I dont agree with Rich.

[Eric]

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.

<very long and DEFINITELY REUQUIRED SNIP>

OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

And Laurel and Hardy was just hackneyed slapstick? Midsummer Nights Dream just one long knob gag? Jeez, get out into the sunlight, dude.

Yes, Watchmen is a cracking story. It does get bogged down in quite a few places, though. And that work wasn't being voted on here. Whereas SoD had some *cracking* moments (as good as any in Watchmen):

Spoiler

Show

Xykon's one-liners (Groucho couldn't have done much better).

Bad Coffee.

Xykon's summing up with Dorukan (All you need is enough power)

"You'll never look back and think I didn't get enough revenge"

Right-eye's end.

Bitch vs Butch

Watchtower had more, but then again, it was a longer comic and you find me a better bit of prose more succinctly and powerfully put than the last point made about SoD. Heck, the last two contain everything you need to be emotionally manipulated for these characters.

Overall? SoD was pretty light. But it did get some great, even classic segments out.

[Red XIV]

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.

I, on the other hand, contend that appearing in 500 future chapters as Roy's love interest wouldn't have given Miko as much impact on the story as the role she actually had gave her.

Though actually, even if a romance between Roy and Miko had happened, everything from her encounter with Zykon onward would've played out almost exactly the same, aside from obviously the dialogue between her and Roy changing in their battle. Miko killing Shojo and destroying the Gate are absolutely necessary events; without those things happening, the story ends at about chapter 462.

[MyrddinDerwydd]

[Snip real world bit that was completely unnecessary]
Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact.

Just go away. Anyone that is this jaded about a comic that they read needs to go take a vacation and a big giant optimism pill. It's all well and good to say that someone clearly more experienced and well-funded than Rich is better, but it says a lot about the quality of his work that we (excluding Kreistor apparently) all took the time to vote for him.

[Remirach]

You say this like it's wrong, somehow?

Mm? I'm not sure where your problem with my statement comes from. I didn't think less of Roy for desiring a woman or wanting to follow up on that. I DID think less of him for turning into a total sexist around Miko, calling her "sweetie" and "honey" (when he didn't even KNOW her and she was not interested in being flirtatious) and a jerk around his allies on her behalf. He didn't even extend to her the kind of courtesy he would toward Haley. He showed no respect for her personality, only her figure, and little INTEREST in developing an appreciation for her actual character. The scratched plot at the inn sounds like a lame attempt for him to learn just enough to talk his way into her pants.

Basically a huge turn-off, and not a solid basis for any kind of relationship, or even a fling.

[David Argall]

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

He wasn't trying to. He was, and is, in control of the characters, and was trying to select those characters and actions we would react to in certain ways. In the case of Miko, he found himself unable to do that.

b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to happen?

Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

What did do well is her descent into madness 'course you didn't like that, which may be why you see it as Rich's failure

Who says I don't like it? It is pretty good stuff really. I merely say it can be better.

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).

Now when you ascribe motives other than the facts, you open yourself up to the same charges. Do you wish to confess to a irrational hatred of Miko? And thus an eagerness to approve of any plot, no matter how inferior, so long as it got rid of Miko?
Or would you rather stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem attacks?

At least I didn't hear anyone saying "Good, grind her down!" or similar dissing.

You apparently weren't listening too closely.

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.

I am on record praising our writer for acknowledging that he was failing with Miko, and making revisions accordingly. No, I have not said that the romance could have "only" have improved the plot. I did and do say it could have, quite easily and greatly.

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.

That is quite impossible. For one thing, you are comparing the imperfect reality with the possible perfect. That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded.

I, on the other hand, contend that appearing in 500 future chapters as Roy's love interest wouldn't have given Miko as much impact on the story as the role she actually had gave her.

Though actually, even if a romance between Roy and Miko had happened, everything from her encounter with Zykon onward would've played out almost exactly the same, aside from obviously the dialogue between her and Roy changing in their battle. Miko killing Shojo and destroying the Gate are absolutely necessary events; without those things happening, the story ends at about chapter 462.

