124 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 112

[Krelon]

About the kissing or not kissing on the lips, same sex not same sex thing that seems to be very exciting/disgusting to not so few readers:

Since in Erf there are no children, relationships the "people" have are based entirely on personal preferences without a biological need behind it. Furthermore since we did not see it in detail (or did we?) we cannot even know if there is a difference between an erf-male and erf-female other than a (possible) beard, facial features and a cleavage.

[Laurentio II]

Furthermore since we did not see it in detail (or did we?) we cannot even know if there is a difference between an erf-male and erf-female other than a (possible) beard, facial features and a cleavage.

Well, it require a whole ton of naivety to believe that Ansom and Jillian were not making sex in page 73, or that Ansom was not proposing that in page 8 (and Jillian shame-walking back tells a lot).
But over this, I fully appreciate your view point. Erfworld seems a place of emancipate choices. If you are a named unit, at least.

[The Old Hack]

But over this, I fully appreciate your view point. Erfworld seems a place of emancipate choices. If you are a named unit, at least.

A little bit like the OotS universe, in which you achieve at least some degree of major character privilege merely by announcing your name. In fact, Daigo avoided the dread fate of the Redshirt by declaring his name as he lay dying, and rather cleverly decided to hold his family name in reserve against future contingency.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Since in Erf there are no children, relationships the "people" have are based entirely on personal preferences without a biological need behind it. Furthermore since we did not see it in detail (or did we?) we cannot even know if there is a difference between an erf-male and erf-female other than a (possible) beard, facial features and a cleavage.

Except that Erf females look like females and Erf males look like males, spidews look like spiders, the Knights In Stanley's Service dress up and rock like KISS, Parson eats Stupid Meals and speaks Language...I swear this booping world!

[TamLin]

The direction their work is going in seems to have been consistent to me even if their final destination isnt known for certain, we can all speculate about what the message they have (if any) is.. but until we hear it directly from them its only ever going to be speculation.

I prefer "analysis" over "speculation". The capacity for two different people to draw two different conflicting opinions about a work is what makes that work literary.

Logically if you have a bunch of happy people and one unhappy person youve got to question whether its the story at fault or a problem with the person who is dissatisfied.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. American Idol is popular, but it's not good television. John Grisham books are popular, but they're not great literature. Kool-Aid is popular, but it's not a high-quality beverage.

Hmm let me rephrase, the tool is self-centered, selfish, and cares little about others. He is willing to force others to die for him and apperantly attack innocent tribes. "Self-centered" /= evil, always, you are correct. It is also tool's unncaring about who he hurts, and willingness to do so. Those are my opinions on the tool. I shoud have been more complete in my reasoning.

I agree, Stanley is a textbook megalomaniac (although it should be noted that I've never read any such textbook). In fact, he's such an extreme personality that were he a real person he would still probably be very accurately called "evil" even in the context of our shades-of-grey world.

I never got that impression, that a thesis of the comic is "War is bad." Certainly, it portrays "War is hell." But so it is in our real world. And just as in our real world, war can be viewed as morally ambiguous.

That's my point. "War is hell" is an element of the story, but it's not the entire thing. Most people would agree there's more to it than that. But what?

This has been going on for so long now that I think my argument is becoming lost, which is probably because I didn't phrase it very well in the first place. Here, I'll summarize, inasmuch as such a thing is possible (and assuming anyone cares at this point):

First, I would say that the primary bone I have to pick with Erfworld is what I would call ambiguity of tone. Aquillion misinterpreted my criticism as being leveled at all kinds of ambiguity in a story, but what I'm really driving at is that it's ambiguous what kind of story we're reading here, and I think that when you're a writer or an artist it's important for your audience to at least have a broad idea of what you're doing.

For example: "Othello" is a tragedy. Everyone knows that when they sit down to watch or read it, and even if they didn't it would be apparent pretty fast. "Othello" never pretends or claims to be anything but a tragedy, and as such the audience knows what to expect from it. Does this make the play predictable or "hackery"? No, it just means that its part of a genre and that it has a consistent tone. When horrible things happen, the audience doesn't feel tricked or betrayed. They may feel upset and disturbed (provided that the production isn't ludicrously bad, or that the audience in question isn't Victor Fries), but they can't blame the playwright, cast, or director for leading them astray.

Now, look at "Measure for Measure". This is what they call one Shakespeare's "problem plays", the problem being that it's hard to classify it in a genre. It's structured like a comedy, and it resolves like a comedy, but the subject matter is completeley ghastly, and the ending is only a happy ending to a limited degree (ie, everyone is happy they're not dead, but they're not happy about much else. Except for Angelo, who would really rather be dead by the play's end). As such, "Measure for Measure" is one of the least popular of Shakespeare's plays, and it's been roundly criticized over the centuries. Most early productions wildly altered the subject matter to make it less offensive. Samuel Coleridge called it "painful". It's more accepted today, but even so it's not very widely performed (only been on Broadway once), and when it's studied in classes the subject of the study is very often "What the hell was going on with this one?" (my old professor contends that it was meant to be a parody of formulaic comedies).

If you've read both plays, you might find the conflicting reactions to them odd. After all, "Othello" is MUCH grimmer than "Measure for Measure". Only one person in "Measure for Measure" dies, and he perishes offstage of the flu. But people got much more upset at "Measure" than they did at "Othello", and that's because by billing it as a comedy, Shakespeare set up certain expectations for that play and then gave his audience something altogether different than what they expected. And it wasn't just different, it was horribly unpleasant. So see, clarity of genre can be an important thing. If "Measure for Measure" had been written as a tragedy, it might be more popular, but even if it wasn't, it at least wouldn't be as "painful".

