I am being judgemental AND denying that there could be any other reason.

But even then, I'm not denying them the 'freedom to think.'

As for 'suffering with' Wanda, I'll do that once I stop finding her so insufferable.

[Dwagon]

I mused perhaps a week or two ago why Wanda, more than any other character, evokes this reaction in people? Why is there such a strong urge to read into her a greater degree of goodness, nobility, integrity, and cleverness than may actually be there?

Hormones would be the easy answer. Humans are not 100% rational people, are they? And we are at least partially coded by our genes/hormones/culture. I know it's probably not the kind of explanation you would have hoped, but we're only there for the moment, still a lot of ground to cover. Baby steps.

I understand better what you're trying to achieve now. And I agree with you about women should be equal to men and how apologizing on a bad woman's behavior is detrimental to that goal.

That being said if it were a male character I would still feel the same, personally. It comes from my coach background and a very high level of empathy. A friend once said of me in another forum : See, thats what I mean. You could beat him senseless with a tire iron and he'd be worrying all the while about you getting repetitive strain injury. What I see is a character that's suffering. For me Wanda's weak in her heart. Her strength comes from things that are outside her, if you take them away from her she crumbles. If she were male it would be exactly the same.

And I never said she shouldn't be held accountable for her acts. That's a totaly different topic. But it's not because you feel compassion for someone that you can't recognize his or her bad deeds, and make him/her face the consequences. Like a parent that loves his child but punishes him when he does something wrong.

[Dwagon]

Sorry. Typo. I meant to say "She works for the big bad evil guy, Stanley,

• and cheerfully takes on evil tasks
• or encourages her boss to further acts of evil
• with no remorse
• and the only problem she seems to have is dealing with the stupidity of her boss not how evil his commands are
• or having to comprimise herself in order to distract or otherwise convince him

which makes her evil too."

Hehe, now it looks correct, although I don't se why the fact she works with Stanley changes anything to the other facts you listed :P

And on a side note I disagree with the list, but since it's interpretations I'll leave it at that ;)

[israfel420]

Think I'll throw my 2 cents on this Wanda debate.

I will definately support the fact that Wanda is a manipulator. She has done it to more than one person in the strip and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

I do however have a hard time judging her as cruel. And no I will not have to couch my arguments in any way and here is why.

First of all, cruelty can be defined as barbarous tortures or brutal beatings or a desire and will to inflict such pain and suffering upon others. And this is why I can see how it is easy to associate Wanda with cruelty since she seems to enjoy beating the snot out of Jillian and also it is one of here favorite "hobbies".

BUt as was mentioned earlier, torture and beatings in Erfworld don't have the lasting sense of finality that they do here in the real world. In other words it is extremely temporary in Ef. Cruelty on the other hand implies a sense of permanently crippling either physically or emotionally. So in the end it could just be an S&M game that Jillian and Wanda play from time to time. Besides we don't see a lot of "real" painful torture going on as the most dastardly torture implement we see used is a short leather whip(more of a crop really). Furthermore the spells used could be likened to a truth serum that makes the subject complacent.

In the game of war, survival is paramount and using drugs and beatings to extract information is a neccessity derived from the need to survive. Every torture technique we saw was based on such aims, to extract info and coerce the subject to perform in a manner expected. True cruelty in torture would be a much different affair indeed. We would see the use of heinous implements of causing pain like the rack, the press, acids, boiling oils, heated pokers, the wheel, the iron maiden, and other even more sinister forms of punishment. And yet all that was used was a little S&M whip, a spell, and apparently a fist to the eye/teeth. Had Wanda been torturing Jillian for reasons other than information or S&M we would have seen a much more horribly disfigured Jillian after the fact. Sure she looks a little bloodied and bruised from the whipping and smacks she received, but it;s not like half her face is melted of or anything has been removed like nose, eyes, ears etc. In fact she is still concious and doesn't wince as if in pain.

More evidence for Wanda's lack of cruelty can be seen in her treatment of the others. Were she a cruel person she would have done more than ask Sizemore why he made her wait in the magic kingdom, she would have punished him for such a "slight". Were she cruel she would have eaten that Sushi right in front of Jillian not letting her have a bite. Were she truly cruel she would not have promoted Bogroll to lackey(thus ending his forced affiliation with the other cruel henchmen).

There are many other forms of compassion and kindness Wanda shows throughout the series, but most of those could be interpretted as simple manipulation(i.e. her kindness to Parson is so he can save all their collective backsides etc.). But honestly being helpful seems to come naturally to her and a cruel person even a manipulative one, would show obvious signs of grudging if forced to help others.

And as far as being abusive, well I don't see her abusing the underlings like Sizemore, Bogroll, or even Mung. Sizemore and Bogroll I already mentioned above, but as far as Mung is concerned, an abusive cruel person would have simply taken Mung into her torture chamber and gleefully tortured him to death rather than simply wiping his memory. Also, an abusive cruel person who was manipulative may help Parson to learn the ways of the world for their own benefit, but she would have been insulting him the whole time. BUt she does not insult people as a way of being, and abusive people do.

No, Stanley is the abusive one in my opinion, as well as an ego maniac, and the only cruel one I've seen thusfar has been Mung who really enjoys causing the good natured Bogroll misery.

So Wanda may be manipulative, and I will concede she is cynical, and even ruthless when she needs be. But she is not cruel or abusive and the only one she has even inflicted pain on th usfar has been Jillian who was both a source of information and apparetnly her freaky lesbian lover.

In the end I just think Wanda has been hurt in the past and only looks out for number one because she is vulnerable and has low self esteem. This doesn't mean she is evil just jaded, and certainly her less desirable character traits have not made her iredeemable as Wonder Girl seems to think she is.