You are confusing character with plot here. These events were fixed in advance. If Miko does not do them, somebody else will. The Miko contribution here is the difference between her doing it and, say, O-Chul doing it. Equally a future Miko-Roy romance has to be compared with the Celia-Roy romance, which has been a benefit to the strip, but hardly the wonderful comedy that Miko-Roy could have been.

[Eakin]

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

OK! Check the Tvtropes entry for Ensemble Darkhorse. A bunch of these characters are ones that got retooled or became the center of attention because the creators thought they were more popular that way. Whether or not you think that's a good standard for changing a character's status is one thing, but there's no question that creators aren't averse to changing their story from what they originally intended. Otherwise we'd never have had characters like the Fonz, Urkel, Frasier, or even the freakin' Daleks!

[Paragon Badger]

Basically a huge turn-off, and not a solid basis for any kind of relationship, or even a fling.

You'd be surprised how little mutual respect is required for two people to hook up.

[Red XIV]

You are confusing character with plot here. These events were fixed in advance. If Miko does not do them, somebody else will. The Miko contribution here is the difference between her doing it and, say, O-Chul doing it. Equally a future Miko-Roy romance has to be compared with the Celia-Roy romance, which has been a benefit to the strip, but hardly the wonderful comedy that Miko-Roy could have been.

I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.

Also, Miko was the perfect choice for moving the plot in its required direction by killing Shojo, and later destroying the Gate. Her exteme zealousness and inclination toward jumping to conclusions make her believable as Shojo's killer in the way no other paladin character in OOTS would be. Sure, another character could've been created with those same traits, but he or she wouldn't be somebody we'd already gotten to know over the course of many chapters. Miko was exactly that, and thus we actually gave a damn about her (though usually in a negative sense). Her doing the deed produces a reaction of momentary shock that she'd go so far as to violate her paladin oath, followed by recognition that it's entirely in-character for her. If it had been O-Chul, as you suggested as an alternative...he was barely a character at that point and had only even been given a name one strip earlier. The reader reaction would've instead been along the lines of "who the hell is this guy, and why hasn't Roy killed him yet?"

[Eric]

David, you said:

"> How do you know what was supposed to hapen
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

But how does that make this (and I quote) happen?

"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her. "

?

How did you draw the connection between "dialogue... ruder .. than expected" to "not want anything serious to happen to her"? That quote from Rich DOES tell you what he meant to happen, but that isn't what you said he meant to happen. How'd you make the connection?

[Eric]

You'd be surprised how little mutual respect is required for two people to hook up.

Aye, "lovely personality" IS wanted, but a woman (just as a man) doesn't find out about the personality unless

a) it's wrapped in a lovely body
b) forced to get to know

Not that this is wrong in any sense, but it does make the old trope about women not being worried about looks as much as men wearying at best.

PS Remirach, I was poking fun at the fact that I'm a man and insinuated that these traits were *exactly* what women wanted. Passed a building site? See! I suspect more men got it as a joke because we know there's a tendency to admire the package but we're both allowed socially to be so (even if we're looked down on for it) and we're comfortable at having faults.

[Selene]

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?

I'm just going to sit back and applaud every word of this.

I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.

Any more than that would have turned them into Sam & Diane from Cheers.

[lord of kobolds]

Rich, I would still vote for you.
I have never read alan moore, but i don't need to.
You have a gift. you take the most ridiculous character ideas possible and make them seem like real people. that is talent like i have never seen before.
As to it being a stick figure parody, so what? If anything, it means you are even greater for being able to tell such a great story in a media usually reserved for lazy doodles.
Again I will say, good job.

[SmartAlec]

That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded.

... nope; you've lost me.

What point are you trying to make here? Can you spell it out in plain english? All I'm getting from this is "This thing here could have been better if only the author was capable of perfection". That's... obvious. You can say that equally about Moore.

