OOTS #1106 - The Discussion Thread

[Shining Wrath]

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

In other words, Durkon thought that honoring your marriage was more important than whether or not you were happy in that marriage. We do not know if dwarven society allows for divorce in cases of abuse or neglect.

[SilverCacaobean]

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

Some more thoughts on this. I have a theory about why he reacted like that. Durkon has been miserable for a great part of his life because he's very dutiful. Hylgia's belief of putting her own happiness above her duty was a danger to not only his belief system, but also to what his actions have amounted to, all his years of respecting his own exile. So acknowledging the validity of what Hylgia believes is also acknowledging that all his years spent away from his home were for nothing. Since he has invested so much in them he's not ready to do that so he makes himself even more lawful.

So, I guess that makes him sunk-cost fallacy guy #2. It pushes him to become more and more lawful to justify to himself all the sacrifices he's made to follow an order from his high priest that to him must look arbitrary and cruel.

[Kish]

In other words, Durkon thought that honoring your marriage was more important than whether or not you were happy in that marriage. We do not know if dwarven society allows for divorce in cases of abuse or neglect.

If it doesn't, then I'd call that an ironclad case that dwarven society is Lawful Evil.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If it doesn't, then I'd call that an ironclad case that dwarven society is Lawful Evil.

Lets assume that dwarven society punishes all abusers including spousal ones, to get around the ethical status of the society - i.e. that if Ivan was really abusive, he'd end up in jail or forced to live separately or whatever other punishment fit the crime.

That doesn't mean that a divorce would necessarily follow. An arranged marriage is a political entity, after all, and there is a lot more riding on it than the two actual individuals married. That said, AFAIK, societies that did have arranged marriages also had a way of annulling said marriages on various pretexts. Dwarven culture being what it is, I suspect "dereliction of spousal duties" would be very high on such list of pretexts - which could mean that Hilgya might have been divorced in absentia, because she violated her duties to the marriage by running away.

Grey Wolf

[Clistenes]

If it doesn't, then I'd call that an ironclad case that dwarven society is Lawful Evil.

It is possible that, like european medieval society, dwarven law allows annullement and remarriage under certain special circunstances, but just separation ("separation of bed and table") but not remarriage when those special curcunstances weren't met.

In short, Durkon may not think that Hylgia should return to her husband, but he thinks she shouldn't marry again, and he refused to have an unsanctioned relationship...

[goodpeople25]

It's not just the pregnancy. Don't forget that Durkon knew nothing about Ivan except what Hylgia told him. So, she told him was that he was abusive and he told her to go back to him.

While an implication is most certainly there to be found, I don't think it is quite that cut and dried since I don't see any more straightforward statement of abuse than the cruel and horrible man description.

[Jasdoif]

In short, Durkon may not think that Hylgia should return to her husband, but he thinks she shouldn't marry again, and he refused to have an unsanctioned relationship...

Hmm...."Yer duty as a dwarf is ta go home and be wit' yer husband" sounds a lot like saying she should return to her husband.

[SilverCacaobean]

While an implication is most certainly there to be found, I don't think it is quite that cut and dried since I don't see any more straightforward statement of abuse than the cruel and horrible man description.

Well, yeah. Why wouldn't he take her word for it? Or at least consider it a possibility? And Hel, if for some reason he was absolutely sure she was lying, I don't see why he decided that addressing duty over her attempted murder (which if he though she was lying would be unjustifiable) is Good. It's true that the extra context we have now about how honor works in dwarven society explains why he would think it's so important, but it still says a lot about him.

EDIT2: Wait, did I misread what you meant? Do you mean that "cruel and horrible man" does not necessarily mean that he was abusive? That's a stretch.

EDIT:

Hmm...."Yer duty as a dwarf is ta go home and be wit' yer husband" sounds a lot like saying she should return to her husband.

It does... So to take the above further, if he thought she was lying, he tried to send an attempted murderer back to their victim.