Now, lest you think I'm advocating rote genre formulas as the only acceptable means of entertainment, let's look at another play (don't worry, I'm going to get back to Erfworld in a second, assuming anyone is still reading that is). "Twelfth Night" is among Shakespeare's more popular plays, but it messes a bit with genre conventions. It's a comedy, but it's something of a dark comedy. There's an underlying theme of mortality and death that runs under all of it, and quite a few references to insanity. And the supporting characters are quite cruel toward each other in the pranks that they play, even to the degree of being abusive. So it's making light of what is actually some very dark material, and the play, depending on the staging, can be very ambiguous and challenging. But few people object to it the way that they do for "Measure for Measure".

What's the difference between the two plays? Well, one is tone: "Twelfth Night" never stops acting like a comedy, even when it walks fine lines, whereas it's unclear whether "Measure for Measure" EVER acts like a comedy, even as it mechanically follows the formula. Another is severity: The things that happen in "Twelfth Night" might be unpleasent, but the things that happen in "Measure for Measure" are horrifying. Plus, "Twelfth Night" is funny. Even the bad stuff is funny. Hell, ESPECIALLY the bad stuff. Maria tricking Malvolio is funny, but Angelo betraying Claudio is nightmare-inducing.

What the hell does all this have to do with Erfworld? Well, I'd say early Erfworld was "Twelfth Night": Sometimes it was hard to tell what it was trying to be, but it was funny and the tone was fairly consistent, so you went along with it. But lately, Erfworld is more like "Measure for Measure": It's disturbing and you're not really sure what it's trying to do. If Erfworld had stayed on the track it was on originally, or if it had been on this darker path all along (if it had been "Othello", so to speak), or if it was clear why the discrepancy in tone exists (more on that later. MUCH later...), it would be a stronger work. That's my opinion anyway.

Not everyone is a Shakespeare buff, so I'll try this another way: Last month I was reading a review of "Clone Wars" and the critic pointed out that although Star Wars fans will hate the movie, it was much better written than most recent Star Wars films. His rationale?

"Part of what made the Jar Jar Binks-ification of "Star Wars" so frustrating were the rapid changes in tone. One minute an impossibly cool space battle is occurring, and the next minute C-3PO's head is getting placed on a bad-guy robot's body for a cheap laugh. In the struggle to satisfy older fans while still bringing new ones into the theater, the prequels often came off as a compromise. 'Clone Wars' doesn't try to be more than one thing - a movie for 10-year-old boys - and by that standard, it's a success." -Peter Hartlaub

So this is an interesting argument that he makes, and it's not dissimilar to what I'm saying about Erfworld, chiefly, that when you try to do a couple of different things at once, and they're too different from each other, you can ruin them both.

If you look at it, you can see that tone and style inconsistencies are behind a lot of the criticisms of the various "Star Wars" movies. "Return of the Jedi" is often cited as the least popular of the original films, and what's usually the biggest objection? The Ewoks. They're cutesy, kid-friendly, and kind of cheesy. One minute we've got a riveting and intense scene on the Death Star, the next we've got slapstick comedy down on Endor. Total cluster****. Same problem with "The Phantom Menace": One second Qui-Gon is dying dramatically, the next JarJar is flailing his arms and running around like a runaway riding mower. Those scenes seem really inappropriate in such proximity to each other, right?

Now look at the more popular movies in the series. Almost everyone agrees that "Revenge of the Sith" was the best of the three most recent flicks (even those who insist that it stunk), and it's pretty clearly the one with the most consistent tone. It's grim, it's intense, and it doesn't pull many punches. There's not much cutesy or goofy in this film. And no one complained about that, in fact, they were requesting it. They knew what they were getting when they bought the ticket, and there was no bait-and-switch.

Now, the original "Star Wars" strikes a tone of high adventure and pulp-style action: It's violent, but the violence is just "movie violence" and the movie doesn't take itself very seriously. Even when things are looking tough for our heroes, we're still having fun. Things get somber when the good guys die, but those moments are brief and far between, and in fact, rather than being upsetting, these parts of the film are actually comforting, because it reaffirms the simplistic values that we like in a flick like this: When good people die it's sad, and when bad people die it's cool, and in the end, karma will balance everything out.

But hey, wait, doesn't something REALLY bad happen at one point in Star Wars? A whole planet gets blown up! That's a little extreme, isn't it? But the movie doesn't dwell on that for very long, does it? Now imagine if this scene had played out differently. Imagine if instead of seeing the planet blow up from orbit, we saw it on the planet's surface, with crying mothers hugging screaming children while giant walls of fire wash over them. For reference, look at the nuke scene from "Terminator 2":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMaOvkZvTds That scene would seem really inappropriate in the context of a movie like "Star Wars", wouldn't it? That scene would probably have really upset audiences (and in fact it did anyway, but again, in the context of "Terminator 2" it's more acceptable. After all, you knew what you were in for). And yet it's basically showing the same thing. You could argue that that's because people want things sugarcoated for them, but I think the fact that "Empire" and "Sith", decidedly non-sugarcoated flicks, are the most often-praised of these movies shows that that's not alway the case.

So again we see how important tone can be. When Shakespeare made his comedy too dark, people got upset. When George Lucas made his action adventure too cutesy, people got annoyed. When both those writers were more consistent, or when they were more even-handed about the way they subverted people's expectations, the results were more favorable. When the audience knows what you're doing, they're much more receptive to your material, whatever it is. When you subvert concepts or expectations, you have a certain amount of leeway, and how much leeway that is depends on how you're doing it. Done well, this is a very good thing. Done poorly, it's a mess.

Oh, but that does beg the question: If "Clone Wars" was consistent in its tone, why didn't more people like it? Well, consistency is an important element, but it's not the most important element. Your story also has to be good...

