124 The Battle for Gobwin Knob, Page 112

[T-O-E]

It'd make hamstard.com slightly more disturbing.

[SauroGrenom]

I'm glad to see that Sizemore survived.

I suppose that since Hamster is asking Maggie to start the next phase of the plan we have two options to choose from as to what's going to happen next.

He could be using Maggie to communicate with Wanda and send her to uncroak lots of foes. Or he could be using Maggie to send messages to the coalition leaders and try to break up their group by pointing out how terribly Ansom Booped up.

In any case, it looks like Parson's army gets a few more uncroaked units, and possibly two more uncroaked warlords. We're also left to wonder what Parson's losses were... We know that all but one of the golems were destroyed, but Sizemore can probably heal them a bit, so they heal the rest of the way when they start the next turn. It'll be interesting to see what the total losses for GK and the Coalition were after that battle.

Also I recall that there are 3 of the uni-pega-tars and we know that Wanda can ride one of them... So if you put two more uncroaked warlords on those things, perhaps she can do more surgical strikes on the siege units to help make the outer walls survive a bit longer.

I'm very interested to see what Parson's next tactical and strategic moves will be... Will he try to break up the coalition by using Maggie to send messages about Ansom's incompetence? Or will he use a maxed out stack of flying uncroaked lead by Wanda and a few uncroaked warlords to surgically strike as much of the siege as he can? Or will he use Wanda to raise lots of the dead units in the underground area? Or will he post everyone on the outer walls to guard them against the siege? Or will he do all of these to some extent?

I suppose next comic will describe what happens to Tool, but I'm not as interested in the Tool as I am in Parson...

[MattR]

In a system where there are rulers and the ruled i'm not surprised that some people lash out through domination of others.. particularly focusing on someone who could exemplify the caste that they resent the most. When Wanda dominates Jillian (or infact anyone) it could be her way of gaining back some kind of control over everything that goes on around her.

If this is true, then whos to blame for how shes turned out.. the system which in itslef glorifies violence and winning? or the person that was popped with no choice over where shed end up or what shed be.

Evil is a strong word to use. an act can be evil.. but usually i reserve more pity for the person performing it.

[Vreejack]

Now as much as I like Wanda's character and as much as she is enigmatic in her motives, I have to disagree here because her mind controlling of Jillian is clearly an evil act within the context of their Dom/sub relationship. If one knows anything about D/s subculture it's that the sub is always in control, or at least always should be in control otherwise it's assault/rape; the Dom can only do what the sub wants, and pretty clearly Jillian didn't want to be mind controlled.

It wasn't clear at all. They actually argued over that point. "You DO," Wanda says. Jillian's reply sounded overly rehearsed, to my ears, as if she were not really sure of it herself. That might be overly interpretive, however. Otherwise, I completely disagree with your impression of D/s culture. My direct experience is that the sub enjoys not being in control. It is the ability to abandon themselves that gives them enjoyment. Some take it as far as to play without a safety word, just for the feeling of absolute helplessness. A sub will often say "no" but a good dom can read the truth behind the facade and can avoid exceeding his partner's limits. If Wanda did exceed Jillian's limits it appears to be a novel thing, probably caused by Wanda getting angered over Jillian's attempt to get her to flee with her, which would not only have sacrificed whatever Wanda was working on with Stanley but would have put Wanda directly and continuously in Jillian's control---a reversal of their normal relationship.

Does Wanda love Jillian or is it all some game she is playing? Her reaction when Stanley ordered Jillian's death suggests the former. This implies that Wanda's relationship with Jillian cannot be used to implicate her as evil, for whatever she is doing with Jillian in the dungeon is not likely to be against the barbarian's best interests, even withstanding her protestations to the contrary.

[Sky_Schemer]

Yeah yeah, no one agrees with me. Fortunately, my opinion is not contingent on everyone elses.

If you're just going to have a dismissive attitude about it, then why bother to post at all?

2. The "You don't speak for everyone" guy: No, I don't. When did I say I did? I'm sharing my opinion, not yours.

He's probably referring to your words, here:

The author here has gone out of his way to create a scenario with no positive satisfying outcome, so readers may only sit back and wonder in what gruesome fashion their sensibilities will be abused next.

Now, you may intend to speak only for yourself, but when you causally toss around the 3rd person like that, it comes across quite differently.

[kreszantas]

Now as much as I like Wanda's character and as much as she is enigmatic in her motives, I have to disagree here because her mind controlling of Jillian is clearly an evil act within the context of their Dom/sub relationship. If one knows anything about D/s subculture it's that the sub is always in control, or at least always should be in control otherwise it's assault/rape; the Dom can only do what the sub wants, and pretty clearly Jillian didn't want to be mind controlled.