All that said, I don't think Durkon thought she was lying. He thought "I'm miserable because I'm following my duty, because it's unthinkable that a dwarf does not follow their duty." That's probably what he's been saying to himself so he couldn't take it back for Hylgia.

[goodpeople25]

Well, yeah. Why wouldn't he take her word for it? Or at least consider it a possibility? And Hel, if for some reason he was absolutely sure she was lying, I don't see why he decided that addressing duty over her attempted murder (which if he though she was lying would be unjustifiable) is Good. It's true that the extra context we have now about how honor works in dwarven society explains why he would think it's so important, but it still says a lot about him.

EDIT:


It does... So to take the above further, if he thought she was lying, he tried to send an attempted murderer back to their victim.


All that said, I don't think Durkon thought she was lying. He thought "I'm miserable because I'm following my duty, because it's unthinkable that a dwarf does not follow their duty." That's probably what he's been saying to himself so he couldn't take it back for Hylgia.

Oh sure, I'm not saying he absolutely thinks she was lying about him being a cruel and horrible man. But afaik that is all she said, nor am I saying he shouldn't think of the implication just that it is just that.

Feel free to think it's a stretch though I can't say I don't see the implications. (Or implications of the implication as I see it)

[SilverCacaobean]

Oh sure, I'm not saying he absolutely thinks she was lying about him being a cruel and horrible man. But afaik that is all she said, nor am I saying he shouldn't think of the implication just that it is just that.

I don't know... If you hear a woman describe the husband she has run away from as "cruel and horrible", to whom are you going to assume he was being cruel and horrible to? It's more than an implication.

EDIT: Hm, maybe I sound a bit snarky. I'm not trying to be snarky, I just disagree with you.

[goodpeople25]

I don't know... If you hear a woman describe the husband she has run away from as "cruel and horrible", to whom are you going to assume he was being cruel and horrible to? It's more than an implication.

I think we're just running into definitional issues at this point.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't know... If you hear a woman describe the husband she has run away from as "cruel and horrible", to whom are you going to assume he was being cruel and horrible to? It's more than an implication.

His employees? Their pets? The city council? The fact that Hilgya didn't specify any cruel behaviour towards her beyond "hounding her with endless questions" cannot really be read into "and also, he would hit me on a daily basis".

Grey Wolf

[SilverCacaobean]

I think we're just running into definitional issues at this point.

Maybe. I'd certainly include "being cruel and horrible to someone who can't get away from you unless they exile themselves from their own society" into abusive behaviour. If you don't, there's our disagreement.

EDIT:

His employees? Their pets? The city council? The fact that Hilgya didn't specify any cruel behaviour towards her beyond "hounding her with endless questions" cannot really be read into "and also, he would hit me on a daily basis".

Grey Wolf

I never said he hit her. There are many many forms of abusive behaviour.

[goodpeople25]

Maybe. I'd certainly include "being cruel and horrible to someone who can't get away from you unless they exile themselves from their own society" into abusive behaviour. If you don't, there's our disagreement.

That not where I'm going at all and highlights where I think the issue lies, mainly that it being an implication in no way dimishes that to me. It jsut isn't outrated stated he was abusive end of story.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I never said he hit her. There are many many forms of abusive behaviour.

Is one of them "hounding you with endless questions"? Because I don't think so and, more importantly, if Durkon doesn't either, then all he has left is to conclude he was cruel towards others.

All Durkon has to work with is "he was cruel, and asked me a lot of questions". Without further details, those seem independent accusations to me, and therefore it is a plausible interpretation for Durkon to arrive to. Specially because Durkon is not contemplating what Hilgya's or Ivan's actions are in the Good/Evil scale, but in the Honor scale, which is far more crucial to a dwarf.

GW

[SilverCacaobean]

That not where I'm going at all and highlights where I think the issue lies, mainly that it being an implication in no way dimishes that to me. It jsut isn't outrated stated he was abusive end of story.

Hey, you said we disagree over definitions. So I tried to find where. I think that "cruel and horrible" is an explicit statement of abusive bahaviour, you think it's an implicit one. There was nothing in my post that implies that it being an implication diminishes it's importance to you.

