I dont agree with Rich.

[NerfTW]

But relatively rarely both, which is what we have here. And even more rarely unintentionally.

Please do just a TINY bit of research. That is actually VERY common, since people have very different views of what they like, only shallow, general themes are going to have a universal appeal.

You just want to declare anything you don't approve of as "wrong", and these "other opinions" couldn't possibly exist, even if the author himself tells you.

That line about leaps of logic and Miko that Roy makes? Applies to you as well.

[David Argall]

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that is not a successful character, your standards are too damn high.

Well, since we are on the net, finding you, if you even exist, makes it difficult to look you in the eye. However, I have been told many a time I have rather low standards.
Now whether we call Miko a successful character depends on the definition we use. Miko was a clear benefit to the strip, and so by that common definition, she has to be deemed quite successful.
However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.
Our writer deems himself satisfied with the final result, and with good reason. But he has most reason to be proud of the patch job turning out well, not that it was superior or equal to what the original plan was. Miko was a major benefit to the strip, but she could have been far more.

Please do just a TINY bit of research. That is actually VERY common,

If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

[Teron]

Scripts are allowed and expected to evolve as they're written. Just off the top of my head, Orson Scott Card wrote in the foreword to Speaker for the Dead that he didn't originally intend Novinha's children to play a significant role (which seems unthinkable if you've read the book). Mr. Burlew thinks the final result is better, as do I. Stop pushing your opinion as fact.

[David Argall]

Stop pushing your opinion as fact.

So why doesn't this demand apply to you? Or not apply since this entire threat can be said to be opinion?

[Morgan Wick]

Of course, as I have mentioned a few times, there are a lot of characters and a limited number of ways to express any differences, so a lot of characters are going to resemble a lot of characters.

On that note, this may have been beaten to death long ago, but over the course of re-reading the Azure City battle, I notice that virtually all the soldiers look exactly like Kazumi and Daigo, possibly another level of in-joke surrounding their existence.

See what you did?
You turned a thread about beating up Alan Moore into a thread about Miko.

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that is not a successful character, your standards are too damn high. What is your successful character? Jesus?*

*Note: That is a literary allusion and not a religious one so don't take it as such people. Please.

The mere fact that you call an allusion to Jesus a literary allusion is likely to offend some people, especially if they think you're implying Jesus was never real.

[DrewDaGreek]

I have to say, the SoD doesn't look much like a bunch of comic strips. It is somewhere between.

I also have to say, despite the format it is a great read.

One part

Spoiler

Show

"Where's sister?" and the following panels.. horrifying, saddening, emotional.. I felt for them.

And Xykon had some great one-liners. "Well, I hate to murder and run, but - oh, wait, no, I love to do that." Classic..

And the little Eugene foreshadowing.. "When you're dead you're never going to look back on your life and say 'Darn, I didn't spend enough time on petty revenge.'"

And Right-Eye's final word.. that just struck me. The set up for that moment was just perfect. One word just resonated everything.

Rich is quite a writer, as much as some people disdain the comic as a literary device, Rich has succeeded admirably.

Keep it up!

[Selene]

However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.

Rich could have forced his original vision on the comic if he'd wanted, regardless of what worked. (See Riley from Buffy.) But every good writer knows that when the characters don't want to do what you want them to do, they're right and you're wrong. The story is always better if you just go with it.

If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

Wade from Sliders. My friends and I hated that little cheerleader brat. But she was apparently very popular. Sabrina Lloyd really nailed the character. Kudos for her acting skills.


And Giant? Humility is all well and good, but sometimes you just have to say "hey, I rocked socks! Go, me!" SoD is one of those times. I get chills just thinking of the end. Just did typing that, actually.

[David Argall]

Wade from Sliders. My friends and I hated that little cheerleader brat. But she was apparently very popular.

Now there are several distinctions here. Wade was one of a band of "castaways". It is more or less mandatory that she stay with the plot. There are enough ways to get rid of her, such as when the actress is fired, but the basic is that the party is forced to stay together.
Miko, by contrast, is somebody the party meets on their travels. It is much easier to dump her. It thus becomes odd that she was intended to stay permanently in the plot if the romance was to be long over. If the romance was supposed to continue, it makes a reason for the lovers to get together now and then.