Wanda of course knew that when she asked what Jillian wanted, "easy way or hard way", but when Jillian responds that they run away together and leave the war behind, well Wanda just couldn't have that so she brought out the mind control. Now there's some definite moral ambiguity here because Wanda's betrayal of the nature of their relationship was apparently for a reason very important to her--whatever it is that keeps her loyal to Stanley, it's enough that she was willing to go on a suicidal mission to save him from the ambush. Even so, despite whatever reasons she has for using Jillian against her will, even if it's somehow justified within the context of war, it's still abusive and wrong on a personal level.


I guess it is kind of messed up to have something as serious as that going on within a "cutesy-boop" comic satirizing games/gamers/internet culture, etc. But eh, D/s is subversive in itself so I see it as part of an overall subversion of expectations that's going on in Erworld, which in this thread has been called separately a tragedy and a farce.

I think it's both of those things--externally/beyond the fourth wall it's a satire, with lots of in-jokes and silly representations of things the intended audience would know, but internally it's a serious story with subject such as war, pride and loss. TamLin's argument is understandable, it is rather jarring to have these things placed literally side by side, which could be confusing and even revolting to some.

I personally think it's effective though, since it's exactly what these games ask those of us who play them to do, with Parson taking the immersiveness of them to its extreme conclusion (which incidentally is I think the foreshadowing kreszantas was alluding to).

You sir, get a cookie, enjoy!

To explain a bit more, the wiki article on Stile Project mentions only a couple of the key facts 1) this was in 1999 the ground breaking location for a blog (klogs in Erfworld). 2) the life style that was borderline feral. 3) Parson reading and even BOOKMARKING the site would lend you to know he aint such a neat package. 4) Ruthlessness: makes it all the more plauseable and acceptable (I would not doubt anything Parson could do if he set his mind to it) 5) Stile Project was tagged by the PMRC as a "Shock/Awe Site" and was taken to legal on several occasions, however they focused more on Howard Stern thus that connection is made instead. 6) Parson was not put off by the torture / interrogation lines that Stanley made about Wanda. 7) Reading the mag with the large bold DROW on the cover very intently, not sure that is what he is reading but leads you to conclude he studies that alot.

[Aquillion]

Now as much as I like Wanda's character and as much as she is enigmatic in her motives, I have to disagree here because her mind controlling of Jillian is clearly an evil act within the context of their Dom/sub relationship. If one knows anything about D/s subculture it's that the sub is always in control, or at least always should be in control otherwise it's assault/rape; the Dom can only do what the sub wants, and pretty clearly Jillian didn't want to be mind controlled.

Wanda of course knew that when she asked what Jillian wanted, "easy way or hard way", but when Jillian responds that they run away together and leave the war behind, well Wanda just couldn't have that so she brought out the mind control. Now there's some definite moral ambiguity here because Wanda's betrayal of the nature of their relationship was apparently for a reason very important to her--whatever it is that keeps her loyal to Stanley, it's enough that she was willing to go on a suicidal mission to save him from the ambush. Even so, despite whatever reasons she has for using Jillian against her will, even if it's somehow justified within the context of war, it's still abusive and wrong on a personal level.

It's not so simple; you're overlooking the nature of the Erfworld universe.

What does 'control' or 'freedom' mean in a relationship, in Erfworld terms? As we've been told again and again, one of the things about Erfworld is that, for the most part, nobody except the faction leaders has genuine free will. They're not just forced to obey orders -- they have to constantly do whatever is best for their lord and master.

Wanda might have 'enslaved' Jillian, but Jillian has enslaved hundreds of others over her life, simply by existing. And more damningly, she refuses to take this seriously -- she constantly talks about Wanda doing things under "her own will", about how Wanda could run off with her, about stupid childish things like that.

Jillian is a spoiled little girl who does not understand the basics of how her world works. That's why everything she said was so infuriating to Wanda in those scenes. From Wanda's perspective (which is, from what we've seen, correct, in the Erfworld universe), Jillian's dreams about freedom and running off and all that is completely disconnected from reality -- in Erfworld, you're either in charge and control people just by existing, or you're one of the pieces on the board being controlled. I think it is obvious that Wanda has decided not to be one of the pieces on the board.