[David Argall]

OK! Check the Tvtropes entry for Ensemble Darkhorse. A bunch of these characters are ones that got retooled or became the center of attention because the creators thought they were more popular that way. Whether or not you think that's a good standard for changing a character's status is one thing, but there's no question that creators aren't averse to changing their story from what they originally intended. Otherwise we'd never have had characters like the Fonz, Urkel, Frasier, or even the freakin' Daleks!

You may be misunderstanding the discussion. [Not hard to do when there is a series of quotes going back several posts] The original exchange was...

Originally Posted by NerfTW
most real writers consider it a measure of how deep a character is by how polarized people's views are on them. A poorly written character will be looked over, but a well written one will invoke a passionate reaction, good or bad.

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

So we were discussing audience reactions to characters, in particular where the reaction was bitterly divided as with Miko, not altering characters to suit audience reaction.

I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.

Any more than that would have turned them into Sam & Diane from Cheers.

I presume you are joking here since the two filled up 5 seasons and would have filled up more except that the acresss quit despite offers of record pay. So they would argue that a rocky Roy-Miko romance could fill lots of strips very amusingly.

Also...
See Archie Comics. Archie has been chasing Veronica for 60+ years and a kazillion pages. He still sells.
See Belkar. He has been described as a one-trick pony. It is going fine after 253/314 pages.
See just about any tv sitcom involving romance. They don't get cancelled because the romance has become repetitive.
See... Oh just about anything.
The potential way exceeds the available space, much less 10 strips [which you could fill on their first date].

Miko was the perfect choice for moving the plot in its required direction by killing Shojo, and later destroying the Gate. If it had been O-Chul, as you suggested as an alternative...he was barely a character at that point and had only even been given a name one strip earlier. The reader reaction would've instead been along the lines of "who the hell is this guy, and why hasn't Roy killed him yet?"

Now Miko does work well here, but you are viewing bumps in the road as high mountains. O-Chul was hardly known at that point? So we write a strip for him, maybe when he delays Roy's entry, in which he expresses the desired attitude.

An alternate idea would be to delete 464. On its own it is excellent, but it is a dead end. Miko can't be used again without harming it. Remove it and Miko can take over O-Chul's role since then quite well. [Those interested in character development might find Miko learning tolerance from MitD quite interesting.]

you said:

"> How do you know what was supposed to hapen
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

But how does that make this (and I quote) happen?

"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her. "

How did you draw the connection between "dialogue... ruder .. than expected" to "not want anything serious to happen to her"? That quote from Rich DOES tell you what he meant to happen, but that isn't what you said he meant to happen. How'd you make the connection?

I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?"

Now why would the writer want less rude dialogue for Miko? The answer would be that Miko was to be likable in some degree. Not a necessarily major degree, but still.. Having granted her a little sympathy, we then have limits on what we want happening to her.

One comic asked for a definition of just what was funny gave an example like this...
A dignified, very dignified, perhaps overly, man is making a triumphant entrance to the ballroom and is at the top of the stairs when he stumbles a bit. There are a few giggles. He glares at them and continues, and trips, to more giggles. He recovers his balance, and falls, to laughs. He halfway recovers and falls even flatter, to greater laughter.
Now he falls all the way down the stairs, managing a complete cartwheel in the process. He is taking one of the great pratfalls of history and the audience responds with gales of laughter. He finishes up sliding halfway across the ballroom. And dies.

It stopped being funny, right?

Such was the intent with Miko. She was to be annoying enough that we wanted her to stumble, but our writer just could not keep her soft enough that people didn't cheer her death too. The statements just kept coming out too harsh.