Don't be surprised if she has a genuine emotional outpouring at Parsons and Sizemores attempts at consolemtent. Of course any such outpouring will likely start with rage and anger followed by guilt and all the other of the other steps on the path to recovery(Denial was likely the shell shocked reaction we saw as her brain shut down to avoid the reality of what was happening).

So in the end I say Wanda is not only capable of remeption, but also not really as bad as she's made out to be. After all, anyone who can sleep with the Tool just to keep him from doing something to Parson has got to be a saint.

[Girl Wonder]

After all, anyone who can sleep with the Tool just to keep him from doing something to Parson has got to be a saint.

While I don't buy into all of your characterizations of Wanda any more than you do of mine, THAT made me laugh!

[israfel420]

While I don't buy into all of your characterizations of Wanda any more than you do of mine, THAT made me laugh!

Fair enough, everyones entitled to their opinion, and yeah that last bit was there for a little levity.

May I ask what is it about my assessment that you specifically disagree with?

[Girl Wonder]

Fair enough, everyones entitled to their opinion, and yeah that last bit was there for a little levity.

May I ask what is it about my assessment that you specifically disagree with?

Well, I need to go home for the evening and don't have a lot of time, but in general, it seemed to me that you were mostly arguing from a position that Wanda is neither cruel nor abusive based on the fact that some of the time, when presented with an opportunity to be so, she was not. Just because she does not constantly exhibit those qualities does not mean they are not major components of the way in which she interacts with people.

Thus far, Wanda's most significant interactions with another character have been with Jillian. She has manipulated and suffered under Stanley, but aside from using The Tool as a tool of her own manipulations (she's so good at it she gave Parson pointers) she hasn't had much interpersonal interaction with him. She has made conversation with Parson and tried to get him 'up to speed' about being a warlord, and she maintains a professional relationship with Sizemore, but Jillian has been her most extensive and meaningful interactor, and my argument for her being cruel and abusive largely comes from this.

Clearly, the relationship (whether one of simple control, or one in which Wanda was emotionally invested) meant so much to Wanda that the breaking of it, and Wanda's hold over Jillian, 'broke' Wanda, as we just saw. So, it would be hard for either of us to argue that Wanda's interractions with Jillian were insignificant to Wanda. Yet, in the most significant relationship (by far) that we've seen her in, Wanda, at the very least, abused Jillian's trust by extracting information from her for the purposes of harming someone Jillian loves (Ansom). Thus, in her most significant 'on-screen' relationship, she has been abusive. Jillian seems to at least feel a level of friendship and intimacy with Wanda, and for Wanda to abuse that in order to achieve her own ends while harming Jillian's cause, aiding a man Jillian hates, and harming a man Jillian loves is abuse of that frienship, and that intimacy.

As for Wanda being 'cruel', I admit that is the more difficult case to make, particularly since most who have responded to me define 'cruel' as deriving pleasure from harming others. To me, that is sadism, whereas cruelty is inflicting harm without regard to others, and feeling no remorse for it, which is quite different. Pleasure is immaterial. A conquering general who ordered a village put to death because it is easier to exterminate them than govern them and who felt no regret, remorse, or pity for the villagers is a cruel governor, even though he derives no personal pleasure from giving the order. It's 'just business.' And a lot of the hurt Wanda seems to inflict as part of both her job and her hobby seems to similarly be 'just business.' That she was setting Jillian up for terrible emotional pain, that she inflicted grievous physical harm upon her without Jillian's consent (Jillian's 'liking it' is not the same as consent when Jillian has no meaningful choice except to 'take it', being chained to a wall against her will, and choice/consent/and the WILLful surrender of power is key to even a bondage/submission relationship, indeed, critical), Wanda's deliberate playing of Jillian's emotions without apparent remorse and without regard for the harm it causes her, these are the things that, I think, make a fair case for me being able to say 'Wanda is cruel.'

Is she ONLY cruel? Only manipulative? Only abusive? Probably not, and again, I suspect we may begin to see a little bit of growth in the parts that are not. But would we have seen this growth had circumstance allowed her to continue as she had been and continue her plans? I am not NEARLY so certain of that.

[Stormthorn]

It would appear, looking at Wanda, that having a woman that you that was inthralled betray you at what is likely the single most important point in your career can, compounded with the implied and much argued about romance between you and her, ruin your day.

Tool seems more intelligent when he is resigned to his fate, or perheps just less self absorbed. He also seems less cruel, since i was expecting disbanding all around.

[The Old Hack]

First of all, cruelty can be defined as barbarous tortures or brutal beatings or a desire and will to inflict such pain and suffering upon others. And this is why I can see how it is easy to associate Wanda with cruelty since she seems to enjoy beating the snot out of Jillian and also it is one of here favorite "hobbies".

BUt as was mentioned earlier, torture and beatings in Erfworld don't have the lasting sense of finality that they do here in the real world. In other words it is extremely temporary in Ef.

I'm afraid I have to strenuously disagree with this. Please note that the following is not a comment on whether Wanda is evil or not, but rather a comment about the nature of torture.

Torture leaves scars far beyond the merely physical ones. There is a reason that 'abusiveness' is coming to the fore of people's awareness in this way. Abuse is a non-physical way of tormenting others, and it is possible to severely harm or even break people without ever using physical force at any point, merely by talking to them. Many forms of 'brainwashing' or behavior modification work in precisely this way. It may occur in certain pseudo-religious organisations, during military training of conscripts, in political 're-education' or even inside peer groups in grade school. It is a sad fact that words can hurt you, even in the absence of sticks and stones.

Now, given the above, I consider it somewhat overly optimistic to simply assume that even though wounds heal all at once at the beginning of Turn, all their aftereffects vanish at the same time. It would be roughly the same as assuming that the effects of abuse vanish as soon as the words no longer resonate in the air that carried them.

Also, Wanda herself more or less confirms this here. "In some ways, your wounds have healed. In other ways, you are only just feeling them now."