And as for what Wanda did to Jillian... what makes you think Wanda even had a choice? Stanley told her to interrogate Jillian, not play nice with her. Brutally mind-controlling Jillian would obviously be the best thing for Stanley's side. Assuming she's not a traitor (which is debatable, but we can worry about that elsewhere), Wanda's own feelings do not come into this at any point -- she is just as much a slave as Jillian is, and with less chance of escaping from it.

It feels like the authors are trying to set us up by presenting amusing, farcical, and lighthearted fare one minute and then sucker-punching us the next.

This is one of the most basic modes of comedy and tragedy (it is older than Shakespeare). The fact that you are uncomfortable with it says more about you than it does about the comic; you're simply more used to being spoon-fed bad genre plots that tell you exactly how you're supposed to think at all times.

It's not a huge deal, but the problem is with you, not with the comic. That's why so many people here disagree with you.

[Zolem]

Sizemore: Well, Parson, you learned an important lesson today: the only way to kill an Uncroaked is to destroy the brain.

Parson: I also learned that I'm secretly a furry!

Wanda: Too much information, Parson.

Stanly: Who's the boom king, I am the boom king, who's the boom king, Stanly's the boom king!

Wanda: Stop referencing awesome TV shows and do somthing.

[FoE]

Tool: Wanda, please, don't raise your voice in front of the Lookamancer!

Go, Knights in Stanley's Service! Make Vinnie Doombats pay for starring in those crappy Grease sequels!

KISS: Detroit Rock City! (Die, musical abomination!)

[ishnar]

""A commanding officer doesn't need brains, just a good loud voice."
-- Dr. Morbius, Forbidden Planet

So perhaps leadership is really just a volume indicator :P

[MattR]

If thats the case GK's side must be turned all the way up to 11 right now....

[Dacia Brabant]

Otherwise, I completely disagree with your impression of D/s culture. My direct experience is that the sub enjoys not being in control. It is the ability to abandon themselves that gives them enjoyment. Some take it as far as to play without a safety word, just for the feeling of absolute helplessness. A sub will often say "no" but a good dom can read the truth behind the facade and can avoid exceeding his partner's limits.

I won't contradict someone who has direct experience with it as I myself do not, but my statements come from someone I once knew who had broad experience on the subject and whose opinions I trust. I realize that kind of anecdotal view can't be argued for or against though so I'll leave it at that.

If Wanda did exceed Jillian's limits it appears to be a novel thing, probably caused by Wanda getting angered over Jillian's attempt to get her to flee with her, which would not only have sacrificed whatever Wanda was working on with Stanley but would have put Wanda directly and continuously in Jillian's control---a reversal of their normal relationship.

Does Wanda love Jillian or is it all some game she is playing? Her reaction when Stanley ordered Jillian's death suggests the former. This implies that Wanda's relationship with Jillian cannot be used to implicate her as evil, for whatever she is doing with Jillian in the dungeon is not likely to be against the barbarian's best interests, even withstanding her protestations to the contrary.

I don't dispute this, but I'm not so sure the fact that Wanda has her own interests means she also has Jillian's best interests in mind (or rather, she has in mind what she thinks are Jillian's best interests). I'll agree that Wanda loves her or at least did love her, but love doesn't give her carte blanche for whatever she does out of love.

It's not so simple; you're overlooking the nature of the Erfworld universe.

What does 'control' or 'freedom' mean in a relationship, in Erfworld terms? As we've been told again and again, one of the things about Erfworld is that, for the most part, nobody except the faction leaders has genuine free will. They're not just forced to obey orders -- they have to constantly do whatever is best for their lord and master.

Wanda might have 'enslaved' Jillian, but Jillian has enslaved hundreds of others over her life, simply by existing. And more damningly, she refuses to take this seriously -- she constantly talks about Wanda doing things under "her own will", about how Wanda could run off with her, about stupid childish things like that.

You're right, that's an important aspect of all this, though I did say that Wanda had her reasons for doing what she did that aren't wrong outside of the relationship. Yes, the free-will question is not really up for debate in Erfworld, though the existence of a place like the Magic Kingdom and the fact that low-loyalty units can permissibly rebel indicates there might be a little more to it than the notion that the Overlord is the only one with any freedom.

Also, if might does make right in this world, Jillian likewise had every right to resist/break free of the control. Her love of Ansom and hatred of Stanley proved to be powerful motivators in the end after all. Not saying she didn't have the wrong ideas about some things, and I'm no fan of hers, but maybe using force to "correct" her wasn't such a good idea even if that's entirely permissible within their universe. If you're going to cast a spell that can be broken if the subject has to do something against her own nature, better be darn sure the last thing she'd ever do is harm you.