This brings us back to Erfworld (yeah, I'm still not shutting up. Amazing, huh? Try hitting me with a stick. Go ahead, try it). I've gone over tone, style, and atmosphere and how important I feel they are to a story, and we've seen how the wrong tone, or an inconsistent tone, can lead to disaster. But intention is another thing to consider. What is the writer or artist trying to do or say with their story? Potentially objectionable material (both "objectionable" in the sense of being offensive and "objectionable" in the sense of being low or mediocre quality) can be viewed in a more favorable light if the audience figures out the "Why" behind it. For example, some people find Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" highly offensive for its lighthearted treatment of graphic violence, but others point out that the rationale behind that depiction is to serve as social satire, so in their eyes it's justified (not just justified, in fact, but necessary). Also notice how the professor I mentioned earlier tried to attach a "Why" to "Measure for Measure".

So what's Erfworld trying to say? Well, as I've mentioned before, I can't quite figure that out. I've posited a few theories, and a few have been suggested by others, among them:

1. Nothing. The story just exists for its own sake. The contrast between the cute art and the violent content is purely for shock-value. This is the idea that I dismissed as "mean-spirited" in my original complaint.

2. The comic is about war, and this is just an accurate depiction of how bad war really is. I'm confident that this is an element of the story, but it's not the entirety of the story. For one thing, it's a little simplistic. But more importantly, it doesn't account for everything. That message could be delivered more effectively by a comic about an actual war, not a war game. And even if Mr. Balder and Mr. Noguchi opted for the war game metaphor just because they wanted to, an anti-war message is diluted by playing it for laughs like this. Make no mistake, providing a gritty depiction of wartime in the ironic context of a cute lil characters fighting each other is part of the purpose of this comic, but it's not enough on its own.

3. The comic is about how the way society thinks about and depicts war and violence is inconsistent with the realities of it. fendrin's very well-written post earlier, which I wasn't able to address directly because I was short on time then (as I'm clearly not now), alluded to some of this. This is the most comprehensive explanation; It accounts for the inconsistent tone, the offbeat humor, the pop culture references, the gaming stuff, the presence of a "real world" character who doesn't fit into the motif, and the commentary on boopin' censorship. So what's the problem I have with it? Well, for one thing, it makes the shift in the depictions of violence in the comic seem manipulative. We're lulled by the early strips into laughing at violence, only then to later be lectured on how violence isn't really funny at all. The depiction of the gamer character as oblivious to the consequences of what's going on around him seems like a particularly pointed attack on the audience itself, which I would think is primarily composed of gamers.

In general, I'd call this sort of thing preachy, heavy-handed, and a bit pompous, along the lines of the atrocious Michael Haneke film "Funny Games" and its recent American remake, a flick that actually has a very important statement to make about American culture but does so in the most obnoxious way possible. So I don't really go along with this interpretation on account of it seems, well, dickish, and I have trouble thinking that Mr. Balder and Mr. Noguchi would go out of their way to slight their readers.

So there ya go. I've identified the problem as I see it, I've explained why I feel the comic needs a clearer purpose of direction to overcome it, and I've laid out why I can't figure out what that is. I've also given myself carpal tunnel syndrome. So I'd say my work here is emphatically done. Query: Did anyone read the whole thing? If so, please provide me with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, so that I can mail you a cookie. Or some marshmallow gwiffons, if you prefer.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

Originally Posted by HamsterOfTheGod

I never got that impression, that a thesis of the comic is "War is bad." Certainly, it portrays "War is hell." But so it is in our real world. And just as in our real world, war can be viewed as morally ambiguous.

That's my point. "War is hell" is an element of the story, but it's not the entire thing. Most people would agree there's more to it than that. But what?

Does Parson see the war he's in right now as hell...or is he in his version of heaven? He's not sure. Is it hell because it's war or because it's a world based on a wargame or because it's all in his head...or is it heaven and is hell his "real", dreary world? And if we as readers are turned off by the violence of "war" in the comic, why do we want Parson to "win" even as we see Sizemore suffer? How do we feel about the games we play which are based on war? And of course how do we feel about war in our "real" world? I'm not trying to introduce politics here. I'm trying to point out how one's attitude toward war, war in general or in particular, is multiply reflected within the story. Parson is in a war in a world that seems based on wargames which are presumably based on wars in Parson's "real" world which is like our real world with its real wars and "real" wargames. The same self-referencing applies to other aspects of the comic.

For example, Jillian's desire for Wanda is contrasted with her love for Ansom and the love triangle plays against our expectations of what each character is supposed to be knowing that each character is a subverted trope which is again further subverted in the story. Jillian is the barbarian we expect will rescue Prince Ansom from the dragons, itself more than one subversion of a trope, but it is Ansom who saves Jillian in the end which is a further subversion. The rescue of Jillian by Ansom is a reversal of the subversion to the original trope which works against our original expectations of the trope not being fulfilled but, in the end, the fulfilment of the cliche is somehow satisfying in itself.

Now, look at "Measure for Measure". This is what they call one Shakespeare's "problem plays", the problem being that it's hard to classify it in a genre. It's structured like a comedy, and it resolves like a comedy, but the subject matter is completeley ghastly, and the ending is only a happy ending to a limited degree (ie, everyone is happy they're not dead, but they're not happy about much else. Except for Angelo, who would really rather be dead by the play's end). As such, "Measure for Measure" is one of the least popular of Shakespeare's plays, and it's been roundly criticized over the centuries. Most early productions wildly altered the subject matter to make it less offensive. Samuel Coleridge called it "painful". It's more accepted today, but even so it's not very widely performed (only been on Broadway once), and when it's studied in classes the subject of the study is very often "What the hell was going on with this one?" (my old professor contends that it was meant to be a parody of formulaic comedies)...Only one person in "Measure for Measure" dies, and he perishes offstage of the flu. But people got much more upset at "Measure" than they did at "Othello", and that's because by billing it as a comedy, Shakespeare set up certain expectations for that play and then gave his audience something altogether different than what they expected. And it wasn't just different, it was horribly unpleasant. So see, clarity of genre can be an important thing. If "Measure for Measure" had been written as a tragedy, it might be more popular, but even if it wasn't, it at least wouldn't be as "painful".