I could go on with this, but it is a very uncomfortable subject to discuss in what is supposed to be a comic forum for fun. I'd rather assume that I have at least raised a question as to whether one can simply dismiss the aftereffects of physical damage in Erfworld.

~H.

[Strengfellow]

Having not read the whole thread I'll make this brief:

Assuming that Toolie leaves, Parson ET AL now have to defend GK. (as referenced by Toolie in his ((as long as the city stands)) comment) because it's the only way for P to stay alive.

Which leaves P to fully utilise his strategic nous backed by W, S and the now unlinked triad. Who he may relink but due to his feelings RE Misty I feel is unlikely.

Albeit sans Dwags I still see P wresting victory from the jaws of defeat.

Swiftly followed by the return of Toolie to press the rout with a flotilla of Dwags claiming that it was the Titans testing his faith in there plan for him.

In as much as his leaveing was a crisis of faith, and was a test that he came close to failing due to his departure at a critical juncture.

Damn if thats brief I'd hate to type the long version.

The Strengfellow abides.

[fendrin]

You know, I had a nice long post about 80% written then had to run off to class... well, i'm not going to re-write it. Whatever illuminating thoughts i had are gone off into the aether...

Oh well, moving on to new thoughts. As I said before, I am arguing on the side of not making assumptions, not what I think is likely.

Yet, in the most significant relationship (by far) that we've seen her in, Wanda, at the very least, abused Jillian's trust by extracting information from her for the purposes of harming someone Jillian loves (Ansom). Thus, in her most significant 'on-screen' relationship, she has been abusive. Jillian seems to at least feel a level of friendship and intimacy with Wanda, and for Wanda to abuse that in order to achieve her own ends while harming Jillian's cause, aiding a man Jillian hates, and harming a man Jillian loves is abuse of that frienship, and that intimacy.

Are you sure that the information was 'extracted' against Jillian's will? If there is some indication that Jillian telling Wanda Ansom's plan is a result of the 'torture', please point it out. I don't see it. If Jillian volunteers the information after their 'intensely physical encounter', as a form of pillow-talk (chain-talk?), is it still 'extraction'? And before you say that Wanda betrays the trust by using it to hurt Ansom, don't you think Jillian would know that would happen when she says it?

a lot of the hurt Wanda seems to inflict as part of both her job and her hobby seems to similarly be 'just business.'

We have one example. One instance does not even imply a pattern. For that matter, the relevant parts all happen off-panel! I see no cries of protest from Jillian, do you? I mean, ok, there's that whole easy way/hard way thing, but for all we know that may be a semi-ritualized into to all their encounters.

I doubt it, but again, I'm just trying to point out possibilities.

I will not condemn when there is reasonable doubt (My beliefs may have set a drug dealer go free, but better that then locking up a 3 year old's innocent father)

That she was setting Jillian up for terrible emotional pain, that she inflicted grievous physical harm upon her without Jillian's consent (Jillian's 'liking it' is not the same as consent when Jillian has no meaningful choice except to 'take it', being chained to a wall against her will, and choice/consent/and the WILLful surrender of power is key to even a bondage/submission relationship, indeed, critical)

Does Wanda set Jillian up for the emotional pain, or do Jillian's own choices set her up?

Are you sure that there was no consent? Do we have any evidence, or even an in-comic claim that it wasn't welcome, or even invited? we even have some (non-substantial) evidence that it WAS invited.
1) as I have said, Jillian wanted to get caught
2) she later states that she 'likes it'

If Jillian knew the 'rules', then when she asked for the 'very easy way' she knew she was going to get 'the very hard way'. if she knew she could get the 'easy way' by asking for 'the easy way', then she DID have a way out. Perhaps, if Jillian wanted it, Wanda would have simply unchained her, they could have a nice jovial tete-a-tete, then have Wanda use her fairy dust on Mung to make him believe he heard nothing but screams and cries for mercy. Indeed, if we didn't see the damage, would any of us reasonably think there anything physical other than the one whipping that we saw prior to the spell being cast?

these are the things that, I think, make a fair case for me being able to say 'Wanda is cruel.'

A fair case, yes, but not a open-and-shut case. Any jury following the law would acquit Wanda.

Is she ONLY cruel? Only manipulative? Only abusive? Probably not, and again, I suspect we may begin to see a little bit of growth in the parts that are not. But would we have seen this growth had circumstance allowed her to continue as she had been and continue her plans? I am not NEARLY so certain of that.

As I said earlier, I am convinced that we will see her change. Whether it is a rising above what she was (if you are right) or a descent into evil (if you are wrong).


I asked earlier for definitive proof of cruelty and abuse, and I have not yet had them pointed out to me. I think I've poked enough holes into example of the 'torture' scene. well, if not, 'once more into the Abyss', as it were

[SteveMB]

Are you sure that the information was 'extracted' against Jillian's will? If there is some indication that Jillian telling Wanda Ansom's plan is a result of the 'torture', please point it out. I don't see it. If Jillian volunteers the information after their 'intensely physical encounter', as a form of pillow-talk (chain-talk?), is it still 'extraction'? And before you say that Wanda betrays the trust by using it to hurt Ansom, don't you think Jillian would know that would happen when she says it?

Well, there's her breakdown at the end of the interrogation. That's easy to explain if the information was extracted against her will (when the spell used to "soften up" her will to resist ended, her head cleared and she realized what she'd given up). I'm at a loss to understand it if she hadn't really done anything she didn't want to do.