[Allysian]

The whole leader servant thing really scares me, also the magic swords' power of granting ruthlessness, I dont want to see what's gonna happen there. Well I do, but yeah.

[Werekat]

Very glad to see Sizemore alive and as well as he could probably be under the circumstances. Extremely glad to see that he had the guts to cast that healing spell when faced with close-quarters combat. This isn't a simple task: just not freezing during hand-to-hand is worth a lot. Good call, and thank you for it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that mage.

I'm not surprised by Parson thinking about swear words. One's mind brings up surprisingly stupid things during combat, and swear words are probably somewhere at the top of all lists of stuff that go through one's mind, especially because it's sometimes much more convenient to communicate through swearing. Especially if you're supposed to sit and listen to reports and not go in yourself. And double that when the affair is not yet over. Here's hoping he maintains the clear thinking and taking his humor where he can afford to do so until the end of the battle.

Can't wait to see phase two.

[xopher.tm]

Hey, I noticed that in Parson's favourites he has a link for "Girls Gone Feral?" Is he secretly a furry or something?

You are either born wild or you go feral, which is to say you can't actually "go wild". Parson simply strives for semantic accuracy.

Furries have nothing to do with it.


...


If I find out that Parson enjoys yiffing, I will no longer be able to read Erfworld with any sort of pleasure.

[xopher.tm]

It feels like the authors are trying to set us up by presenting amusing, farcical, and lighthearted fare one minute and then sucker-punching us the next.

We used to call that "storytelling". If Balder and Noguchi continually gave us the expected, I for one would have stopped reading a long while back. I didn't care much for Erfworld when it began and actually stopped reading after less than two dozen pages. Some months later I went back and reread it all from the start and was hooked.

And, as noted, the big problem with that is that it's not clear why, what their intent is, what the message (if any) is supposed to be etc.

They are telling a story. I find it engaging. I'm probably not a very discerning person however. I'm also not sure there is a message as such. Which is fine by me; I do so dislike stories with contrived morals.

[kreszantas]

Well Xopher I think there is a message in a very subtle way... "Stick it to the Man" for at least a part of Parson's Theocratic way of thinking, thats why his Jesus saves sticker has so much meaning.
In http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0101.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0102.html where he is sticking it to Ansom who he thinks represents 'the man'... Parson also wants to stick it to Stanley but can't. The utter disappointment when Tool interrupts the thinkagram with Ansom shows he was ready to have an evilgasm (to borrow a word) over being able to complete the sticking. That is why that reaction should be taken more into the context that Parson's culpablility is completely off the chain.

[ChowGuy]

In any case, it looks like Parson's army gets a few more uncroaked units, and possibly two more uncroaked warlords.
<snip>
Also I recall that there are 3 of the uni-pega-tars and we know that Wanda can ride one of them... So if you put two more uncroaked warlords on those things, perhaps she can do more surgical strikes on the siege units to help make the outer walls survive a bit longer.

It remains to be seen how many units Wanda can uncroak in a turn, but as both Maggie and Sizemore have made explicit references to the fact that they have a fairly limited amount of "juice" I doubt Wanda does not have similar restrictions. And as far as "two more uncroaked warlords" to ride the unipegaturs, Parson already has and has had the whole time, two more uncroaked warlords at his disposal. He has not even mentioned them, because, I suspect, their sole remaining asset of "leadership bonus" without the ability to actual to evaluate a situation and command troops independently is pretty much worthless. That is, without the table to control them directly, they are no more then perhaps moderately high level infantry units. And I say "moderately" because, even if we grant they were already reduced in HP from previous attacks, Webinar and Dora were both easily taken out by a single heavy unit, and a damaged one at that. I doubt as uncroaked they would be any more effective.

Well, I wasn't really talking about the artistic style so much as the changing tone of the comic. Early on the deaths were gags, and often those being killed were strange, funny, or absurd figures such as giant teddy bears, living peeps, or pink dragons. Gradually that tone has shifted to more graphic depictions of violence against more realistic characters. Speaking just for myself, I find this trend to be manipulative, lulling the reader into thinking that they're reading one thing and then suddenly dropping something altogether different (and unpleasant) into their lap.