Well to quote your first line above, "Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good." Measure for Measure is only a problem play for some. It was more of a problem play in the past but, hell, at certain points in history they had Othelia coming back to life in productions because her death was "unbearable". I have seen some recent productions and, like all of Shakespeare's plays, if done right it really rocks. In many ways it is a modern play and if you look at many dramas today you can see they have the same "problem". Was Six Feet Under a tragedy or a comedy? Was it comfortable to watch or not? For me, Six Feet Under was uncomfortable to watch but for other people it wasn't. However much I disliked watching Six Feet Under, my problems watching those are my problems. But I cannot deny that Six Feet Under was well written, well made and well acted and had artistic merit.

Last month I was reading a review of "Clone Wars" and the critic pointed out that although Star Wars fans will hate the movie, it was much better written than most recent Star Wars films. His rationale?..."Part of what made the Jar Jar Binks-ification of "Star Wars" so frustrating were the rapid changes in tone...'Clone Wars' doesn't try to be more than one thing - a movie for 10-year-old boys - and by that standard, it's a success." -Peter Hartlaub

I don't know who Hartlaub is or what he is on about but the original '77 Star Wars was a movie made for 10 years old boys - I should know. It was also a good movie for 40 years olds - as I also know. The Jar-Jar Star Wars sucked not because of "rapid changed in tone" but because they were awful, the writing was awful, Jar-Jar was awful amd annoying, Annikin was awful and unsympathetic, the action was awful and boring, the look was awful and uninspiring, the midichlorians were awful and ridiculuous. It was a suck fest. But this is a tangent...back to the main argument...

So this is an interesting argument that he makes, and it's not dissimilar to what I'm saying about Erfworld, chiefly, that when you try to do a couple of different things at once, and they're too different from each other, you can ruin them both.

Except when you don't. Is Begnini's Life Is Beautiful a comedy or a tragedy?

So what's Erfworld trying to say? Well, as I've mentioned before, I can't quite figure that out. I've posited a few theories, and a few have been suggested by others, among them:

1. Nothing. The story just exists for its own sake. The contrast between the cute art and the violent content is purely for shock-value. This is the idea that I dismissed as "mean-spirited" in my original complaint.

That's too last turn of the century

2. The comic is about war, and this is just an accurate depiction of how bad war really is. I'm confident that this is an element of the story, but it's not the entirety of the story. For one thing, it's a little simplistic..

The simplistic as you said.

3. The comic is about how the way society thinks about and depicts war and violence is inconsistent with the realities of it.

Still too simplistic. It's a meta-fiction comic. It's a comic who's central concern is how we react to the comic knowing that we are reacting to the comic.

So there ya go. I've identified the problem as I see it, I've explained why I feel the comic needs a clearer purpose of direction to overcome it, and I've laid out why I can't figure out what that is. I've also given myself carpal tunnel syndrome. So I'd say my work here is emphatically done. Query: Did anyone read the whole thing? If so, please provide me with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, so that I can mail you a cookie. Or some marshmallow gwiffons, if you prefer.

Meh. As overly long over-analysis I've read (and written) longer and more tiresome.

[Rykka]

Oh, I read the whole article, I read them all start to finish. I don't really think my opinion on any of this would hold even a far flung validity otherwise. I do however think my suggestion that the story for the sake of a story was misinterpreted. I did not mean by any stretch that it would mean it was about nothing, or not have a point. But haven't you ever had a story in your head that just needed telling without every square inch of it having some dire, earth shattering message? Sure, there will be major points in there, I'm sure. The story obviously means something to the writer or it would have never been called forth from their soul in the first place.

This argument (not that it's even an argument really) doesn't hold up in light of some of your more recent clarifications, but that is what I meant when I posted it originally. I've had plenty of "Hey, this would be neat" story ideas that I would be horrified to imagine people picking apart like this because it just seems to me the more you read into things the more likely you are to miss the point in the first place. I think the story has been pretty well established from the get-go and has mostly remained true to that. It's gotten a touch "darker", but the issues in the comic have become that much more dire. Look at the end of a lot of series, like Heroes. Chock full of both amusing antics and serious events, however when the doomsday clock gets closer to twelve, some of those antics fall to the wayside to make way for serious and necessary plot bits. However, that doesn't mean they vanished altogether either.

Hosed. Hosed hosed hosed.

Does writing that at the end of my post invalidate the whole thing?

~Me.

[teratorn]

But over this, I fully appreciate your view point. Erfworld seems a place of emancipate choices. If you are a named unit, at least.

Not really:

Tool + Wanda
Ansom + Jillian
Dora + Webinar
Vinny + archons

And we know Jack fancied Jillian. There is a well defined "standard coupling behavior."

[SteveMB]

Jumping straight to the end because I'm a bit short on time, and the most interesting point is there:

3. The comic is about how the way society thinks about and depicts war and violence is inconsistent with the realities of it. fendrin's very well-written post earlier, which I wasn't able to address directly because I was short on time then (as I'm clearly not now), alluded to some of this. This is the most comprehensive explanation; It accounts for the inconsistent tone, the offbeat humor, the pop culture references, the gaming stuff, the presence of a "real world" character who doesn't fit into the motif, and the commentary on boopin' censorship. So what's the problem I have with it? Well, for one thing, it makes the shift in the depictions of violence in the comic seem manipulative. We're lulled by the early strips into laughing at violence, only then to later be lectured on how violence isn't really funny at all. The depiction of the gamer character as oblivious to the consequences of what's going on around him seems like a particularly pointed attack on the audience itself, which I would think is primarily composed of gamers.

I think that's at least a close approximation to the (or at least a) major theme of the story. However, I disagree with your contention that there has been such a big shift in the depiction of violence (from comedic to serious). Admittedly, the very first bit of real violence (Jillian taking out some of Stanley's field units -- I'm not counting the dirty trick played on Bogroll because that's played in such a slapstick manner, with no indication of real consequences, that it barely counts as violence at all) was presented rather comically. However, before we get to the end of the first-quarter mark (and it may be more like the first-fifth mark by the time the chapter wraps up), we see one of the cloth golems in a pose of mourning a fallen comrade, Wanda beating and whipping Jillian, and Stanley as a seriously scary character.