Are you sure that there was no consent? Do we have any evidence, or even an in-comic claim that it wasn't welcome, or even invited? we even have some (non-substantial) evidence that it WAS invited.
1) as I have said, Jillian wanted to get caught
2) she later states that she 'likes it'

Rather than revisit the same debate again, I'd like to go off on a bit of a tangent:

The matter of Jillian possibly wanting to get caught raises the question of what she remembers from previous captures (and, thus, what she expects next time). We know that Wanda has a spell to erase memories and replace them with some suggested fiction ("You heard only the screams for mercy."); it's possible that such a spell was used prior to each "escape". If Jillian wants to get caught, it could be that she remembers being dominated (which I think is what she was referring to when she said "I like it.") but does not remember betraying Ansom by giving up information or having persistent judgment-altering spells cast on her. Only now, with the breaking of the suggestion spell, is she both free to act and aware that she was being used against Ansom by Wanda.

I admit that this is completely speculative.

[Girl Wonder]

I asked earlier for definitive proof of cruelty and abuse, and I have not yet had them pointed out to me. I think I've poked enough holes into example of the 'torture' scene. well, if not, 'once more into the Abyss', as it were

Ah, but at least I've tried to argue my case. You haven't given me any definitive proof that she is not cruel or abusive, nor is this a court of law requiring me to prove my case 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

Mr. Balder has chosen to tell us a story without thought balloons, thus knowing 'definitively' what is going on in character's heads is -never- going to happen, yet that seems to be the level of proof you require to be convinced. Ergo, trying to argue to that level of proof based merely on character's spoken words and behavior is pointless. I cannot convince you, because you seem to be requiring a level of proof that is beyond the bounds of what the comic provides. Likewise, you cannot prove to me 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that Wanda is NOT cruel and abusive.

So, given that the court of law analogy is arguing beside the point and not terribly applicable because a) The impossibility of providing evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt given the media b) That neither of us are trying to argue a criminal case, where safeguards are put in place to protect the right of the accused... there is no one accused here, and Wanda possesses no rights, being a literary construct and not a person and c) I am not the prosecution and you are not the defense, given all of that, let's reexamine this from what I believe to be the more useful angle of a formal debate, in which I am the affirmative and you are the negative (if you are unfamiliar with the terms, it simply means that I hold up a statement that I shall attempt to show that the preponderance of the relevant arguments prove, and you attempt to show that the preponderance of the relevant arguments disprove it.

By that standard, I don't feel you have really poked any holes at all into the abusive or cruel arguments, since you offer only supposition regarding Jillian's level of consent. On the other hand, I offer that Jillian's reaction after breaking Wanda's control (a rather 'in-your-face', 'I hope you can see this Wanda' as I defy you) is a much more concrete indication of her displeasure at being so abused. Remember, we are not looking for a criminal conviction here. The standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence/arguments. We also have both Wanda and Jillian's statements that Jillian loves Ansom. Why, then, would Jillian be pleased that Wanda was playing her emotions in order to get her to betray him? She would be far more likely to be angry and upset, and indeed, preliminary indications show this to be the case. Wanda played Jillian in order to get her to do something to harm someone Jillian loved. This is abuse of trust. Abuse of friendship. AND, I might add, abuse of whatever power you or I might imagine Jillian might have surrendered to Wanda in some conjectural scenario off-screen.

Moreover, Jillian suffered doubt, conflict, anguish, and very nearly brought disaster down upon the man she loves because of Wanda's abuse and control. Jamie is fairly skilled at depicting facial expressions, he'd have to be, in a comic with no thought balloons, if we're to see even a glimpse of the character's inner struggles, amd the turmoil Jillian felt sitting by a campfire the night before the battle, and most importantly, when forced to confront the inner struggle by Jaclyn indicate she felt a great deal of doubt, uncertainty, and conflict, conflict that Wanda purposely fed and nourished in order to further her own plans. She left Jillian conflicted and troubled in a clearing, and flew off, slyly smiling to herself because her manipulations were at work, seemingly concerned not at all for the stresses she was placing upon Jillian. As I have stated before, I consider the willful infliction of harm without apparent remorse or regard for the feelings of others to be cruelty, and that is the position I defend when I say 'Wanda is cruel.' I do not feel evidence can convincingly be supplied that Wanda did NOT deliberately inflict harm upon Jillian without apparent remorse or regard. In addition to simply countering these arguments, can you supply arguments to the contrary? That what Wanda did was not deliberate? That it did not cause Jillian harm? That Wanda -on-screen- showed regard for Jillian's feeling about Ansom?

Does Jillian bear some blame for her situation? Certainly... there's been a fair bit of self-delusion, willful blindness going on in her head. Wanda herself said Jillian was not 'entirely' unwitting. But she only needs to be a little unwitting, she only needs to show a little trust of Wanda, in order for Wanda to abuse it, and I feel Wanda's actions in the comic have proven that she has.

[Jasdoif]

Ah, but at least I've tried to argue my case. You haven't given me any definitive proof that she is not cruel or abusive, nor is this a court of law requiring me to prove my case 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

Besides which, I believe the requirement is to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." And I think you have met that, as the only defense offered is a series of interdependent "what if it isn't what it seems?"

[sihnfahl]

Assuming that Toolie leaves, Parson ET AL now have to defend GK. (as referenced by Toolie in his ((as long as the city stands)) comment) because it's the only way for P to stay alive.

Well, as long as the city stands, the treasury is in place, which keeps Parson fed and 'in the game'. Since Stanley can't take the treasury with him, and Ansom gets what's left, Stanley's going to drain the treasury as best he can to deny those resources to Ansom.

Which leaves P to fully utilise his strategic nous backed by W, S and the now unlinked triad. Who he may relink but due to his feelings RE Misty I feel is unlikely.

Stanley may take at least one of them with him; see 'veiling'. And what good would it do? When Ansom makes it to the city walls, it's GO; he still has enough siege to break the walls, and a severe numerical superiority. And if Stanley takes the dwagons, that takes out the only air units we've been shown that GK has. What's left is definitely NOT enough to defend GK...

Albeit sans Dwags I still see P wresting victory from the jaws of defeat.