My picture here is the typical TV/whatever romance. The hero is into this one girl and she gets a lot of space, but once the romance is over, the girl moves offstage, and is rarely seen again. Or the romance remains alive and she continues to get coverage. She does not vanish and re-appear when the romance is gone. Wade rather follows this pattern. It takes several shows for her to leave, but she does, she is almost entirely gone. She does not pop in and out of the picture.

Now for a successful Miko, we might look at the Skipper in Gilligan's Island. He was supposed to scream at Gilligan on a regular basis, with good reason, but Gilligan was to be a highly sympathetic character and however much he deserved yelling at, it was extremely easy to hate the yeller. They had a terrible time getting an actor who could make the Skipper a figure the audience liked.

[Selene]

David, I'm trying really hard to follow you, but... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade. More permanent, since Wade eventually left the show and Alan Hale showed up for all the movie sequels. Wade did come back once as Spock's Brain (snicker), and yes, IIRC, she was supposed to be Quinn's love interest. Then she wasn't, and we got Maggie. Wade fans probably hated Maggie, but I thought she was awesome. LOL.

[SPoD]

However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.

"What was intended" was to write a good character who added value to the story. Everything else is secondary, if not tertiary, to that goal, including the exact details of what the character does in the script. Therefore, since the author and most of his audience feel that the character added to the story, it is exactly what was intended, even if it accomplished that goal differently than originally envisioned.

What really makes no sense is that on one hand, you claim that Miko could have been "so much more", and on the other hand, you acknowledge that Rich's first idea was light romantic comedy. In what way is light romantic comedy "so much more" than a compelling tragic character who falls from grace by her own blindness??? It's like you're saying, "Well, Rich wrote King Lear, but man, he COULD have written a sitcom! What a failure!"

[David Argall]

"What was intended" was to write a good character who added value to the story. Everything else is secondary, if not tertiary, to that goal, including the exact details of what the character does in the script. Therefore, since the author and most of his audience feel that the character added to the story, it is exactly what was intended, even if it accomplished that goal differently than originally envisioned.

Now this by definition eliminates the problem, but it is a bad definition as a result.
I buy a lottery ticket, which pays $5. It has added to my net worth. However, if I had used slightly different numbers I could have gained $5000. My lottery ticket is a failure in terms of what it could have achieved.
Now with a lottery ticket, I have [or should have] no grounds for thinking that 123456 will pay any different than 123457.
However, in most activities, I do have an idea about what will pay off the better on average. [Under many lottery systems, 123457 will pay better. The prize is shared by all who select the winning number and people have this tendency to follow patterns, meaning there will be more betting on 123456, and a smaller payout when they win. If you try a lottery that offers you a choice of a number you select vs a number selected at random by the machine, you are better off taking the computer number.] So the fact you do better than break even does not mean you have won.

What really makes no sense is that on one hand, you claim that Miko could have been "so much more", and on the other hand, you acknowledge that Rich's first idea was light romantic comedy. In what way is light romantic comedy "so much more" than a compelling tragic character who falls from grace by her own blindness??? It's like you're saying, "Well, Rich wrote King Lear, but man, he COULD have written a sitcom! What a failure!"

Have you checked the relative pay for sitcom writers vs writers of tragedy? It is impossible to tell at this distance, but my bet is that King Lear was a loss leader, to give the actors pretensions of grandeur that allowed them to soak their patron for money.
I'd say that deeming "King Lear" a failure would be exactly right. I, and likely you and much of the rest of the readers, would not be here if the writer was trying for King Lear. That "King Lear" just doesn't benefit us as much as "As You Like it" [which some feel was named that precisely because Shakespeare felt that sort of "tripe" was what his customers wanted].
There is a lot of elitist nonsense babbling about the superiority of tragedy. It is pretty much just a way to pretend to be superior to the great unwashed. No thank you. I prefer to provide what the customer wants.

[Teron]

So why doesn't this demand apply to you? Or not apply since this entire threat can be said to be opinion?

If you'll point out where I've done it, I'll gladly apologise (and take you more seriously than I do now after what seems little more than an "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort).