EDIT:

Is one of them "hounding you with endless questions"? Because I don't think so and, more importantly, if Durkon doesn't either, then all he has left is to conclude he was cruel towards others.

All Durkon has to work with is "he was cruel, and asked me a lot of questions". Without further details, those seem independent accusations to me, and therefore it is a plausible interpretation for Durkon to arrive to. Specially because Durkon is not contemplating what Hilgya's or Ivan's actions are in the Good/Evil scale, but in the Honor scale, which is far more crucial to a dwarf.

GW

Look, calling someone cruel and horrible and then not going into details about how they're cruel and horrible implies more that the victim doesn't want to think about it and give the listener an account of how exactly they where cruel and horrible than it implies they are not real victims. When someone tells you they've been abused you don't assume that it's not so bad because they didn't go into details.

[Fyraltari]

Is one of them "hounding you with endless questions"? Because I don't think so and, more importantly, if Durkon doesn't either, then all he has left is to conclude he was cruel towards others.

All Durkon has to work with is "he was cruel, and asked me a lot of questions". Without further details, those seem independent accusations to me, and therefore it is a plausible interpretation for Durkon to arrive to. Specially because Durkon is not contemplating what Hilgya's or Ivan's actions are in the Good/Evil scale, but in the Honor scale, which is far more crucial to a dwarf.

GW

"Hounding [someone] with endless question" is typical control freak behaviour though. We have the panel to rule out that interpretation, Durkon does not.

[goodpeople25]

Hey, you said we disagree over definitions. So I tried to find where. I think that "cruel and horrible" is an explicit statement of abusive bahaviour, you think it's an implicit one. There was nothing in my post that implies that it being an implication diminishes it's importance to you.

EDIT:


Look, calling someone cruel and horrible and then not going into details about how they're cruel and horrible implies more that the victim doesn't want to think about it and give the listener an account of how exactly they where cruel and horrible than it implies they are not real victims. When someone tells you they've been abused you don't assume that it's not so bad because they didn't go into details.

I was saying we seemed to have different definitions of explicit and implication.

[Kish]

I think Rich wrote what was intended to be an almost entirely humorous Lawful vs. Chaotic clash before comic 100 and didn't revisit it for over a thousand comics.

I'm reserving judgment on how he presents what happened and why Hilgya wants to murder Durkon, now that the comic is somewhat more serious.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Look, calling someone cruel and horrible and then not going into details about how they're cruel and horrible implies more that the victim doesn't want to think about it and give the listener an account of how exactly they where cruel and horrible than it implies they are not real victims. When someone tells you they've been abused you don't assume that it's not so bad because they didn't go into details.

But she does go into details. She specifies that he hounded her with endless questions.

As an example, think slave owner from whatever historical period you want. Chances are, the owner was quite cruel to his slaves. That does not imply he was cruel towards his wife. But said wife could still find the situation distasteful and run away.

Bottom line, I am not disagreeing you can jump to the conclusion that there was more than questions going on. But it is NOT an inevitable conclusion. Don't blame Durkon for not reaching the same conclusion as you, especially when he was preoccupied with a more crucial wellbeing issue: that of dishonorable conduct, and what it could mean to all involved were they to die.

Grey Wolf

[Ruck]

Loki rules

It's ironic that what Hilgya said about "that jerk leaving her behind in the dangeon" and Elan's replay that "He's dead now anyway" aplies to both... Nale and Durkon

Ha, good catch.

You're wrong, and screw you. If someone were to point to something in the comic which provided solid proof that Nale's assertion of his own LEness was incorrect, I would find that convincing. I don't find someone supporting a poorly-constructed argument convincing, even if that person happens to be writing the comic.
I'm solidly Death-of-the-Author-ey, and you're clearly not. But that's no reason to go around throwing insults like "nothing will be convincing to you".

You choose to interpret it as an insult (and, as SilverCacaobean points out, insult me far worse in kind with no actual point to doing so). If the author literally says "My intention is X" and you say "I don't believe you," I think it's quite reasonable to conclude you're not going to believe any argument from someone who has far less knowledge of the intent behind the comic than the author himself.

