OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Porthos]

(Especially "Banana", I get confused for a split

I see what you did there.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I suppose shapeshifting into a form that has testicles makes her sex male; no effect on gender identity though. Also, paladin is not merely a mental construct; Sabine does not gain any class abilities by shapeshifting into a paladin. The analogy between class mechanics and physical sex is imperfect, however.

[Jasdoif]

(Especially "Banana", I get confused for a split

I see what you did there.

Huh. I didn't until just now. I'm a poet and didn't know it!

Wait, that's not right. I'm a pun-ist and don't shun...it...st?

[BungleBee]

I would buy every single one of those action figures.

Yup! I'd have bunches!

[sengmeng]

There the Giant goes again with his gay non-agenda. Tasteful representation of alternate sexualities without those people's entire identities wrapped up in who they sleep with? Who ever heard of such a thing? Why, he didn't even dwell on any lurid details or have the homosexual character express her ravenous lust for all members of her gender. This kind of propaganda could lead to a more egalitarian mode of thinking in the real world. The nerve of some people.

pleas don't think this is serious

[Kalmageddon]

Sure. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

I read your comment as another "Why can't comics just be comics" kind of comments, of which the had already been a couple, and going by that reading, I was annoyed by the phrasing because I don't think anything in the strip negated escapism. Buuuuut. It looks like I may have interpreted you totally wrong, so, again, apologies if that is the case.

You did yes, but that's probably due to the general tone of this thread, where a lot of users expressed concerns. It was just a misunderstanding, I won't hold it against you.

On this topic, I personally feel quite neutral.
The only thing that perplexed me in this strip was that Bandana is a female. I literally had no idea, being that the characters are stick figures and she's quite thin. But of course this isn't a problem, it simply made me say "oh so this character was female all along?" and that's it.
So basically, the fact that Bandana is a lesbian/bi didn't even registered as a big deal and I was surprised to find out how many people think it was a heavy handed way to let us know. I disagree on this point, it was literally a passing mention.

Now, I do understand that to some people, this whole strip could appear as existing only to fill some kind of imaginary quota of inclusiveness. That's not how I personally see it, but it could very well be the reason the Giant wrote it. I obviously don't know and honestly I don't care.
As I said, it wasn't a big deal in my eyes, it's starting to be somewhat common for a lot of writers to include characters of different sexualities in their works, so I hardly find it revolutionary even in the context of this webcomic.

With that said, if people liked it and some users felt represented by it, cool, I'm happy for you. It doesn't bother me and if it makes you happy, I can't see any reason why it would be bad.

[Jormengand]

I suppose shapeshifting into a form that has testicles makes her sex male; no effect on gender identity though.

And that is exactly why she would be trans if she shape-shifted into a male. She would be male-sexed and female-gendered, and therefore definitively trans.

[Amphiox]

Demons are intelligent, so they should have a gender identity. If they don't, then they're still under the trans umbrella, so to speak, by virtue of not even having a gender.

This doesn't follow! It is entirely possible that Demons are intelligent and simply don't have gender identity at all because they flat out don't have gender (it is in fact just an assumption that Sabine's female form counts as her "default")

And why should intelligent creatures that innately have no gender be considered under the trans umbrella, when the trans term was invented by and for an intelligent species, humans, that do have gender and have no contact with or experience about intelligent creatures that don't have gender?

[lio45]

His comment doesn't count. :)

Seriously, the question here isn't actually "is Rich going down a checklist", I don't care if he is. The question is, "is Rich going down a checklist in a way that distracts ME from the story?"

The answer to that is clearly "no".

It sure feels forced, but obviously the story can still go on, even though the checklist ended up getting priority over the story. It's not like the story can't co-exist with the passing of various other author messages.

[Ivrytwr]

Didn't figure Bandana for a lady. Not sure why ...
Nice to see Haley be all mentor-ish!

Thanks Giant.

[Amphiox]

Gotta disagree with you there. Stories primarily exist for entertainment The purpose of delivering messages or morals or information is always secondary. A story that delivers a solid message but in a boring fashion fails as a story and is usually forgotten very quickly.

The one word you can never accurately use when talking about literature is "always ".

Stories primarily exist because someone saw value in telling it and someone else saw value in receiving it. The primary, secondary, and tertiary values themselves can and have been darn near everything. Entertainment is not always the primary one.

[Porthos]

Didn't figure Bandana for a lady. Not sure why ...[

This is like the fifth or sixth time I've seen this comment here in the thread, and it baffles me each and every time I see it.

Bandana was, to me, obviously female from the moment she stepped onto the screen. Yes, we have limitation of art form, but c'mon now.

...

Then again, I maintain that Inkyrius was obviously male, so what do I know?

PS: But, no, jokes aside. Bandana was clearly female from the second she first appeared. All IMO, of course.