[The Extinguisher]

Apparently, Roy is a completle failure as well. He was originally intended to be a wizard, but that didn't work out.

Who knows what other characters have gone through changes? They must be failures as well!

[dps]

David, I'm trying really hard to follow you, but... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade. More permanent, since Wade eventually left the show and Alan Hale showed up for all the movie sequels.

By the end of the show, only one of the original 4 "sliders" was left.

[Sequinox]

Originally Posted by David Argall
If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

Gaius Baltar. Great actor, love-to-hate character. 'Nuff said.

[Kreistor]

Well, as someone that reads both Moore and Burlew, I have to say:

Rich is very correct. Moore is vastly superior as an author. In fact, Watchmen is sitting right here beside me. I pray that the upcoming movie doesn't shred it too badly. Unfortunately, I don't think the youth of today will really understand the relevance of the work compared to it's original release during the (pre-Glasnost) Cold War, while Reagan was still president. It released more than two years before the Wall fell, when no one expected Gorbachev and his perestroika reforms were anything more than window dressing for a Soviet society bent on spreading Communism to all corners of the world: the paranoia of the time and the fear of nuclear annihilation were so much more pervasive than our relatively safe 21st Century. Even after 9/11, the world we live in is so much closer to being a Golden Age, it's hard to conceive that only 20 years have passed. They could have destroyed the world five times over in '87 when I entered University and found the Watchmen for the first time. Our generation was the first to spend its entire lives in fear of ICBM's destroying the world: bombers could be shot down, but ICBM's could not be stopped in any way, even with Star Wars proceeding apace. We all knew what MAD meant, and we weren't thinking of a parody comic book. Mutually Assured Destruction was the only defense against the crazy Soviets, or cowboy Americans, depending on your country of birth. Moore's work spoke of the insanity of the times, the paranoia of the people in power, and the fear that the only way out of the system was too drastic to conceive of.

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact. The Watchmen broke ground, helping to drive the Graphic Novel into mainstream media, and out from under the shadow of the Comic Book Code -- no matter what else Moore has done, at the very least he is deserving of being lumped with Miller and Gaiman as the forces responsible for the resurrection of the comic book as a relevant and mature form of art. OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

[David Argall]

... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The skipper [obviously] was not a romantic interest. Wade [& Miko] was. The Skipper-Miko comparison is on the point of audience reaction to an easily hated character. The Skipper was successful in getting the audience to like him, while Miko had a much more varied reaction.

Wade did come back once

Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back, but the picture given of the plans for Miko was that she would be re-appearing a substantial number of times after the plot moved on, maybe every 50-100 strips. By contrast, Wade just had her death scene delayed a year or two.

Gaius Baltar. Great actor, love-to-hate character. 'Nuff said.

The trouble with "Nuff said" is that it often isn't. Here I can't be sure, but you seem to have misunderstood the question. The request was for cases of the secondary character in a romance who stays in the plot as a secondary character after the romance is over. Gaius Baltar might qualify as a Miko type [hard to say from 2nd hand sources], but he is the major figure in the romance. Number 6 is possible here, but the description of the plot leaves me wondering if it really had one, as opposed to a bunch of dramatic moments loosely tied to each other.

Apparently, Roy is a completle failure as well. He was originally intended to be a wizard, but that didn't work out.

We lack information on that. Miko was changed because she was not working. We have no information as to why Roy the wizard became Roy the fighter. Roy the wiz likely was working fine, but Roy the intelligent fighter just appealed more.

[Calinero]

I would rather not get drawn into a Miko debate (Gods know there are enough of them,) so I'll just give my opinion:

Whether or not Miko was originally intended to fulfill the role she did, she ended up making a great contribution to the story. If she was originally intended to do this, then kudos to Rich. If she was originally intended to be a shallow love interest, I fail to see how it could have been much of a better subplot than the one she did receive. If Celia's subplots so far are anything to go by, Miko lucked out. If her transformation to a misguided fanatic was an accident, or unplanned, then let's just call it one of those lucky quirks that help writers out sometimes. I doubt there are many successful people out there who can claim they've never made a lucky mistake before. Miko might just be one of those mistakes. Kind of like the ice cream cone. Except with more flame threads.