Ergo, I think the counterpoint between cutesy trappings and serious situations has been fairly consistent. To the extent that the balance has shifted, it's because the former is relatively fixed (having established the basic nature of the universe, it can only be cranked up incrementally by introducing new pop culture references) while the latter naturally escalates dramatically (pardon the pun) as the story gets to the titular battle.

[Rykka]

Jumping straight to the end because I'm a bit short on time, and the most interesting point is there:



I think that's at least a close approximation to the (or at least a) major theme of the story. However, I disagree with your contention that there has been such a big shift in the depiction of violence (from comedic to serious). Admittedly, the very first bit of real violence (Jillian taking out some of Stanley's field units -- I'm not counting the dirty trick played on Bogroll because that's played in such a slapstick manner, with no indication of real consequences, that it barely counts as violence at all) was presented rather comically. However, before we get to the end of the first-quarter mark (and it may be more like the first-fifth mark by the time the chapter wraps up), we see one of the cloth golems in a pose of mourning a fallen comrade, Wanda beating and whipping Jillian, and Stanley as a seriously scary character.

Ergo, I think the counterpoint between cutesy trappings and serious situations has been fairly consistent. To the extent that the balance has shifted, it's because the former is relatively fixed (having established the basic nature of the universe, it can only be cranked up incrementally by introducing new pop culture references) while the latter naturally escalates dramatically (pardon the pun) as the story gets to the titular battle.

Which is pretty much everything I said (or at least meant) in much prettier words and references. I tend to ramble and muck up my own points. Thank you SteveMb for the clarification.

[Krelon]

Well, it require a whole ton of naivety to believe that Ansom and Jillian were not making sex in page 73, or that Ansom was not proposing that in page 8 (and Jillian shame-walking back tells a lot).
But over this, I fully appreciate your view point. Erfworld seems a place of emancipate choices. If you are a named unit, at least.

Oh, I do believe they had sex .. or whatever passes for sex in Erfworld. Well, choices, given the loyalty restrictions the private affairs seem to be the only place were you have a choice. Speaking about emancipation, it occurs to me that in a world were women do not have to bear children they cannot be reduced to breeding machines, hence female roles in the society should be same as male. Actually sex itself is superfluous in Erf, it still seems to happen.

Except that Erf females look like females and Erf males look like males, spidews look like spiders, the Knights In Stanley's Service dress up and rock like KISS, Parson eats Stupid Meals and speaks Language...I swear this booping world!

... and from the waist down Ken looks like Barbie. ( ) Nah, seriously I just added the anatomic indifference cause a) to underline the equality of choice b) it shows it's just a game world c) it cannot be dismissed easily at this point.

So to say, Laurentio got the point.

Not really:

Tool + Wanda
Ansom + Jillian
Dora + Webinar
Vinny + archons

And we know Jack fancied Jillian. There is a well defined "standard coupling behavior."

But coupling to what end? You give a few examples of what is a "standard behavior" (though I bet some people will deny even that) in our world. It looks like there is really no other reason behind it except Parson was summoned from Earth and for him "the world should feel familiar". (Ok, that's a point)

However Wanda and Jillian swing both ways and what happens when the archons are among themselves on a long winter watch of Charlie's dish-tower of solitude no one knows. Maybe, the authors didn't want to shock the readers too much by visibly presenting a world that works without earth-"standard"-morals. It is implied though.

[SteveMB]

... and from the waist down Ken looks like Barbie. ( ) Nah, seriously I just added the anatomic indifference cause a) to underline the equality of choice b) it shows it's just a game world c) it cannot be dismissed easily at this point.

Actually, we've already established otherwise; remember Mung's "standing at attention" joke?

[Adelhardt]

These ten pages contain an amazing set of posts. I think their (general) civility of tone, depth of content and length are a testament to the excellence of comic, the quality of the forum maintained by its moderators and (of course) the intelligence of the posters. I mean that sincerely. Thank you guys -- I've really enjoyed your analysis. Can I get that cookie, TamLin?

There's little left to cover, but there are a few things I'd like to add (or recap). Shakespearean conventions still do form an integral part of modern literature and the expectations we bring to it. I agree that violating those conventions can produce a deep sense of "wrongness." I actually didn't feel it in this Erfworld strip, but I do recall feeling almost ill at the beginning of Alien 3. Alien 2 (Aliens) had been essentially a comedy -- Ripley had defeated evil and in essence "married" and become part of a family. This family was all but destroyed during the opening credits of Alien 3, very much a tragedy. The discontinuity between the two was too much for me -- I felt I'd been cheated, manipulated, let down, that the directors/writers of the new film had utterly ruined the previous one and the expectations previously set up. So I know the feeling TamLin's talking about.

However, modern authors are always playing with literary conventions (as many previous posters have pointed out). Shakespeare himself did it (ignoring Aristotle's three unities) and even did it to himself (with "Measure for Measure" as TamLin said). In fact, the whole movement of Postmodernism is largely about examining the constructed, conventional nature of reality (including literature) by playing with conventions. Erfworld is a comic about a world in which game rules form the fabric of reality -- it's a strange mirror to our world in which analogous rules (conventions in literature, war, society, gender, etc.) form our reality. Although I can't speak to the authors' intentions, I feel Erfworld is very much a postmodern work, one that wants to examine all kinds of rules, including literary conventions, sometimes by undercutting them.