And, also speaking solely for myself, I find that observation even more disturbing then the points you're trying to make. You seem to be walking perilously close to saying "violence is OK, as long as it's done to beings who don't look like us." While that seems a consistent theme underlying much of the fantasy genre, it like the concept that because a given creature/race is inherently "evil" per the PHB it is morally permissible (or even mandatory) to slaughter them in the name of "good" is one that I've never been comfortable with. Consider the "classic" dungeon game, say Ultima or even Nethack: you start out with a knife mugging wandering creatures and looting their corpses, and work your way up through breaking and entering til you're ready to challenge "the boss" who may never have done you or anyone else any direct harm, for no reason then you simply wish to be as powerful as he is. What sort of "moral" lesson is that? Yet few read it that way.

Same thing here, I suspect. Rather then see the shift in tone as "ambiguous" I see it as deliberate. War in the real world is not fun and games, nor is it a romantic adventure even if it may seem that way to begin with. In all too many stories, that point never gets made, and in the end we still see the warrior's role as being some glorious life we should aspire to. Here if anything I suspect the "shift in tone" is trying to underscore that fact. Robert E. Lee, no stranger to the senseless carnage of the battlefield, once remarked the "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." It's a message we too rarely get rubbed in our noses like this.

Oh, as for the final panel, and speaking of Lee, the story goes (it may be apocryphal) that following one particularly dark setback for the Union, Lincoln's Secretary of War found him reading a jokebook and howling with laughter. "Mr. President," he scolded, "how can you laugh at a time like?!" Abe's reply was something to the effect of "Sir, I I could not find solace in laughter at such a time, I should surely go insane." I suspect this is the point Parson may facing right now. It's not at all that he takes the situation lightly, his earlier fatigue and even his latent despondency and worry about being "hosed" speak to a high level of stress. Even more then Sizemore he's on the edge of losing it because he's never had to see war as anything other then a game. In that sense I don't see the last panel as "humorous" at all, but as a man reaching for some small ray of the familiar to lighten his load.

[Lousifer]

When good people die it's sad, and when bad people die it's cool and sometimes funny. That's an artificial and wholly unrealistic formula, but it's also the standard formula for western entertainment, and it holds to it pretty closely.

Perhaps some of the appeal of this comic is that it doesn't follow the standard formula. Sometimes it makes you think, and there's nearly always at least one unexpected twist every couple episodes. It sounds like you may be more accustomed to standard American television/cinema and less exposed to actual writing.

I have found that I enjoy story-based webcomics more when I let the backlog build up and read a month's worth at a sitting. It feels more like a book. I find that I become dissatisfied with a comic more quickly when I am waiting every day for the update to be posted. Maybe if you give the authors a chance to finish Erfworld and read the comic in its entirety, you will be able to appreciate it better.

... the reason these forums exist is to help give feedback to the people who make the comics, so if I as a reader am not happy with what they're doing it seems appropriate to say so.

I believe these forums exist more to give the fans a place to discuss the comics than to give feedback to the makers of the comics. Some of the biggest travesties in recent fantasy writing (see: second half of the Wheel of Time series) are almost certainly a direct result of fan interaction with the author. Few things are more damaging to a writing quality than letting the hardcore obsessive fraction of a fanbase have serious input on the process. The things a gamer thinks of as being "really cool" generally don't make for good story. Good story and good game are 2 very different beasts.

I enjoy Erfworld and hope the regular update schedule can continue. It's nice to be getting 2 strips a week again.

[Zolem]

Tool: Wanda, please, don't raise your voice in front of the Lookamancer!

Go, Knights in Stanley's Service! Make Vinnie Doombats pay for starring in those crappy Grease sequels!

KISS: Detroit Rock City! (Die, musical abomination!)

And to switch gears to a different Abridged Series....

Dwagons: Hate Hate Hate Hate

PArson: What are those things?

Stanly: You like them? They're gaint flying reptiles from the Erfworld. They're called Hate Lizards.

Dwagons: HAte hate hate hate

Parson: Wow, what an origional name. Was Death Geko and Kill Iguana taken?

[VariaVespasa]

She is? I never thought so. She animates corpses. So? They are resources that will disappear at turn's start.

I assume you mean the corpses would disappear at turns start if they werent uncwoaked. But thats an interesting point actually- the uncwoaked warlords do decay over time. Does that mean that all uncwoaked decay over time, and that, if they had the patience, the alliance could just sit outside GK till most of the defenders just rotted away?

[Aquillion]

I assume you mean the corpses would disappear at turns start if they werent uncwoaked. But thats an interesting point actually- the uncwoaked warlords do decay over time. Does that mean that all uncwoaked decay over time, and that, if they had the patience, the alliance could just sit outside GK till most of the defenders just rotted away?

In most strategy games, 'field' units being used for campaigns away from home take up more resources to maintain than 'home' units kept in your cities. And undead may not require any maintenance at all.