25 to 1 before all those dwagons were croaked, and 4 times the needed forces to slug it out at the walls of GK. Only ground units left, and weak ones when compared to what Ansom has. Fight with what?

Swiftly followed by the return of Toolie to press the rout with a flotilla of Dwags claiming that it was the Titans testing his faith in there plan for him.

Stanley's no strategist. It's his command that got him to that losing situation from a great advantage (11 cities? Think of THOSE resources). What makes you think he'll suddenly develop any excellent strategy?

He'd have to know where and when to hit... and given the attacks on the siege and the failed traps, Ansom's not going to give Stanley the chance to hit him, Vinnie, Jillian, or any siege units with any effectiveness.

Besides, in 2 turns, Ansom's completely surrounding GK. Stanley would have to do something miraculous to turn it around before GK falls.

[GymGeekAus]

First, to quote a little Giles from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "To forgive is an act of compassion. It isn't done because someone deserves it, it's done because they need it." Mercy--who doesn't pray for such a thing, when faced with judgement?

Second, regarding Wanda's reaction. I'm in the "she dumped me" camp, for sure. But it's clearly deeper than that. Wanda's a sorceress, and thus subject to the great cliche' of spellcasters across literature--the belief in the supremacy of magic. Not only did Jillian kick her to the curb, but her much vaunted magical skill didn't protect her. For someone who thinks they control reality itself, I'm sure it could be pretty shocking to find out that it's not true. In some things, reality will not be subverted.

Third, some random considerations/raw speculation.

Spoiler

Show

Stanley knows that the three archons are on the field of battle. Does Charlie have anything else defending him? Perhaps Stanley will go for the Arkendish instead of the Arkenpliers. Also, Jacklyn might have gone above-and-beyond what Charlie wanted her to do, by providing all that moral guidance to Jillian. If Charlie isn't pleased, he might disband her! However, I think Charlie is going to approve, he's probably quite well-defended, and Jacklyn will get a commendation or something.

Also, we know that some personalities in Erfworld have the freedom to commit treason, to shift allegiances, and such. Overlords can obviously do this--that's the foundation for the alliance system they're using. Also, barbarian units obviously have the freedom to act without needing someone pay their upkeep--because Jillian is paid mucho-shmuckeros in her job as an allied warlord for Jetstone. Even common infantry can resort to regicide! However, we don't know if casters can do this. Evidence supports it, though--Wanda herself is not of the Plaid tribe, after all, and casters obviously can travel within stacks.

Another possibility to consider--one or more of the eyemancers might die in the unlinking. Stanley's order for them to unlink puts all three of them in jeopardy--not that Stanley really cares, I'm sure. He's just setting up to stack with the foolamancer so he can escape (or perhaps sneak into Charlie's place, assassinate him, and then disband the archons). Anyway, it's a good dramatic time to kill off Misty--because it was set up, because Parson thought of her as a person, and because having lookamancers around complicates storytelling (ask any GM about the pitfalls of divination magic!). And if Stanley gets to pick which one of them croaks, well he's sure to pick Misty--the thinkamancer and foolamancer have too much tactical value to him right now.

[sihnfahl]

Spoiler

Show

Stanley knows that the three archons are on the field of battle. Does Charlie have anything else defending him? Perhaps Stanley will go for the Arkendish instead of the Arkenpliers.

Presumably, yes. If he only had 3 archons to defend himself with, even as powerful as the archons are, people would be beating him down. Even dwagons can be brought down with a warlord and a strong unit (Jillian + gwiffon = dead dwagon).

Also, Jacklyn might have gone above-and-beyond what Charlie wanted her to do, by providing all that moral guidance to Jillian. If Charlie isn't pleased, he might disband her! However, I think Charlie is going to approve, he's probably quite well-defended, and Jacklyn will get a commendation or something.

But Jaclyn points out that it's one of Charlie's rules - breaking the rules CAN be okay. Sometimes you have to do something that doesn't pay to keep the client happy. And boy, is the client HAPPY now.
So, no, Charlie should have no problem with Jaclyn's actions. She ensured a REALLY strong working relationship in the future.

[Girl Wonder]

Second, regarding Wanda's reaction. I'm in the "she dumped me" camp, for sure. But it's clearly deeper than that. Wanda's a sorceress, and thus subject to the great cliche' of spellcasters across literature--the belief in the supremacy of magic. Not only did Jillian kick her to the curb, but her much vaunted magical skill didn't protect her. For someone who thinks they control reality itself, I'm sure it could be pretty shocking to find out that it's not true. In some things, reality will not be subverted.

I think there might be a little 'she dumped me' in there, but really, use someone you purportedly care about the way Wanda used Jillian, and you'd have to be blind or very naive in the ways of love not to expect getting dumped as a reaction if you were ever discovered. I think your second part is closer to the mark... Wanda clearly never thought it was realistic that she COULD be discovered, and then, even having been discovered, have her control broken. That was clearly a major shock.

And that seems quite plausible to me. Wanda is a controlling person, and part-and-parcel to being controlling is a deep-seated belief that you ARE the most capable one around, that you WILL handle things better than those around you, that the best possible outcome (for yourself if at least, and maybe even for all involved) is only possible if YOU are in the driver's seat, because everyone else is less competent than you are.

Consequently, when she is shown to be wrong, and specifically in a matter within her area of expertise, her power, and apparently somewhat close to her emotionally, it can really shake that worldview. What if you're NOT the one who knows best... who makes the tough choices and puts in motion the most worthwhile plans?

And sometimes, just a little crack in that armor can really destroy a tightly-wound and controlling person's worldview, because oftentimes, in addition to the feeling that you are the only one qualified to have that control is an almost paradoxical insecurity that if you lose your complete control over everything, you will have NO control over anything. It is quite possible that Wanda suffers from this sort of insecurity and has kept it deeply hidden. Well... maybe not THAT deeply... the way she's lashed out at Parson, at Misty, and at Sizemore shows a bit of defensiveness that could have been an early warning sign of this insecurity.