Think about the films of David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino and (as TamLin suggests) Oliver Stone -- all consistently link graphic violence with comedy. It is sickening and disgusting -- and intentional. Perhaps it's done just for shock value in many instances: if so, I think we're justifiably offended. However, in this particular comic strip, the sense of wrongness produced by the contrast between violence and comedy is useful -- it paints Parson as a Chateau General, reduces our sympathy for him, and makes us question the effect of his sword's "ruthlessness." Moreover, this sense of wrongness permeates our perception of the conflict and gives us insight into the violation done to Sizemore's morality (yet another set of rules and conventions broken). If the Erfworld authors aren't coming up with a commentary on war quite as complex as that in War and Peace or even Saving Private Ryan, I don't think we can blame them.

I suppose I didn't find the contrast jarring because I could see it had uses; however, I can certainly understand why some might be offended.

[teratorn]

But coupling to what end? You give a few examples of what is a "standard behavior" (though I bet some people will deny even that) in our world.

I didn't talk about our world, only about Erfworld, and I use "standard" because units pop according to some specs, probably what nerd gamers like Parson would find appealing. After all the spell summoned someone who should feel comfortable in this world.

Except for Jillian and Wanda, all examples or "romantic" attachment in Erfworld were male/female pairings (or male + several archons). So it isn't fully random, in the sense that most units will feel attracted to opposite sex, some will feel attracted to both sexes, and probably some only to same sex. What we don't know is if there is some kind of prejudice towards the different pairings. It would be interesting to know if Ansom is also a bigot regarding this aspect of Erfworldian life.

[MattR]

You argue like my wife >_<

I prefer "analysis" over "speculation". The capacity for two different people to draw two different conflicting opinions about a work is what makes that work literary.

Was it really necessary to argue over my choice of word?

Analysis: the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements.

Speculation (as i meant the word): a conclusion or opinion reached by contemplation.

You've pretty much admitted that after your analysis the comic defies being defined in a concrete manner... which means that any conclusions to be drawn are speculation.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. American Idol is popular, but it's not good television. John Grisham books are popular, but they're not great literature. Kool-Aid is popular, but it's not a high-quality beverage.

You've missed my point so ill make it clearer with an example. I have hayfever, if i'm with a bunch of friends outside in the sunshine and i'm the only one sneezing, i dont start blaming the grass or trees for my reaction (ok i do, but frankly its irrational).

I agree, Stanley is a textbook megalomaniac (although it should be noted that I've never read any such textbook). In fact, he's such an extreme personality that were he a real person he would still probably be very accurately called "evil" even in the context of our shades-of-grey world.

He wouldn't be labelled evil in any real sense of the word at all, he'd become a politician or end up in some sort of management position.

That's my point. "War is hell" is an element of the story, but it's not the entire thing. Most people would agree there's more to it than that. But what?

*mega snipped*

This brings us back to Erfworld (yeah, I'm still not shutting up. Amazing, huh? Try hitting me with a stick. Go ahead, try it). I've gone over tone, style, and atmosphere and how important I feel they are to a story, and we've seen how the wrong tone, or an inconsistent tone, can lead to disaster. But intention is another thing to consider. What is the writer or artist trying to do or say with their story? Potentially objectionable material (both "objectionable" in the sense of being offensive and "objectionable" in the sense of being low or mediocre quality) can be viewed in a more favorable light if the audience figures out the "Why" behind it. For example, some people find Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" highly offensive for its lighthearted treatment of graphic violence, but others point out that the rationale behind that depiction is to serve as social satire, so in their eyes it's justified (not just justified, in fact, but necessary). Also notice how the professor I mentioned earlier tried to attach a "Why" to "Measure for Measure".

You seem to be ignoring the fact that all of your examples are finished/completed productions, you're comparing them to something that still hasn't had any resolution. If 124 was the final page of it all i might begin to see your problem but its not. Isnt there talk of this being only part one? which would compare to say Act 1 of a play.

So what's Erfworld trying to say? Well, as I've mentioned before, I can't quite figure that out.

*more snipped*

So there ya go. I've identified the problem as I see it, I've explained why I feel the comic needs a clearer purpose of direction to overcome it, and I've laid out why I can't figure out what that is. I've also given myself carpal tunnel syndrome. So I'd say my work here is emphatically done. Query: Did anyone read the whole thing? If so, please provide me with a self-addressed, stamped envelope, so that I can mail you a cookie. Or some marshmallow gwiffons, if you prefer.

I really don't know what else i can say that hasn't been said before by others. or in reply to points you made earlier. It's brave of you to say you don't get it and no-one can say you arent willing to spend alot of time explaining your viewpoint.

[fendrin]

As with SteveMB, I'm skipping to the end because that is where your main point is. I read the whole thing, but no virtual cookie for me, I'm on a virtual diet .

3. The comic is about how the way society thinks about and depicts war and violence is inconsistent with the realities of it. fendrin's very well-written post earlier, which I wasn't able to address directly because I was short on time then (as I'm clearly not now), alluded to some of this. This is the most comprehensive explanation; It accounts for the inconsistent tone, the offbeat humor, the pop culture references, the gaming stuff, the presence of a "real world" character who doesn't fit into the motif, and the commentary on boopin' censorship. So what's the problem I have with it? Well, for one thing, it makes the shift in the depictions of violence in the comic seem manipulative. We're lulled by the early strips into laughing at violence, only then to later be lectured on how violence isn't really funny at all. The depiction of the gamer character as oblivious to the consequences of what's going on around him seems like a particularly pointed attack on the audience itself, which I would think is primarily composed of gamers.

In general, I'd call this sort of thing preachy, heavy-handed, and a bit pompous, along the lines of the atrocious Michael Haneke film "Funny Games" and its recent American remake, a flick that actually has a very important statement to make about American culture but does so in the most obnoxious way possible. So I don't really go along with this interpretation on account of it seems, well, dickish, and I have trouble thinking that Mr. Balder and Mr. Noguchi would go out of their way to slight their readers.