I must say I've always been mildly amused by the contempt many people here seem to have towards Death of the Author. I imagine it is because this author in particular often discussed his own work with us readers, but still, it is a well-established concept in literary criticism and there's no reason why OotS should be above it.

I don't have contempt for it, but when the work is ongoing and the author specifically says "I did X for Y reason," I'm not going to say, "Yeah, you're wrong about your own intentions."

[SilverCacaobean]

But she does go into details. She specifies that he hounded her with endless questions.

Didn't you just say these are independent accusations? So that's not her going in detail, it's accusing him on more things than one.

As an example, think slave owner from whatever historical period you want. Chances are, the owner was quite cruel to his slaves. That does not imply he was cruel towards his wife. But said wife could still find the situation distasteful and run away.

Bottom line, I am not disagreeing you can jump to the conclusion that there was more than questions going on. But it is NOT an inevitable conclusion. Don't blame Durkon for not reaching the same conclusion as you, especially when he was preoccupied with a more crucial wellbeing issue: that of dishonorable conduct, and what it could mean to all involved were they to die.

Grey Wolf

If instead of "cruel and horrible" she had said "abusive" who do you think it is reasonable for the listener to assume the object of this abuse is? I don't see why "cruel and horrible" would be different. With such statements the initial assumption when there's no object in the sentence is that the speaker is the object.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Didn't you just say these are independent accusations? So that's not her going in detail, it's accusing him on more things than one.

If they are independent, then her only stated "attack" on her is the questions. If they aren't, the Hilgya comes across as making mountains out of molehills by turning "endless questions" into "cruel and horrible" actions.

If instead of "cruel and horrible" she had said "abusive" who do you think it is reasonable for the listener to assume the object of this abuse is? I don't see why "cruel and horrible" would be different.

But she didn't say abusive, and they are different. They are not synonymous. There is clear different connotations to "cruel" and "abusive". You cannot simply interchange them.

Also, am I to assume you concede my point about Durkon's preoccupation?

GW

[Nomen]

His employees? Their pets? The city council? The fact that Hilgya didn't specify any cruel behaviour towards her beyond "hounding her with endless questions" cannot really be read into "and also, he would hit me on a daily basis".

Grey Wolf

Endless questions could mean forced her to account for every second of the day to him then micromanaged and insulted her decisions. We know it most likely amounted to him trying make her comfortable and somewhere from not accepting that to not having the ability to guess that the best thing he can do for is give her space but Durken didn't.

[SilverCacaobean]

If they are independent, then her only stated "attack" on her is the questions. If they aren't, the Hilgya comes across as making mountains out of molehills by turning "endless questions" into "cruel and horrible" actions.

Sure, that's her only stated attack on her. As I've said after one accuses another of abusive behaviour they should not be expected to describe in detail how they'd been abused to anyone [edit]nor state all the attacks they've endured[edit], unless they're talking to the cops or in a courtroom.

But she didn't say abusive, and they are different. They are not synonymous. There is clear different connotations to "cruel" and "abusive". You cannot simply interchange them.

Yeah, but if the follow up question you ask someone who said that is "Was he being cruel to you... or does he maybe have slaves and he was being cruel to them and you couldn't bear to see them suffering so you left?" you're making this awfully complicated. Occam's razor.

Also, am I to assume you concede my point about Durkon's preoccupation?

GW

Yes, I also think that what we know now about dwarven society and Durkon's own exile explain the reasons for his reaction.

EDIT:

"Hounding [someone] with endless question" is typical control freak behaviour though. We have the panel to rule out that interpretation, Durkon does not.

Endless questions could mean forced her to account for every second of the day to him then micromanaged and insulted her decisions. We know it most likely amounted to him trying make her comfortable and somewhere from not accepting that to not having the ability to guess that the best thing he can do for is give her space but Durken didn't.

This, too.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that "cruel and horrible" is an explicit statement of abusive bahaviour, you think it's an implicit one.