[The Extinguisher]

Well, as someone that reads both Moore and Burlew, I have to say:

Rich is very correct. Moore is vastly superior as an author. In fact, Watchmen is sitting right here beside me. I pray that the upcoming movie doesn't shred it too badly. Unfortunately, I don't think the youth of today will really understand the relevance of the work compared to it's original release during the (pre-Glasnost) Cold War, while Reagan was still president. It released more than two years before the Wall fell, when no one expected Gorbachev and his perestroika reforms were anything more than window dressing for a Soviet society bent on spreading Communism to all corners of the world: the paranoia of the time and the fear of nuclear annihilation were so much more pervasive than our relatively safe 21st Century. Even after 9/11, the world we live in is so much closer to being a Golden Age, it's hard to conceive that only 20 years have passed. They could have destroyed the world five times over in '87 when I entered University and found the Watchmen for the first time. Our generation was the first to spend its entire lives in fear of ICBM's destroying the world: bombers could be shot down, but ICBM's could not be stopped in any way, even with Star Wars proceeding apace. We all knew what MAD meant, and we weren't thinking of a parody comic book. Mutually Assured Destruction was the only defense against the crazy Soviets, or cowboy Americans, depending on your country of birth. Moore's work spoke of the insanity of the times, the paranoia of the people in power, and the fear that the only way out of the system was too drastic to conceive of.

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact. The Watchmen broke ground, helping to drive the Graphic Novel into mainstream media, and out from under the shadow of the Comic Book Code -- no matter what else Moore has done, at the very least he is deserving of being lumped with Miller and Gaiman as the forces responsible for the resurrection of the comic book as a relevant and mature form of art. OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

Except that it wasn't Moore vs. Burlew. It was The Black Dossier vs. Start of Darkness. Now, I haven't read either, but if Shakespeare was to right complete crap, should it be proclaimed good because Shakespeare wrote it.

Rich writes excellent characters and storylines. It's a bit malicious to call it a sitcom. I won't deny that Moore is an excellent writer, but you're hardly being fair to Rich here.

We lack information on that. Miko was changed because she was not working. We have no information as to why Roy the wizard became Roy the fighter. Roy the wiz likely was working fine, but Roy the intelligent fighter just appealed more.

Because Roy couldn't be the deadpan snarker and the smart guy wizard. He must be a failure then, by your accounts.

[SPoD]

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact.

This is where you lose me. You should stick to the works, not the authors.

You have no idea what Rich Burlew will be remembered; he's in his 30's now and OOTS is only set to run for a few more years. He could have 40 more years of writing fiction in him, and it is more than possible that one or more of those works yet-to-come could trump (or at least challenge) "Watchmen".

Given that the post we are discussing specifically mentions an interest in writing traditional comics, we shouldn't judge Rich Burlew's value as a writer based on what he started with. For all we know, Rich's "Aquaman" idea is as ground-breaking as Moore's take on "Swamp Thing" (a D-list horror character before Moore took him on), which could in turn lead to Rich writing his own comic book magnum opus someday.

And if none of that convinces you, allow me to point out that Alan Moore began his career writing a weekly newspaper comic strip called "Maxwell the Magic Cat", which he wrote from 1979 to 1986--longer than Rich has written OOTS. One's first work does not necessarily say much about the future possibilities. Rich says that stick figure parody comics shouldn't beat Alan Moore; nowhere does he state that he intends to write stick figure parody comics for the rest of his career!

[Selene]

@dps: Don't get me started on the horror that was 5th season. LOL.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The skipper [obviously] was not a romantic interest. Wade [& Miko] was. The Skipper-Miko comparison is on the point of audience reaction to an easily hated character. The Skipper was successful in getting the audience to like him, while Miko had a much more varied reaction.

Well, the Skipper was your analogy, not mine. Now you're saying you made an invalid analogy? *headscratch*

Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back,

Ok, first, let me say that I find your posts entertaining, and enjoy reading them, and that I have absolutely nothing against you, so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm just having an amusing observation here. Which is that I am really not sure that you have any leg to stand on while claiming someone else is picky. I mean comparing the merits of comedy vs. tragedy on the fact that sitcom writers in the 21st century make more money than Shakespeare did? How picky is that?? How much do you think Shakespeare made for his comedies? How much do you think the writers of CSI make? All that said, I don't mind being called picky. I've been called a whole lot worse. LOL.