[batsofchaos]

The 1987 novel Misery by Stephen King, which was a critical and financial success, would have by your definition a failed character serving as the protagonist. His original intention for the ending was for Paul to finish his story, and then be killed by Annie. This was detailed in King's book "On Writing." To paraphrase the situation, he had envisioned the ending as such: When the book was finished Annie was planning on binding it using cured leather made from the pig. In the end the book would be sitting on her coffee table, bound in pink leather, with the authors remains being fed to the pig. As the story was written, King found the character of Paul was a lot more resourceful than originally planned and in fact managed to escape his gruesome fate. The character was intended to die in Annie's house, but ended up escaping because of his resourcefulness.

In fact, 90% of all of Stephen Kings works would be littered with 'failed' endeavors since he relies on defining characters and situations and then letting the characters define the plot, often in a way that was different than what King had set out to do. There is no defined method of plot resolution and writers should be encouraged to use what works. Suppositions that Rich failed by listening to his character's voice is faulty.

Additionally, the assertion that Miko could have been so much more is fundamentally flawed. "Had Miko been written perfectly as a romantic interest it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overvealous antagonist" is not a valid argument, because there is no way to prove it. There's no such thing as writing perfectly, number one because writing is subjective and there's no such thing in the field and number two because even if there were it would be impossible for a human being to write it. An equally valid argument would be "Had Miko been written perfectly as an overzealous antagonist, it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overzealous antagonist." While technically true in both accounts (as well as any number of accounts, including "Had Miko been written perfectly as an incontinent gerbil, it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overzealous antagonist."), it serves no value in furthering the argument.

[The Giant]

Good gods, this is ridiculous. I came back to this thread to see whether there was any comment on my previous post, and look at this (mostly off-topic) mess.

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate. No one else was ever considered for this role, and this role was assigned to her from before her first appearance in #200. It was the entire narrative purpose of her character. Of course, I couldn't SAY that in the notes to Paladin Blues, because none of that had happened yet. There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

Please, if you're going to bash my writing, do so for what I actually wrote, not some concocted dream of what you think I should have written. There were never going to be 500+ strips of romantic comedy, just two dozen or so before the character started down the slippery slope of self-righteousness to her endpoint in the rubble of Azure City.

(Also, Sam and Diane were the epitome of tortured drawn-out will-they-or-won't-they clichés and Shelley Long was right to put it out of its misery when she did. I can't think of anything I would be less interested in writing than that.)

[Pie Guy]

I fail to see how Rich has failed to make Miko work as a character. He made as her an example of how not to play a paladin, and if the countless hate threads that have been spawned are any indication, he has succeeded in making her unlikeable. Yet, at the same time, there are many Miko defenders, showing she is a complex character and more than a cardboard cutout. So, though I don't really like Miko that much, I think she is a very good character. By 'good,' I mean 'interesting.'

No, she's a cardboard cutout. But she's as interesting as Belkar. Not as funny though.

[Aaron L]

Can't a guy be modest around here?

[Dragonus45]

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.
Then we have her romantic aspect. We already have his confession of his failure here. He just couldn't make Miko work. Which is too bad. Celia as Roy's lover is downright insipid compared to what Miko could have been. He was likely wise to give up and use other ideas, but we still have a failure that a superior artist would have avoided.

It's a Draco in Leather Pants no matter how hard you try someone is going to like the person you want them to hate.

[Wish]

Alan Moore or Rich, well I don't really feel this topic much. Moore is older rich is younger, maybe we should draw a big bag o' gold for the writers and a long rainbow and a leprocorn for the original poster.

I go with Rich, because its contemporary, its light hearted, and its a breath of fresh air for the hobby.

yar!

[Scalenex]

I read this forum because I was curious. Any threads with criticism on Rich tend to get locked or deleted. I find that the gist of the criticism is Rich is too modest. And a giant tangent on Miko. If we throw in something o V's gender, Haley's secret, and/or Sabine's specific creature type, this will have half of the forum in one thread!

[Selene]

Good gods, this is ridiculous. I came back to this thread to see whether there was any comment on my previous post, and look at this (mostly off-topic) mess.