It was actually a bit of hyperbole used for an attempt at comedic effect in the writing of a humorous comic strip in this particular instance. You are not the only person who seems to be reading a great deal into that panel of the strip. Granted, that particular strip was less funny and more tragic, in terms of "here is Durkon, finally has his first time, and then he gets confronted with him being dishonorable in so doing by going to bed with someone else's wife (no matter that she was certainly glad to be Durkon's first) and his reaction -- based on who he is, honor as a dwarf, etc -- taking a happy scene and ending the scene with them both in tears, walking in a different direction." A happy moment turns sad, from beginning of strip 83 to the end of strip 84.

Please, look up hyperbole as used in comedy. It's a thing, not just a geometric function.

Insofar as reading things into the strip, I did something similar in the discussion when Hilgya showed up with a baby, and my reaction was based on the very positive role models my mom and my wife both are to me of what a mother is. As we all discussed this, some of the feedback I got awakened me to what I had done. Any of us can do this, the bringing our own mental pictures and assumptions to what we read and experience. Might be worth considering that as we respond during our discussions.

I think Rich wrote what was intended to be an almost entirely humorous Lawful vs. Chaotic clash before comic 100 and didn't revisit it for over a thousand comics. I'm reserving judgment on how he presents what happened and why Hilgya wants to murder Durkon, now that the comic is somewhat more serious.

Yeah, this too.

[AutomatedTeller]

Hilgya tried to murder her husband for being nice to her. Why wouldn't she try to murder Durkon for knocking her up and rejecting her?

[KorvinStarmast]

Hilgya tried to murder her husband for being nice to her. Why wouldn't she try to murder Durkon for knocking her up and rejecting her?

We'll likely find out in a few strips.
Or, as Elan might say

Dun-dun-DUN!

[SilverCacaobean]

It was actually a bit of hyperbole used for an attempt at comedic effect in the writing of a humorous comic strip in this particular instance. You are not the only person who seems to be reading a great deal into that panel of the strip. Granted, that particular strip was less funny and more tragic, in terms of "here is Durkon, finally has his first time, and then he gets confronted with him being dishonorable in so doing by going to bed with someone else's wife (no matter that she was certainly glad to be Durkon's first) and his reaction -- based on who he is, honor as a dwarf, etc -- taking a happy scene and ending the scene with them both in tears, walking in a different direction." A happy moment turns sad, from beginning of strip 83 to the end of strip 84.

Please, look up hyperbole as used in comedy. It's a thing, not just a geometric function.

It's a comedic world. We shouldn't ignore Durkon's characterization because of comedy. Also while I know what hyperbole is, I don't think that's the joke there or that this is hyperbole. In the strip Hylgia says her story, the joke is the complete dissonance between what she says and what actually happened (it's not hyperbole, it's completely inaccurate). The strip ends with Durkon looking horrified and sets up an expectation that he's shocked at her attempted murder. Then the next strip's joke is that Durkon answered her Chaotic Crazy with Lawful Crazy.

EDIT: Also, I think Rich called it "The first character development in the strip" in the commentary of some book(?). I'm not sure but I kind of think he did. If he did, we certainly shouldn't ignore it, the same way we might ignore the last panel jokes.

[goodpeople25]

It's a comedic world. We shouldn't ignore Durkon's characterization because of comedy. Also while I know what hyperbole is, I don't think that's the joke there or that this is hyperbole. In the strip Hylgia says her story, the joke is the complete dissonance between what she says and what actually happened (it's not hyperbole, it's completely inaccurate). The strip ends with Durkon looking horrified and sets up an expectation that he's shocked at her attempted murder. Then the next strip's joke is that Durkon answered her Chaotic Crazy with Lawful Crazy.

EDIT: Also, I think Rich called it "The first character development in the strip" in the commentary of some book(?). I'm not sure but I kind of think he did. If he did, we certainly shouldn't ignore it, the same way we might ignore the last panel jokes.

I don't know about the expectation part, Hligya pretty much states what Durkon would have a problem with at the end there.