And now one of the prized dolls in her collection (Jillian) is no longer hers, and the other (Stanley, though I don't know if she ever considered him quite so much a toy as a dangerous animal to be managed) has banished her from his presence. And, the lowly dirtamancer, good for very little as a caster aside from making crap golems, was right about a point of sorcery where she was not. And, whatever plan she had for Gobwin Knob and manipulating its leader seems to be going up in smoke. And the perfect warlord she sold Stanley on is being credited with a world-class boop-up (undeserved, but still)... yes... Wanda's had more than a little crack put in her armor... she's taken four or five good wallops, and I'm not at all surprised her brain has (at least temporarily) blown a few fuses.

[The Old Hack]

I mused perhaps a week or two ago why Wanda, more than any other character, evokes this reaction in people? Why is there such a strong urge to read into her a greater degree of goodness, nobility, integrity, and cleverness than may actually be there?

Maybe it is because she does possess traits that could be considered admirable or even likable. If you focus on them, you afterwards might feel reluctant to merely set them aside because of the rest of her personality. This could lead people to become her apologists either in the firm belief that there is more to her than what is apparent or in the anticipation that subsequent developments would prove their belief/faith to be right.

I'm personally not very willing to judge anyone in the story, from conscious choice. I prefer to attempt to be the detached observer. No doubt I would feel different if I lived in Erfworld, but I don't.

I am intrigued by this, since I don't feel that for the character. I -do- have an interest in her growth, repentance, and possible redemption, but I do not feel sympathy for her acts or a need to excuse them. But some people do. A LOT of people, and I haven't really heard a good explanation as to why, yet. Someone once confessed it was because she was a 'strong female character', which bothered me, because that perception implies that being a seductive, manipulative rhymes-with-witch are strong female traits, and I really think we need to move past that image as one of a 'strong' woman.

For centuries, society has been predominantly controlled by males unwilling to or afraid of letting women have an equal say. As a result, most conventional roads to power specifically barred women from access to them. Thus, women who desired power had to seek alternate avenues, and at least in the clichés of literature and superficial history seduction and manipulation are often presented as the most frequently used of these. However, merely being seductive and manipulative shows nothing of a woman's strength -- or a man's, for that matter. (Would anyone here care to present an argument as to why these two traits would make Don Juan a strong man?)

My own opinion is that, if the 'Wanda' character were male, but otherwise essentially identical, she would be held to a far higher standard of accountability for her bad actions, and be required to show a great deal more proof of her good intentions to garner this level of apologism from the readership, and I believe this ultimately harms the depiction of women as equals in media.

I agree one hundred percent.

I want us to be viewed as men's equals... different, perhaps, but equal, and I don't think that shall ever truly happen so long as we continue to make excuses for depictions of bad behavior by female characters. If actual characterizations of 'Evil' continue to be reserved only for the Stanleys of the world, then how can we truly appreciate a woman's goodness, and the meaningfulness of her being good despite temptation, if we fail to recognize within the female the potential for evil without mitigating it with apologism?

While I agree with the above, I still feel that there may be more to it than merely Wanda being a pretty female. I briefly tried to visualise a group of Stanley-apologists as fervent as the debaters have been about Wanda, and I admit, my imagination balked at it. But male/female is not the only difference between the two of them. For one thing, Wanda is sophisticated, subtle and hard to read where Stanley is basically as obvious as a punch in the face -- at least from what we have seen until now. And it is much easier to become an apologist for someone with seeming hidden depths than for someone who basically acts like a five-year-old with few personality traits much beyond 'I like', 'I not like' and 'I want.'

~H.

[fendrin]

Well, there's her breakdown at the end of the interrogation. That's easy to explain if the information was extracted against her will (when the spell used to "soften up" her will to resist ended, her head cleared and she realized what she'd given up). I'm at a loss to understand it if she hadn't really done anything she didn't want to do.

that could also be the sudden realization of the emotional pickle she's gotten herself into. you have to remember that it's a Romeo & Juliet type of situation. Two hearts on the opposite side of a war, in love...

Jillian choosing Ansom is basically likeif Juliet said 'forget you, Romeo, I'm a Montague!' after they had secretly gotten married.

If Jillian wants to get caught, it could be that she remembers being dominated (which I think is what she was referring to when she said "I like it.") but does not remember betraying Ansom by giving up information or having persistent judgment-altering spells cast on her. Only now, with the breaking of the suggestion spell, is she both free to act and aware that she was being used against Ansom by Wanda.

Could be, though I personally choose to believe that Jillian knew what she was doing when she gave up the info to Wanda, and that it was a 'gift' for her lover (This too, is totally speculative).
The angry reaction Jillian has when attacking Leeroy is justification in her own mind as to how she is not hurting someone she loves (Jillian decides that Wanda 'deserves to be punished')

I'm probably wrong. Occam's Razor would lead me away from it; good thing I don't put too much stock in Occam's Razor when applied to fiction

Ah, but at least I've tried to argue my case. You haven't given me any definitive proof that she is not cruel or abusive

I've been saying all along that I am not arguing that Wanda ISN'T cruel/abusive, I've been arguing that she MIGHT not be. Devil's Advocate, and all that. I've been stating that since about page 5.

Mr. Balder has chosen to tell us a story without thought balloons, thus knowing 'definitively' what is going on in character's heads is -never- going to happen, yet that seems to be the level of proof you require to be convinced. Ergo, trying to argue to that level of proof based merely on character's spoken words and behavior is pointless. I cannot convince you, because you seem to be requiring a level of proof that is beyond the bounds of what the comic provides. Likewise, you cannot prove to me 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that Wanda is NOT cruel and abusive.