In that case, the coalition could stand to lose a huge amount of money by trying to wait them out... and the city would have time to earn more cash, recruit more units, etc. Not to mention all the units that would be occupied that could be used elsewhere, the inevitable diplomatic strains, etc, etc.

They have a strong incentive to finish this up fairly quickly.

[TamLin]

(Er, it's "Balder")

Yeah, I know. I have no way to account for that bizarre and emberassing oversight on my part. I'm going to blame it on the drugs. There are no drugs, but it's a convenient excuse.

I don't think see the story as being "all over the map" so much as it is setting up a deliberate counterpoint between cutesy trappings and grim events. Probably the most straightforward indication of the impression the writers are trying to create is in Parson's Klog 8:

Yeah, I recognize the counterpoint, I'm just not sure what the larger purpose is. To paraphrase John McCain, it's about the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

Now, Parson has recognized the gravity of the situation around him for some time, but his behavior doesn't reflect that realization. Why is that? Is it the sword? Is humor his defense mechanism? Is he just kind of a jerk? Is it the effect of his bizarre circumstances?

Actually, the argument for considering him evil (i.e. he wants to wipe out Stanley not so much for the legitimate reason of ending Stanley's aggressions as for the illegitimate reason as ending an affront to his personal worldview) has been made on this forum. I don't really agree with it, but I can't outright dismiss it either.

I dunno, that seems a stretch to me. There's a difference between being evil and just being "Not good."

Well, Bogroll is very much like Sizemore in that he's a basically good-hearted individual (Sizemore says as much) who happens to be on the color-coded "Evil" side.

Yeah, I thought about Bogroll after I posted. He hasn't been in the comic lately, so he slipped my mind.

Also, you're talking about two of the five significant characters on that side (three, if we add Bogroll). When an argument requires you to separate out that much of the total evidence and call it a special case to be disregarded, the argument is distressingly weak.

Isn't Bogroll a slave? Isn't he consistently abused by all of his peers for their own amusement? And look at what being aligned with Gobwin Knob is forcing poor Sizemore to do. These are the kinds of things that put one side in a worse light than the other. Speaking of slavery, I notice that free will is a big running theme in Erfworld: Wanda enchants Jillian, Parson is magically compelled to obey Stanley, Misty and the other casters were turned into virtual automatons, the dwagons must obey whoever is aligned to the arkenhammer, and of course the uncroaked don't seem to have any free will at all. Conversely, Ansom's forces are a coalition, the members of which are following him voluntarily. So one side asks people to fight and the other side forces them to fight. Of course, it's not clear to what degree individual "units" of various forces have any freedom, although the fact that the hobgobwins betrayed the city's previous king indicates that they're not hapless drones.

Whether or not it's sufficiently pronounced to come across as intended to a particular reader is too subjective to argue, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

Fair enough.

She is? I never thought so.

Well, she tortures people for fun. And there's clearly a sexual element to her fondness for torture, which implies that it may be a form of rape, although that's sort of up in the air. And when you factor in that she uses magic to force people to want to engage in such activities...well, it ain't a pretty picture. I don't want to suggest that Wanda is merely a two-dimensional villainess, but if anyone in this comic is clearly committing evil acts, it's gotta be her, IMHO.

If you're just going to have a dismissive attitude about it, then why bother to post at all?

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of people's views, just of the sentiment that the majority opinion negates the minority.

Now, you may intend to speak only for yourself, but when you causally toss around the 3rd person like that, it comes across quite differently.

Well, that's the academic voice: "I" and "you" are considered inappropriate. As my 6th grade teacher said, "You don't need to say 'I think this.' It's your name on the page, so people already know it's what you think." But yes, third person probably isn't a good idea in this format.

This is one of the most basic modes of comedy and tragedy (it is older than Shakespeare). The fact that you are uncomfortable with it says more about you than it does about the comic; you're simply more used to being spoon-fed bad genre plots that tell you exactly how you're supposed to think at all times.

No, I think you're misinterpreting my criticism. The problem here is not that the story is one of moral ambiguity or potentially troublesome material, it's the lack of consistency and clear direction. Ambiguity in a story demands a certain amount of trust from the reader, and disturbing material also demands a lot of trust from the reader. When you do both, that can be asking a lot from someone. If I feel like a writer or an artist has done a good job of establishing the "Why" of what they're doing, then I can accept the material whatsoever it may be. I don't feel that that's been done here, and as I've noted already, it can be dangerous to walk the kinds of lines that the comic is now without first doing that.