Anyhow, Wade was sent off to a breeder camp. We could have tried to rescue her (I'm glad we didn't, since I hated her a lot). But given that she left the show at the end of the 3rd season, and it only lasted two more seasons, I'm thinking one appearance is a fairly significant number. How many times did anyone else who left come back?

[David Argall]

if Shakespeare was to right complete crap, should it be proclaimed good because Shakespeare wrote it.

Shakespeare did write some complete crap, quite a bit of it actually, and it is often proclaimed as good because Shakespeare wrote it. Check with any Shakespeare scholar [tho they may not agree on what the crap was.]

Rich writes excellent characters and storylines. It's a bit malicious to call it a sitcom.

Well, it doesn't really meet the definition of sitcom unless we stretch it to cover just about all comedy, but under the definitions that rank types of stories, our strip and sitcoms get about the same ranking.
And sitcoms can have excellent characters and storylines.

Because Roy couldn't be the deadpan snarker and the smart guy wizard.

Do you have a source for this? Or just speculating?

Whether or not Miko was originally intended to fulfill the role she did, she ended up making a great contribution to the story. If she was originally intended to be a shallow love interest, I fail to see how it could have been much of a better subplot than the one she did receive.

Well, to start with, she is now gone from the rest of the story. Had she stayed in, her likely appearances might well have doubled, which already suggests a larger contribution.

If Celia's subplots so far are anything to go by, Miko lucked out.

Celia's romantic role does suggest romance is not our writer's strong point. However, in potential [which is what we are discussing here] Miko is much better suited to romantic comedy than Celia because she has more conflict with Roy. Celia and Roy have a nice [and rather dull] evening ending with a kiss [and...]. Miko and Roy can have all sorts of flareups and problems before that kiss [and not to mention some more flareups when they wake in the morning]
So we see an improvement in the plot if we could have kept Miko romantic.
For future plot, we have to make a lot of guessing, but there are a variety of possible uses of considerable utility. So her future utility could have been quite high.

Well, the Skipper was your analogy, not mine. Now you're saying you made an invalid analogy?

No, I am saying it was an analogy on a different point. The Skipper deomonstrated that a Miko character can be liked. Wade is an attempt to demonstrate that ex-lovers can stay in the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back,

I am really not sure that you have any leg to stand on while claiming someone else is picky.

You may be misreading again. I am saying here that I am being picky.

I mean comparing the merits of comedy vs. tragedy on the fact that sitcom writers in the 21st century make more money than Shakespeare did?

No such comparison was made. The question was King Lear vs As you like it in the case of Shakespeare, with the point being that the title of As you like it suggests this is what the audience wanted, and paid for, and that things like King Lear were for ego satisfaction and social climbing.

How much do you think the writers of CSI make?

When we talk of comedy vs tragedy, CSI is a comedy. [The ancient distinction is that in comedy, the hero wins. In tragedy, the hero loses.]

given that she left the show at the end of the 3rd season, and it only lasted two more seasons, I'm thinking one appearance is a fairly significant number.

One is significant when somebody says never. Beyond that, one is an accident and no more than potentially meaningful.

[Sc00by]

All kinds of stuff Including:
Our writer deems himself satisfied with the final result, and with good reason. But he has most reason to be proud of the patch job turning out well, not that it was superior or equal to what the original plan was. Miko was a major benefit to the strip, but she could have been far more.

Because of the author notes in a book you are privy to the creation process of a character. If those notes didn't exist you wouldn't know that that character was originally created to have a different role in the story.

When you read a book you have no idea how the characters developed during the writing process. Just because, in this instance, you can see how the author changed his mind on how a character was to be utilised after the initial character creation it doesn't devalue the characters eventual contribution or the abilities of the creator.

There are plenty of characters out there who became more, or less, or sometimes something completely different to how they were conceived, but are still great, well written, characters. Sometimes we are privileged to have comments from the creators showing how the character developed, sometimes we can just see it over the course of story. Sometimes the changes happen before we meet the character and we're never any the wiser. All the characters are equally valid and all their creators are equally talented*, all that changes is our perception due to access to information.