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate. No one else was ever considered for this role, and this role was assigned to her from before her first appearance in #200. It was the entire narrative purpose of her character. Of course, I couldn't SAY that in the notes to Paladin Blues, because none of that had happened yet. There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

Please, if you're going to bash my writing, do so for what I actually wrote, not some concocted dream of what you think I should have written. There were never going to be 500+ strips of romantic comedy, just two dozen or so before the character started down the slippery slope of self-righteousness to her endpoint in the rubble of Azure City.

(Also, Sam and Diane were the epitome of tortured drawn-out will-they-or-won't-they clichés and Shelley Long was right to put it out of its misery when she did. I can't think of anything I would be less interested in writing than that.)

I love you, man.

[Remirach]

People sure do seem to get worked up over authors not accommodating their own "shipping" preferences. See also: Harry/Hermione and accompanying fallout.

@Eric: ah, see, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not, so I went over my own post to see if there was something that might be misconstrued. Yet I seem only to put my foot further into my mouth the more I say, so I'll just--

[David Argall]

The 1987 novel Misery by Stephen King, which was a critical and financial success, would have by your definition a failed character serving as the protagonist. His original intention for the ending was ...

You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character. Thus we can talk of a failure of Miko when our writer is unable to get the desired tone.

In fact, 90% of all of Stephen Kings works would be littered with 'failed' endeavors since he relies on defining characters and situations and then letting the characters define the plot, often in a way that was different than what King had set out to do.

Under such a system, you pretty much can't have a failed character. Rather you have the danger of a failed plot.

"Had Miko been written perfectly as a romantic interest it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overvealous antagonist"

You seem to be misquoting me here. I presume you are refering to the exchange...
Originally Posted by SmartAlec
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.

"That is quite impossible. For one thing, you are comparing the imperfect reality with the possible perfect. That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded."

is not a valid argument, because there is no way to prove it.

The actual argument was valid. It pointed out the previous argument was trying to insist the merely imperfect would exceed the perfect.

[Kgw]

I rather enjoy of every one's work (Moore's and Rich's), than start wondering who's better. I might not like every twist & turn of them -I don't quite understand some stories of Moore, and I am definitely lost with D&D jokes in OOTS- but I still enjoy the overall result.

[Eric]

You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character.

That isn't the definition of a failed character.

It may be YOUR definition.

Or are all authors failed storytellers because a book is NEVER one original version: the original vision has NEVER been realised (apart from such weighty classics as "The Hungry Caterpillar" and "The Cat In The Hat" or "See Spot Run").

[Eric]

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. ...

Nah, nah, nah. You're wrong. David has already told us what you intended and HE IS RIGHT!!! How the heck do you know better than him how Rich Burlew thinks???

[Eric]

I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?"

And to reiterate a point you've made on previous topics when people have tried to show you that you may, in certain instances, not be 100% validly correct:

"You are assuming actions not in evidence".

You know you've used them. So swallow it.

[SPoD]

You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character.

Except the author just told us, in this thread, that the true narrative purpose of Miko was to slide into insanity, kill Shojo, destroy the gate--that the romantic comedy aspect he originally thought of (and that you are clinging to as the author's "original intention") was only ever intended as a method of introducing the character, not its true purpose. By your own definition, then, Miko was a success. She fulfilled her narrative purpose in the story very well, because her purpose was not ever intended to be what you thought it was intended to be.

Essentially, the text you are using as your source for why Miko was a failed character only includes half the story, on purpose, because he couldn't reveal more at the time. The author has come here and told you that you are interpreting this incorrectly, and yet still, you argue it! Is it so difficult to admit, in this one situation, that you didn't have all the facts and therefore came to the wrong conclusion?

[PaladinFreak]

OK David. Let's get something straight. The author of the comic has come to this thread and specifically said that the character worked AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, and therefor you were basing your conclusions on false speculation.

What more to you want?

Honestly. I want to know what it will take for you to accept that your theory is incorrect.