And, also speaking solely for myself, I find that observation even more disturbing then the points you're trying to make. You seem to be walking perilously close to saying "violence is OK, as long as it's done to beings who don't look like us."

No, I'm not saying that it's "OK", I'm saying that depictions of violence against such figures is more abstract than against those who more strongly resemble real people, erego it's less visceral and less likely to be upsetting. But it's not just about what the subject of the violence is, it's the style. I'm reminded of an interview that Art Spiegelman did where he talked about how by using animal characters in "Maus" he forced the reader to recreate the violent acts in their own mind with real people. The characters in his comic were absurd, but the violence committed against them was quite disturbing. But the style of violence committed against the Cloth Golems and Gwiffons and even the elves had a much softer edge than the stuff we're seeing now.

Same thing here, I suspect. Rather then see the shift in tone as "ambiguous" I see it as deliberate. War in the real world is not fun and games, nor is it a romantic adventure even if it may seem that way to begin with. In all too many stories, that point never gets made, and in the end we still see the warrior's role as being some glorious life we should aspire to. Here if anything I suspect the "shift in tone" is trying to underscore that fact. Robert E. Lee, no stranger to the senseless carnage of the battlefield, once remarked the "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." It's a message we too rarely get rubbed in our noses like this.

But it's a message that's a little late-breaking, isn't it?

Perhaps some of the appeal of this comic is that it doesn't follow the standard formula. Sometimes it makes you think, and there's nearly always at least one unexpected twist every couple episodes. It sounds like you may be more accustomed to standard American television/cinema and less exposed to actual writing.

Actually, when I was thinking about it today, and I'm surprised no one called me out on this, I grossly mischaracterized "The Order of the Stick" in my last post. That comic doesnt' really followthe standard formula either, and there have been lots of instances where the deaths of non-evil people have been played for laughs. But the thing about OotS is that it's a work of satire, it's making light of the inconsistencies in the classic D&D game, which imposes a rigid moral framework of alignments on characters but then has them commit violent acts that in real life would probably violate those same ethical codes (this of course being the phenomena ChowGuy was just talking about). There's a kind of clarity in "The Order of the Stick" that gives it more leeway, as there's rarely a mystery about why the writer is depicting one thing or another.

Of course, OotS is often criticized for crossing the line. Mr. Burlew has mentioned that he got huge amounts of negative feedback after one strip in which Elan appeared to have been killed. After the massacre of the Sapphire Guard, the community on the forums split right down the middle, some finding the strip hilarious while others criticizing it as being wildly inappropriate (in fact, the entire war story was criticized by some readers as being too bleak for the strip. I wasn't one of them, for the record). So even in the context of this regularly-very-violent comic strip, readers still have a clear idea of what they do and do not expect, and sometimes things go too far in some people's view.

You'll also notice that there are a lot of moral crises that go on in that strip; characters frequently debate whether one course of action was right or wrong. Even some of the bad guys sometimes have moral crises. In Erfworld, on the other hand, no one has much opportunity to debate the morality of their actions (except Sizemore, and he clearly wishes he didn't), everyone is instead driven by pragmatism. If a freewilled person makes a decision to do something reprehensible, that's bad, but if a person is forced into a reprehensible act that they don't want to commit, that's actually worse. So that's another reason why violence in Erfworld might be viewed differently than violence in OotS, or other mediums. It's not the entire difference, but it's one brushstroke out of many. Really, I'm not sure comparing the two comics is fair, but I guess it's inevitable.

[Rykka]

Why can't they be writing a story for the sake of a story? What -they- feel like writing? Without it being some sort of sadistic intent to sucker-punch some people's overly sensitive person views on how a story should be. It is written, and therefor it is.

On to the story itself...

Not that I wouldn't love to see Wanda uncroak and unleash a lovely uncroaked horde on the besiegers but did anyone else notice she hasn't been seen for almost nine pages, her last page being sitting on a travel mount professing a desire to go help Stanley? I for one envision a juxtaposition of the rescue of Ansom by Jillian. Stanley finds himself outnumbered and in a pickle, and one of the Faq girls against all odds rushes in to the rescue. It's even another air battle.

Might just be me, but I think it would make for a neat reflection of the previous events, but I also have a love affair with irony.

~Me

[xopher.tm]

Why can't they be writing a story for the sake of a story? What -they- feel like writing? Without it being some sort of sadistic intent to sucker-punch some people's overly sensitive person views on how a story should be. It is written, and therefor it is.

Yay, Rykka!