First, thanks for the kudos. Second and more importantly, of course this comic is manipulative. Anyone trying to make a point is being manipulative. You are. I am. It's inherent to to the concepts of rhetoric and persuasion. It's been a recognized fact for ~2500 years (see the works of Gorgias, a rhetorician in Athens, well known enough in his time for him to have become a figure in one of the Socratic Dialogues).

Further, SteveMB brings up a good point about the progressive de-comediafication (that's not a word but it is now, because I say so) of the violence in the comic. Outside of the first few pages (in which the death of Manpower is presented as a mere annoyance to Wanda), all of the violence has at least some aspect with a semblance of seriousness. I will admit that I thought the idea of a cloth golem, as an artificial construct that literally has batting for brains, mourning for a fallen companion to be humorous. Looking back on it though, I find it sad and touching. Perhaps the manipulations of the authors are having their desired effect...

I don't see it as an attack on gamers per se, but rather a critical reflection on an aspect of gamer culture and indirectly of western culture as a whole. I do not in any way feel slighted by it.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

... and from the waist down Ken looks like Barbie. ( ) Nah, seriously I just added the anatomic indifference cause a) to underline the equality of choice b) it shows it's just a game world c) it cannot be dismissed easily at this point.

"Of course, if water boils in a pot, steam comes out of the pot and also pictured steam comes out of the pictured pot. But what if one insisted on saying that there must also be something boiling in the picture of the pot?"
--Wittgenstein

And then there is Mung's joke as SteveMB pointed out.

[The Old Hack]

Ergo, I think the counterpoint between cutesy trappings and serious situations has been fairly consistent. To the extent that the balance has shifted, it's because the former is relatively fixed (having established the basic nature of the universe, it can only be cranked up incrementally by introducing new pop culture references) while the latter naturally escalates dramatically (pardon the pun) as the story gets to the titular battle.

As a small side comment on Parson's admittedly rather crude joke: it is not necessarily an indication of Parson being shallow. Rather, it may be a sign of someone feeling overwhelmed by the situation seizing on any little distraction to obtain atleast a moment of relief. This is a very human reaction and one I myself have experienced (or possibly indulged in) a number of times. And while it can seem and often is tasteless and crude, it may serve as an important safety valve in times of high stress.

Also, once again, grats on the new title, Steve.

[Nargrakhan]

Just as an off the wall question, but how many of you posters have actually served in the military during wartime? The reason I ask – and not being arrogant – but as someone who has served aboard a ship that has killed people thanks to its weapon systems: we were doing some "insensitive" things. Like writing crude messages on the missile and bomb casings. Or playing music on the 1MC, related to warfare or cultural dominance, while the weapons were flying. Or using digital satellite maps to see what USED to be at the coordinates a warhead was sent, and make jokes about it (does that look like a shopping mall to you?).

While serving with an amphibious unit, I'd listen to Jarheads make sexist and racist jokes about everything. Not that they were sexist or racist at all, but just you have little indifference to things when you're being sent on the frontline. You should see the things done to people who never saw a dead body before, so we could "toughen them up" (need to know if a person is gonna wig out on ya; ESPECIALLY if you're gonna need to rely on them for next few months). Some vomit at the sight... best get it out your system though: you're probably gonna see more real soon.

Officers – the so called "ladies and gentlemen" of the military – are no different. Don't get me started on morale speeches they'd deliver on how the enemies we're facing are soulless monsters who should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

War is crude business. Insensitivity is a normality. Hell... PEACETIME in the military is insensitivity. People whining about day to day issues (like being at sea for 6 months straight), are often told something along the lines of "that's what you get for enlisting moron" or my personal favorite of "suck it up wimp" (in much more colorful language I might add).

But I'm no inhuman monster, murderous killer, or totally emotionally devoid person.

[The Old Hack]

War is crude business. Insensitivity is a normality. Hell... PEACETIME in the military is insensitivity. People whining about day to day issues (like being at sea for 6 months straight), are often told something along the lines of "that's what you get for enlisting moron" or my personal favorite of "suck it up wimp" (in much more colorful language I might add).

But I'm no inhuman monster, murderous killer, or totally emotionally devoid person.

I served in my home nation's military during peacetime. Even then I observed much the same things as Nargrakhan describes. When you have worked hard for days straight, been marched nearly into the ground, had very little sleep and the pressure remains high... humour tends to get cruder. Not strange at all as our unit leaders were trying to simulate the pressures of wartime, though how well they succeeded I obviously can't say as I mustered out fifteen years before the war broke out. (Probably not very well, but at least we got to try being under pressure.)

[Radar]

As a small side comment on Parson's admittedly rather crude joke: it is not necessarily an indication of Parson being shallow. Rather, it may be a sign of someone feeling overwhelmed by the situation seizing on any little distraction to obtain atleast a moment of relief. This is a very human reaction and one I myself have experienced (or possibly indulged in) a number of times. And while it can seem and often is tasteless and crude, it may serve as an important safety valve in times of high stress.

Also, once again, grats on the new title, Steve.

I might add, that every cuss-like word (not really a cuss word) not booped out is a small win for Parson against strict rules of Erfworld. There is not only war going on here - Parson is also opressed by the summoning spell and forcefully induced loyality. That's quite a have load, so any sort of relief is important.

[Aquillion]

Humm nope see no contact or sound effect there to confirm that.

It can mean anything when shown off screen no confirmation of that fact at all.
Huh?

Bliss also can be for ease of transport on a riding dwagon with an ENEMY UNIT into the field

That smile also can be that I have fooled those buffoons Stanley and Parson, I have my mole planted and Ansom's entire warplan. Yes everyone agrees with Wanda manipulating Stanley.
People sometimes have sex with people they don't like, for reasons just like that. I think the authors made it pretty clear what was going on there...

Go back to my quote your only seeing what you want to. Again there is no physical contact (sound effect etc.) to prove your point, clothing is all on as a caster you can manipulate the spell by being in close proximity for optimal effect of said spell. Wanda went into "some" detail on how it works, Sizemore gave more but Maggie finished that agruement.

trying to find correct words to say? is that soooo hard?