*for the sake of this argument.

On topic. I see Rich's point, but if the 'public' at large felt that Start of darkness belonged in the same category as The Black Dossier then he should be (as he was) suitably flattered! And if he then happened to win then more power to his elbow! A 1st endeavour has as much right to be considered excellent as the 36th product of a prolific writer. In this instance what has gone before is irrelevant. Though I can imagine the feelings of 'unworthyness'* that would go through anyone's mind when put in a position to best someone they consider an 'icon' of their field.

*yay! Made up word!

[Finn Solomon]

I don't agree with him either, on a number of things, but in this one case I do agree with him. I also wouldn't want to live in a world where he beat Alan Moore.

[Superglucose]

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

Sooo many things wrong here. First... OotS may be mostly what you call 'fluff' but there's still a strong undertone of doing the right thing regardless of the possible consequences (notice how Hinjo stayed as long as he could, Haley went back for Roy, and O'Chul's actions with MitD). Not to mention the huge rants about redemption and what good actually is (see everything that has to do with Miko). Saying that OotS can't say anything about society or reality even if Rich tried is... plain wrong.

Second, since when is it necessary for something to be 'deep' in order for it to be 'enjoyable.' My least favorite part of the Narnia series is getting smacked in the face repeatedly with a Jesus allegory in the shape of a lion. I love the stories, I just get sick of "Oh by the way, GOD!"

Great Gatsby is hailed as one of the deepest and most meaningful books ever written, alongside The Sun Also Rises. Both books were painful to read and I've not met more than three people who enjoyed either. Are they great books because of how deep they are? Do they deserve prizes?

It doesn't matter how 'deep' your book is, if it's poorly written and contains metric tones of plot holes no one is going to read it. And if no one reads your book, no one takes meaning from it.

Plot and enjoyability > depth.

Thirdly, demonstrate how what Moore won for had more depth than SoD. As I recall, Watchmen was not what was being put up against SoD, therefore Watchmen has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this competition.

I think Rich has a point that SoD wasn't really a graphic novel, and therefore shouldn't have won, but I also think he sells himself a little bit short. Yes, it's not a 'graphic novel' but he didn't say that. What he said was,

Which is a GOOD thing; I don't think I want to live in a world were a parody stick figure comic beats one of the comic industry's top writers.

That statement I completely disagree with. XKCD is consistently deeper and more intelligently thought out than literally every other webcomic or comic I have ever seen. In addition, it is consistently funnier than the rest. Guess what? It's all in stick figures and still manages to be amazing!

Parody stick figure comic can be funnier and more plot intensive than something one of the comic industry's top writers makes. If Rich had said instead something along the lines of "I don't think SoD was a graphic novel, and I don't think it deserved to win in that category" I would be able to say that he's right. But his 'stick figure comic parody' is one of the best comics out there, internet or in print. SoD is one of the greatest compilations of drawings ever made, and not because the drawing artwork is so work-intensive but because the writing is amazing and the art fits it perfectly.

Rich, maybe you didn't think you deserved that category, but don't sell out OotS as art. OotS is art, better art than almost every other shmuck with a webcomic can manage. Why? Because it is, as you said, a "parody stick figure comic." It does what it does, and it does it well. Be proud.

[Red XIV]

With regard to the Miko sub-issue, I'm at a loss to see how she would've been a better character and contributed more to the story had she just been a love interest for Roy, instead of being a true character in her own right, with a character arc that's about her, rather than being about Roy.

Besides, given how their personalities meshed (or more accurately, didn't) from the first time they met, I can't imagine that Rich ever intended for any romance between Roy and Miko to be of the successful variety. He practically beat us over the head with their incompatibility and the fact that Roy's attraction was on a purely physical level.

[SmartAlec]

So we see an improvement in the plot if we could have kept Miko romantic.

Hang on, hang on.

Firstly you try to establish that romance is not Rich's strong point.

Then you try to claim that potentially, having Miko as a continuing romantic subplot can only improve the plot.

You don't seem to give any thought to the idea that having Miko as a continuing romantic subplot could actually have been to the detriment of the plot, which seems odd considering you claim romantic writing is not Rich's strong point.