My point exactly! Up until now, you have been stating that Wanda is cruel, etc. as facts. They are not.

I hold up a statement that I shall attempt to show that the preponderance of the relevant arguments prove, and you attempt to show that the preponderance of the relevant arguments disprove it.

I've never liked that structure. A 'preponderance' is such a vague amount, and (especially in this case) there can be no 'proving', as you yourself just pointed out. Without a third-party judge, we would compile circumstantial evidence until the next strip came out and never come to a consensus. I posit that I can come up with a counter-argument to anything you can come up with. I would rather not try to prove that, though. We have no real evidence one way or the other, thus it would be just an exercise in creative rationalization.

I offer that Jillian's reaction after breaking Wanda's control (a rather 'in-your-face', 'I hope you can see this Wanda' as I defy you) is a much more concrete indication of her displeasure at being so abused.

As I said above, I choose to believe that this os Jillian rationalizing her own choice, making Wanda 'at fault' for Jillian's own choices.

As I said, creative rationalization...

Why, then, would Jillian be pleased that Wanda was playing her emotions in order to get her to betray him?

Assumption Fault: you are assuming that Wanda played Jillian's emotions.
I posit that Jillian is a barbarian and can love whom she chooses (as she herself says) and that as a theoretically mature adult, she should take responsibility for her own emotional choices, not blame someone else.

Wanda played Jillian in order to get her to do something to harm someone Jillian loved. This is abuse of trust. Abuse of friendship. AND, I might add, abuse of whatever power you or I might imagine Jillian might have surrendered to Wanda in some conjectural scenario off-screen.

I'm still not seeing Wanda playing Jillian. Can you point out where it happened in the strip? Where did Wanda play Jillian to do something to harm Ansom? That's exactly he sort of scenario that the alleged spell -can't- do, as stated by Wanda and implied by Sizemore.

Moreover, Jillian suffered doubt, conflict, anguish, and very nearly brought disaster down upon the man she loves because of Wanda's abuse and control.

Is it because of Wanda's alleged control or because Jillian put herself in an emotional pickle? No evidence either way, I'm afraid.

Jamie is fairly skilled at depicting facial expressions, he'd have to be, in a comic with no thought balloons, if we're to see even a glimpse of the character's inner struggles, amd the turmoil Jillian felt sitting by a campfire the night before the battle, and most importantly, when forced to confront the inner struggle by Jaclyn indicate she felt a great deal of doubt, uncertainty, and conflict, conflict that Wanda purposely fed and nourished in order to further her own plans.

See my statement above regarding your assumption.

She left Jillian conflicted and troubled in a clearing, and flew off, slyly smiling to herself because her manipulations were at work, seemingly concerned not at all for the stresses she was placing upon Jillian.

You are assigning meaning based on your assumptions. An equally valid assumption is that Wanda is smiling because she is confident that Wanda loves her, and that gives her strength and security. Similarly, she is confident that Jillian will choose her over Ansom in the end, because Ansom is everything Jillian despises about being a noble.

In addition to simply countering these arguments, can you supply arguments to the contrary?

Nope. Or at least no arguments that aren't as heavily based on assumption as the ones you presented.

But she only needs to be a little unwitting, she only needs to show a little trust of Wanda, in order for Wanda to abuse it, and I feel Wanda's actions in the comic have proven that she has.

How Wanda presents things in front of Stanley should be scrutinized carefully. One thing I think we both feel is true is that Wanda manipulates Stanley, and that affects how she talks about things when he is around. Additionally, I think I have shown that the comic does not prove anything one way or the other. I think it is intentionally ambiguous.

Here is a snippet from one of my early posts in this thread:

We see Wanda in shock. Wanda, who makes domination (physical, emotional, magical) her life. It all fits now. Fundamentally, Wanda is insecure. She dominates and controls because she's afraid of being abandoned.

that's how I feel about Wanda. She may be cruel and abusive, but she does it because she has been hurt and she just wants somebody to love. and love her unconditionally, despite her flaws.


Or may be I'm just projecting

[Arkenputtyknife]

More seriously, he promised to maintain Parson, Wanda, and Sizemore's upkeep, even after concluding that they'd either betrayed him or failed him.

He only said that their upkeep would be paid as long as the city stands. He said nothing about himself being involved in that upkeep, nor that he personally was promising to sustain them.

If (as many of us suspect) Stanley is planning to do a bunk with the Arkenhammer and dwagons, then GK is left holding the rather substantial bill for Parson's services. It's fair to assume that Wanda is also fairly expensive, and I'd guess that Sizemore's services don't cost peanuts, either. Stanley is left to spend however much of the treasury he manages to carry with him, along with any additional income he may somehow gain along the way, without supporting a bunch of people he now sees as a liability.

From Stanley's point of view, it could be seen as weakening former (but now unwanted) allies while appearing to do them a good turn.

[Girl Wonder]

that could also be the sudden realization of the emotional pickle she's gotten herself into. you have to remember that it's a Romeo & Juliet type of situation. Two hearts on the opposite side of a war, in love...

Um... no, we don't have to remember that because that's never been established. You've attacked a lot of my assumptions, but this one, I think, is the biggest assumption of all.

Wanda has stated Jillian loves Ansom.

Jillian has stated Jillian loves Ansom.

Wanda pointedly did NOT state that Jillian loves her, only that Jillian would not directly harm her.

Jillian has never stated or hinted that she loves Wanda.

Wanda has never stated or hinted that she loves Jillian.

Please note that in all of the above statements, I mean love in the 'romantic' sense, rather than the platonic or familial sense.

I think there is a reason for this... Rob and Jamie have been VERY careful in what they choose to show us, and what they don't. As far as Wanda/Jillian are concerned, they've given lots of indicators to get us thinking a certain way ('Wanda and Jillian are in love with each other!'), and this, by and large, seems to have worked, since it often seems to be taken as a given on these message boards.