Really crasping for straws are we? Rest is not even worth a reply since you are now directly attacking me as an individual and thus is dismissed.

You really should have read that last part. It was not a personal attack on you; and it pre-empted every point you made in that post.

Yes, sure, when we see the zoom-in on their lips, erotically-shaded, a fraction of an inch from each other, it is entirely possible that they don't actually kiss -- it's true we don't get a loud "KISS" sound effect.

But, uh, I don't see how you can deny that we are clearly being led to believe that they kissed; it is much more straightforward to assume that a character who is shown to be blissful is actually blissful, or that when Jillian stumbles over words it is meant to indicate her embarrassment and emotions, not just random trouble speaking. That's the point. Obviously we can still construct elaborate theories to the contrary, but taken on their own and without speculation, those strips pretty clearly imply what sort of 'relationship' they have; that kind of zoom to the lips is usually used to show eroticism, and at the very least it's hard to credit that the authors aren't using it to imply a particular sequence of events.

Wrong the dust is again used to make certain that Mung was not going to squeel ANYTHING about the session including Wanda showing mercy (which she didnt by beating her up)

What? The dust was to cover up the mercy that Wanda didn't have?

Again, you can claim that the authors are tricking us, sure, but the most straightforward interpretation -- given the generally erotically-themed things we saw inside -- is that the lascivious Mung is starting to ask about those pleasurable sounds before Wanda cuts him off.

[Krelon]

Actually, we've already established otherwise; remember Mung's "standing at attention" joke?

Right, Mungs joke strongly indicates male parts.
What remains is the freedom of choice without biological necessities.

I didn't talk about our world, only about Erfworld, and I use "standard" because units pop according to some specs, probably what nerd gamers like Parson would find appealing. After all the spell summoned someone who should feel comfortable in this world.

Except for Jillian and Wanda, all examples or "romantic" attachment in Erfworld were male/female pairings (or male + several archons). So it isn't fully random, in the sense that most units will feel attracted to opposite sex, some will feel attracted to both sexes, and probably some only to same sex. What we don't know is if there is some kind of prejudice towards the different pairings. It would be interesting to know if Ansom is also a bigot regarding this aspect of Erfworldian life.

Interesting indeed.

about the other discussion in this thread: I think you guys are over-analyzing a lot. Sometimes a story is just a story with a few ideas behind. Either you like it or not.

[Eraniverse]

Used the word family as a way of describing same side familiarity or commonality. Your going to react alot different around the ones you know and are within the same tribe (family) than not.

Dora And Webinar's Shocking Incestuous Relationship! Scandalous!

Your concept of familial attitudes held between units of the same side has absolutely nothing to back it up.

[teratorn]

about the other discussion in this thread: I think you guys are over-analyzing a lot.

Over-analyzing something? Never, not in this forum!

[Krelon]

Over-analyzing something? Never, not in this forum!

Yes, yes, I know .. I think I wrote an essay about the dwagon-donut-of-doom myself but I couldn't help myself saying it this time

[HPV]

*looks at ten long pages of discussion*
Well, if the authors' intent was to be thought provoking, they've certainly succeeded! *grin*

I believe there's a lot to be said for the theory that the last panel is meant to represent Parson coping with the circumstances he finds himself in. Nargrakhan's post describes very well the dark humour of those who find themselves in extremely stressful situations, but I think, on top of that, the fact that Parson is deriving humour from beating Erfworld's swear filter is a significant part of his coping mechanism.

The very fact that Erfworld *has* a swear filter is going to make the events occurring seem less real, and therefore less traumatising, to Parson. His exposure to it at this point, just after he's ordered the destruction of a routing army, helps to "break his immersion" in the world. It makes it seem less real, & more like games he'll have played, & that, in turn, makes it easier for him to detach himself from the consequences of the orders he's given (& will have to give).

[Zolem]

Over-analyzing something? Never, not in this forum!

Finally the giant blocks of text are over with. I've seen shorter Presidential speeches.

[jtheory]

But a ton and a half is still excessive. Say 1100-1600 lbs for the horse (depending on breed, and location) another 200 for the man, 50 for his armor, 25 to 30 for his panoply of arms (Lance, sword, hammer, dagger, sometimes more), 100 to 150 for the horse's armor, and another 100 or so for the tack and saddle. The biggest men on the biggest horses are going to be over a ton, but most won't quite breach that mark.

It depends on the time period. There was a while before they realized that agility could be more valuable than sheer size and weight.

See the Shire horse as an example -- stallions weigh on average 910 kg to 1,120 kg (2,469 lbs), and were bred (according to the same article) to carry knights into battle weighing up to 450 lb... which brings us up to near on a ton and a half.

So maybe an above average shire horse tending a bit towards the size of this monster (1300kg/2,866lbs) plus a good-sized and well-armored knight?

On the other hand, I imagine the shire horse is probably heavier than its ancestors who actually carried knights... but (on the third hand?), we're discussing an incarnated chess piece representing 1/2 of all the knights in a given army... so perhaps any weight is justified.

[ReccaSquirrel]

Regarding the conversation about the relationship between Jillian and Wanda, I'd like to share a observation.

I'm currently reading through Terry Moore's Strangers in Paradise. I'm finding some slight similarities between Kachoo and Francine. Now, I'm not saying Wanda is Kachoo or anything like that. In fact, I have seen nothing in Erfworld to indicate a connection of this nature at all.

However, I think that the dynamic between the two pairs are very interesting.

For those who haven't read SiP I'll give you a brief description of Kachoo. I'd do more but I'm being kicked off of the library computer due to time. :)

Spoiler

Show

Kachoo and Francine are best friends in the story. Both come from very distinct backgrounds. Kachoo left an abusive home life, became a high class call girl, got herself hooked up with a dangerous crowd, and is all around bad ass.