It is possible Miko worked better as a strawman antagonist in this story than she ever could as a sympathetic antagonist, or as a romantic interest. It is also possible that Moore could have made her a better strawman antagonist than a sympathetic antagonist or romantic interest, too, so we might concievably have gotten the best deal here.

[David Argall]

Because of the author notes in a book you are privy to the creation process of a character. If those notes didn't exist you wouldn't know that that character was originally created to have a different role in the story.

Perhaps not. I would, however, be aware of a dissatisfaction with the character and how it could have been more.

Just because, in this instance, you can see how the author changed his mind on how a character was to be utilised after the initial character creation it doesn't devalue the characters eventual contribution or the abilities of the creator.

Nor does it change whether a distinctly different continuation would have been better.

All the characters are equally valid and all their creators are equally talented*, all that changes is our perception due to access to information.

Not at all. Now we can say that our inside information is irrelevant. It speaks to author intention, not to result. But that does not mean that even a very successful character can not be a failure. Our knowledge in the case of Miko merely makes it easier to discuss what happened and could have happened.

I also wouldn't want to live in a world where he beat Alan Moore.

I'd take my chances myself. As others have suggested, the more "serious" works of fiction are often just posturing and no more guiding or improving than the lighter fare. Their chief advantage is frequently that one can claim to read them and get a social advantage over the common crowd. A world without such pretension is likely impossible, but it is not apparent that it is inferior.

With regard to the Miko sub-issue, I'm at a loss to see how she would've been a better character and contributed more to the story had she just been a love interest for Roy,

For starters, she would not have been "just" a love interest. From the start, she was opposition to the party, opposition that was not based on "I am evil", but on principles that Roy accepts for the most part.
And at this point, she is effectively out of the story. 464 makes it about impossible for her to return. So we are missing out on her appearing in 50-100 future comics.

instead of being a true character in her own right, with a character arc that's about her, rather than being about Roy.

This is the story of the OOTS, Roy in particular. Character arcs about side characters are a diversion for the most part. Often enough forgivably so, but being a true character in her own right with her own character arc is not a virtue of note. She could be a very important character and never be seen except in reach of Roy.

Besides, given how their personalities meshed (or more accurately, didn't)

So what makes you think they should mesh? People who agree with each other are dull. Look at the OOTS. We probably have more disagreement than agreement among them, and even more so among what is pictured.
No, our Miko-Roy personalities should clash, and as much as possible.

from the first time they met, I can't imagine that Rich ever intended for any romance between Roy and Miko to be of the successful variety.

That depends on your definition of successful. A Miko-Roy romance should not be allowed to happily ever after until the final fade-out. But it can be highly successful for our purposes if they are constantly yelling and fighting as they approach and retreat from each other. Roy trying to constantly seduce an uninterested Miko [who might vary at times from violently objecting to almost willing, or even eager when for some reason Roy can't or won't] could fill ten thousand pages, far beyond what will be done here.

[Eric]

This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.

a) Rich can't control us, we come at the conclusions WE decide on based on our past histories, our interpretation and so on

b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to happen? AFAIT all she was was the epitome of Nerf Playing in a Paladin.

What did do well is her descent into madness (figuring that the OOTS MUST be in league and bending everything she found to fit that, getting nuttier and nuttier with time). 'course you didn't like that, which may be why you see it as Rich's failure and why you see Miko as having been "intended" to be treated as you said (though this may be more complicity: you thought we should think of her like that and when we didn't, you'd rather Rich was wrong than we are right).

People found her obnoxious, righteous and a huge pain in the arse. So did her compatriots. When she went down, we thought "Good riddance" but her pathos when she's lying there STILL thinking she'd done good and was going to get back to being a paladin (and then, touchingly, worrying only then about seeing her horse again) was well recieved. At least I didn't hear anyone saying "Good, grind her down!" or similar dissing. Didn't stop her being nuttier than a fruitcake and maybe you don't understand that either: we can feel sympathy that some huge PITA has their comeuppance but we can still call them a huge PITA.

[Eric]

To me it looked like they were all wrong for one another right from the start. His attraction to her was shallow and sexist and had nothing to do with her personality. YMMV, I suppose.

You say this like it's wrong, somehow?