[Sadsharks]

Gotta disagree with you there. Stories primarily exist for entertainment The purpose of delivering messages or morals or information is always secondary. A story that delivers a solid message but in a boring fashion fails as a story and is usually forgotten very quickly.

But an entertaining story with a horrible message can still be enjoyed for itself. Hell, the moral of the movie version of The Little Mermaid seems to be "it’s okay to change who you are and give up your identity for love." The Iliad boils down to: "It's worthwhile to start a war to kidnap an adulterous woman, but afterwards, you should kill her for letting you fight a war over her." Fight Club: "Reactionary masculinity is the only cure for the consumerist malaise. No girls allowed." The Lord of the Rings even contains this gem: "Progress is bad."

I have a feeling that wasn't Palahniuk or Fincher's intention with Fight Club.

[Socksy]

This doesn't follow! It is entirely possible that Demons are intelligent and simply don't have gender identity at all because they flat out don't have gender (it is in fact just an assumption that Sabine's female form counts as her "default")

And why should intelligent creatures that innately have no gender be considered under the trans umbrella, when the trans term was invented by and for an intelligent species, humans, that do have gender and have no contact with or experience about intelligent creatures that don't have gender?

This. Sooooooo much this. Her gender is probably "demon" in much the same way as a lot of people think V's gender is "elf".

[Keltest]

This is like the fifth or sixth time I've seen this comment here in the thread, and it baffles me each and every time I see it.

Bandana was, to me, obviously female from the moment she stepped onto the screen. Yes, we have limitation of art form, but c'mon now.

...

Then again, I maintain that Inkyrius was obviously male, so what do I know?

PS: But, no, jokes aside. Bandana was clearly female from the second she first appeared. All IMO, of course.

Bandana is visibly female, moreso with the new art, but it is quite subtle compared to other characters, as her female figure is not nearly so pronounced compared to most of the other ones we have seen.

[Porthos]

as her female figure is not nearly so pronounced compared to most of the other ones we have seen.

Well, yes. And that's a good thing, IMO. Representative of different body types and all that.

[Momoka]

I think people are just freaking out because most times when a comic starts having a strip about being inclusive (and this is very much a strip about being inclusive), it tends to coincide with a nosedive in quality where the comic stops telling a story and starts just being a guy repeating his political beliefs. OotS is better than those comics, though, so even though this comic is kind of running down a checklist of political points, I don't think it'll lead to a downgrade in quality.

People aren't, I think, freaking out over this one strip, but the idea that the new norm will be strips like this and not an adventure story. Which seems pretty absurd a thing to worry about, but it's happened to a lot of other comics that decided to get some politics in.

The alternative is deliberately keeping her "in the closet" to satisfy some arbitrary standard of "narrative smoothness." Not acceptable.

If it seems awkward to you…oh well. Sometimes, correcting a past mistake is awkward. Sometimes, in order to move forward, we have to stop waiting for the moment to be right, or the situation to arise organically, or whatever euphemism you want to put on the idea of maintaining the status quo because it's easier, and just do it. If it's "forced" now, that's only because I failed to include any obviously gay characters for 900+ strips and that is so completely uncool that I need to fix it NOW, not later. If that produces some rough edges, well, I guess we'll all just have to put on our adult pants and learn to live with that one solitary flaw in this otherwise pristine work of art* for the sake of inclusion.

But I sincerely hope that this "I don't care if it's not good storytelling, I want to include an [X] character" mentality does not become a long-term trend. That kind of thing is a big part of the reason people are getting up in arms now, because we've been trained by other webcomics to associate "I want to be more inclusive" with "This is now a comic where a white male author will lecture you about issues he has a vague understanding of from Tumblr and has several misunderstandings on". Most of those comics were honestly kind of mediocre to start with, so I'm hoping OotS breaks the trend and manages to maintain its quality.

No. Stories exist primarily for the purpose of delivering messages to one another, whether about human nature, or the world around us, or what have you. They are how humans have communicated life lessons since the dawn of language, and probably before. Whether or not that is why you read them, that is definitely why people write them. If the story is incapable of delivering the message that the author is trying to send about how they see the world, then that is a failure of the story, and the story needs to change. The author should not leave out his or her message so as not to disrupt the delicate story. That's the cart leading the horse.

A good story will have a message regardless of author intention.

[Jormengand]

And why should intelligent creatures that innately have no gender be considered under the trans umbrella

Because agender is under the trans umbrella. Don't look at me, I didn't design it.

Again, saying she's trans when shifted into a guy is most likely entirely true and entirely useless.

[Degnared]

I took the dark-skinned male at the wheel who is receiving orders from Julio to be her father.

Good catch, especially as he's wearing a conspicuous red bandana.

I'm tickled at people in this thread misspelling Bandana as Bandanna to the point that I wish that had been her name, for the pun-play on Anna. Though, until writing this post I hadn't realized that bandanna was an acceptable (and perhaps even preferred) spelling of bandana.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Because agender is under the trans umbrella. Don't look at me, I didn't design it.