But why would they lead us to believe something yet keep it so hidden? So that they can one day reveal the grand non-surprise of Jillian and Wanda being attracted to each other? While the possibility exists, I consider it far more likely in terms of the narrative (especially from storytellers who go to great lengths to give us something we don't expect) that we have been purposely set up to believe that a romantic relationship exists, only to surprise us by ultimately showing us that it is something else. (Sisters? Do siblings even exist in Erfworld? Former teacher/student? College roomies, or the equivalent? Was Wanda once a Princess, too, being groomed for a throne, yet dissatisfied with the role, and they discovered this common theme between them in a chance meeting? Old comrades-in-arms who were on the same side of the campaign?) There are a great number of things that could explain the curious nature of their interaction in addition to the one commonly bandied about, and almost all of them are far more unexpected at this point.

When I see Jillian and Wanda together (at least when Wanda's not beating the snot out of Jillian), I see two friends, compatriots, almost sisterly regard. Call it woman's intuition, but their conversation is far more like something I'd have with my best friend than an ardent lover who I only have the chance to be with intermittently. Even when Jillian revels in Wanda's embrace on dwagonback, and when they talk, heads and hearts close together behind the dwagon, I am reminded more of the close, whispered, 'secret' chats I've had with a girlfriend and warm hugs we've shared more than any kind of ardor or forbidden love.

I could be wrong, but I like to think the storytellers haven't worked this hard to make us believe something without actually showing it to us unless they later hope to surprise us with an unexpected twist.

As for your other arguments about Wanda not being cruel or abusive, well, I'll take assumptions based on actions and reactions I've seen inside the panels of the comic over 'what if' scenarios that take place largely within the bounds of conjecture. And yes, we're all making assumptions in the absence of thought balloons or statements from the authors, but I'm arguing a difference in quality, not kind.

[Wender]

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.

That is precisely what makes her pitiable to me: I read the need for control as a fundamental inability to trust, which usually comes down to insecurity and low self-worth on a profound level. That is indeed pitiable. That is not mutually exclusive with evil; in fact, I would say that the two correlate fairly strongly. I don't pity the trusting, because they already have the basics. All they need in the worst case is help.

I'll pity a wounded bear too. There's no reason not to: It's wounded. That doesn't mean that I'll get anywhere near it. Part of what makes its condition especially pitiful, beyond the pain, is the instinct to lash out, because anyone who gets close enough to help you is also close enough to finish you off, and the narrow instinct for self-preservation outweighs whatever reason a bear might have to trust a stranger.

To extend that metaphor, the more beyond redemption Wanda is, the more I will pity her, and the less inclined I will be to help her (even in the purely notional sense that a fan can help a fiction, by rooting for her). Right now it's too early to say, but she has a real opportunity for growth here. So, for that matter, does Jillian.

[Girl Wonder]

This, though, I thought deserves its own response...

(Don't know how to do the quotes right, so...)

I said:
She left Jillian conflicted and troubled in a clearing, and flew off, slyly smiling to herself because her manipulations were at work, seemingly concerned not at all for the stresses she was placing upon Jillian.

Fendrin said:
You are assigning meaning based on your assumptions. An equally valid assumption is that Wanda is smiling because she is confident that Wanda (sic.. I think you meant Jillian -GW) loves her, and that gives her strength and security.

Oh, come on! I've seen enough smiles to know Wanda's smile in the final panel of this page is NOT the life-affirming smile of someone who has just been validated by true love. To say nothing of the looks in Panels 2 and 6. I recall the posts after this page went up, and people were talking about how chilling they found Wanda's demeanor on this page to be (and many of them loved it!) To say it's the warm smile of someone who has had their love affirmed? This REALLY seems like a stretch.

Of course, you've argued that my assumptions are a stretch, too, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, each confident that our own assumptions shall either be borne out or rendered irrelevant by the unfolding of the plot.


(In reference to the above, does anyone know how to quote someone who is quoting me such that both their quote and the quote of my quote appear? I never get it right. If you do know and care to respond, please let me know by Private Message? No need to clutter up the thread further because of my clumsiness on the message boards :) )

[Arkenputtyknife]

I'm afraid I have to strenuously disagree with this. Please note that the following is not a comment on whether Wanda is evil or not, but rather a comment about the nature of torture. …

I don't know whether The Old Hack agreed or disagreed with my earlier post, since the above wasn't written in response to it. I do know that his post requires a careful and thoughtful reply.

I'm mostly in agreement with what The Old Hack says, but I think he may be missing something. Or not. It may be that I'm missing something in his writing. Or maybe we're fully in agreement and I'm just not seeing it again. Wouldn't be the first time.

In the real world, whipping someone may or may not constitute torture. There is no simple easy-to-define dividing line; it depends on too many things—the circumstances, the person's emotional and physical state, the intentions of the person behind the whip, the desires of the person being whipped, heaven knows what altogether. In fact, as I understand it (I'm not in the habit of reading torture manuals), modern-day interrogators regard physical torture as a rather ineffective way of achieving their goals.

My own point was that in Erfworld, the total-healing system allows a much greater range of injury to be inflicted without necessarily descending into the realm of torture, and therefore we have to be extremely careful when we accuse Wanda of “brutal torture” when we see her doing what in the real world would be horrible physical abuse to Jillian. She may well have been torturing Jillian—I'm offering no opinion on that—but we can't say that she was just because we saw the physical effects. The psychological after-effects are a different matter entirely.

A submissive who goes to a real-world SM dungeon may come away with a fine collection of welts and perhaps worse, but without psychological scars (unless something went very, very wrong). A prisoner who undergoes a brutal interrogation may experience less actual physical abuse, but suffer far greater and lasting mental trauma. I shudder to think what might be experienced in an Erfworld SM dungeon—but it wouldn't be torture by any useful definition.