[xopher.tm]

Well Xopher I think there is a message in a very subtle way... "Stick it to the Man" for at least a part of Parson's Theocratic way of thinking, thats why his Jesus saves sticker has so much meaning.
In http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0101.html and http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0102.html where he is sticking it to Ansom who he thinks represents 'the man'... Parson also wants to stick it to Stanley but can't. The utter disappointment when Tool interrupts the thinkagram with Ansom shows he was ready to have an evilgasm (to borrow a word) over being able to complete the sticking. That is why that reaction should be taken more into the context that Parson's culpablility is completely off the chain.

Well... We could certainly say that Parson, just as any disaffected American youth, has a thing against authority - any authority. He does. That's not so much a message a character trait. On Erf, however, he is authority and it's turning him into a (jerk). So our message is "Power corrupts"? Man, I hope not.

As an aside, "The Battle For Gobwin Knob" is Part 1 of the Erfworld saga. Has there been much speculation yet about what Part 2 might entail?

[Aquillion]

No, I think you're misinterpreting my criticism. The problem here is not that the story is one of moral ambiguity or potentially troublesome material, it's the lack of consistency and clear direction. Ambiguity in a story demands a certain amount of trust from the reader, and disturbing material also demands a lot of trust from the reader. When you do both, that can be asking a lot from someone.

You are simply wrong. Ambiguity and disturbing themes are not secret hidden tricks, to be used only by the most sacred and trusted authors in which you have placed your trust; they are basic, core parts of good writing. They are as central as characterization or basic punctuation. Challenging the reader and presenting ambiguity is what writing is all about. Only a very few sorts of writers will not strive for a degree of ambiguity or to challenge the reader to some extent; and those sorts are (generally) authors of things like purely escapist fiction or similar junk-food material.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but for the most part, anything worth reading involves a significant amount of ambiguity and at least some ability to challenge the reader. Seriously, this is not a minor mistake you've made here; this is a huge, fundamental, jaw-droppingly wrong statement. The universe is ambiguous and sometimes disturbing; writing that reflects this is the norm, not the exception, and most things worth reading are going to be that way.

Again, the fact that you do not understand this -- the fact that you think ambiguity in writing is some strange and exotic thing -- means that you should probably expand your reading a little. There are some limited genres (purely escapist genre fiction, say) where ambiguity is a bit more rare; and there are some good books that are straightforward and do not challenge the reader at all; but for the most part, the word for writer who has no ambiguity or challenging material in what they write is a complete hack.

[MattR]

To Tamlin

{Scrubbed}

The coalition leaders may have made a temporary alliance.. but i bet none of them consulted the common soldiers. Any army in Erfworld is going to be a draft at best and slavery at worst. Webinar clearly didnt want to go into the tunnels but he went anyway, you can argue whether his choice to follow orders was personal or just ingrained obediance to authority. I'm curious to know how Ansom's side deals with malcontents.. if personalities are assigned randomly how would the royalty there deal with people questioning their right to rule? My guess is theyre given a choice of a short rope or a long walk.

If Stanley were to die at any point down the line you can bet someone would eventually put a spin on it and say he was a shining beacon of triumph over adversity and champion of freedom.

Just because there's no page showing Ansom's side torturing people for information... doesn't prove conclusively that its never happened. In the real world torture isnt just restricted to the 'bad guys'.

[The Old Hack]

Parson seems to have the same issue, but I think he's leaning towards belief, and his actions are all in line with that thinking, but then the magic forces him to do so, to be so.

...

*brain a'splode*

...sorry, this probably has nothing to do with your stance. I was inadvertently trying to view it from the position that it is not certain whether Erf is real or not, and ran headfirst into the problem of imaginary magic forcing Parson to believe... which then goes straight to, "He imagines the magic, hence he must needs believe in it in order for it to have power, which means he believed in it to begin with...."

My little head hurteth. I think I am going to have a lie down.

[teratorn]

There are a few exceptions, of course, but for the most part, anything worth reading involves a significant amount of ambiguity and at least some ability to challenge the reader.

I don't agree that there are only a few exceptions, but I do agree with you that it can makes reading much more interesting.

I wonder if Tamlin ever read "Le Rouge et le Noir" by Stendhal (I think the English title should be something like The Red and the Black). My French edition has the comments from a critic of the time, and they are strangely reminiscent of what TamLin is saying.

It's one of these cases where people have different expectation of what to find in an interesting story. TamLin's expectations are different from the ones most of us in this forum have. Doesn't mean he is "wrong," there are plenty of good stories that follow that format.