You're using it wrong though. The umbrella is only over humans. Sabine is not human.

Also transsexual (biological sex) and transgender (personal identity) are different. She is absolutely not transgender under any circumstances, whatever her gender identity is, it's not affected by shapeshifting; I guess she could maybe be described as transsexual in some forms, but it's weird using that word to refer to a shapeshifting demon.

[Socksy]

Because agender is under the trans umbrella. Don't look at me, I didn't design it.

Yes, for humans, as the human norm is either male or female. If the species in question usually had no gender, or more than two genders, that would be different.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

[Jormengand]

You're using it wrong though. The umbrella is only over humans. Sabine is not human.

Well, until someone comes up with a better system for demons, we're stuck on "Entirely true and entirely useless." Anyway, who says demons don't have genders the same way that humans do?

[Eldest]

I liked the comic, Giant, and I'm glad you managed to get it out so quickly compared to the last two.

Edit:

Well... that's probably because straight *is* nature's default. Straight gets you babies. Straight gets your genes passed on to new generations. Gay etc. happens throughout nature, but it's less than useful if you want offspring.

My understanding is it is not the default, it is the majority. There is a difference.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Well, until someone comes up with a better system for demons, we're stuck on "Entirely true and entirely useless."

Um, several people have said "no that's not true" and nobody has said "yes it is". By what authority are you declaring it "entirely true"? It's false and useless IMO :P

Anyway, who says demons don't have genders the same way that humans do?

The D&D rules, actually. First edition established that succubi and incubi are literally the same kind of demon, in different forms. Though I think you mean "sex"; anything self-aware might (or might not) have a gender. Those two words are not perfectly synonymous.

[Nightsbridge]

Objectively, Bandana's sexuality is not at the center of this strip, it's barely visible along the fringes, and justifies why she owns a piece of armor that fits Haley while not being shaped like Haley herself. Even with that not included, it may foreshadow elements of the plot that have yet to be revealed. Therefore, Bandana's sexuality has a narrative place. Still, there are people who find this particular explanation beyond their comfort zone, in their opinion.

Opinions do not spring from the heads of those who have them fully formed with a sword and shield, like Athena leaping from Zeus' forehead. They are made, formed by the world around us and the media we consume. The simple acknowledgment of Bandana's sexuality feels wrong, even when it is backed with a hard story purpose. If Bandana has told us that it was her sister's armor, it would have taken just as much space in the panels, but I am confident no one would have been upset about that. What does it say about us as a society, that this explanation in particular gets us riled? Is the fact that we have been trained to see the plainly stated presence of a LGBT character as a sign of extremism really okay?

I have nothing against escapism. The world is a pretty nasty place, and sometimes it's nice to get away from that once and a while. But what are we escaping to that we find an LGBT character plainly stating their preference as a straight character might offputting? Isn't that interesting? Doesn't that warrant a closer look at the mad chaos that's storming between our ears? And maybe it's worth reevaluating some of the opinions that seem to have their roots in dark waters?

[Emanick]

I'm glad The Giant is finally taking steps to make this comic more inclusive. That being said, the strip still comes across as a bit forced. Not the part where Bandana mentions that she isn't straight - that part isn't awkward at all. It's just that, when reading the strip as a whole, it reads less as a segment of a story than as a strip where the author uses his characters as mouthpieces to express positive messages. I don't know why the dialogue comes across as less natural than usual - it just does.

I get that Rich can't wait any longer to make the comic more inclusive. I get that it's more important to him to be inclusive than to have as perfectly-flowing a story as possible, and that's fine. It's just a bit jarring to read an OOTS strip that reads imperfectly, which I suppose is, if anything, a testament to how good a writer he generally is.

[Keltest]

Objectively, Bandana's sexuality is not at the center of this strip, it's barely visible along the fringes, and justifies why she owns a piece of armor that fits Haley while not being shaped like Haley herself. Even with that not included, it may foreshadow elements of the plot that have yet to be revealed. Therefore, Bandana's sexuality has a narrative place. Still, there are people who find this particular explanation beyond their comfort zone, in their opinion.

Opinions do not spring from the heads of those who have them fully formed with a sword and shield, like Athena leaping from Zeus' forehead. They are made, formed by the world around us and the media we consume. The simple acknowledgment of Bandana's sexuality feels wrong, even when it is backed with a hard story purpose. If Bandana has told us that it was her sister's armor, it would have taken just as much space in the panels, but I am confident no one would have been upset about that. What does it say about us as a society, that this explanation in particular gets us riled? Is the fact that we have been trained to see the plainly stated presence of a LGBT character as a sign of extremism really okay?

I have nothing against escapism. The world is a pretty nasty place, and sometimes it's nice to get away from that once and a while. But what are we escaping to that we find an LGBT character plainly stating their preference as a straight character might offputting? Isn't that interesting? Doesn't that warrant a closer look at the mad chaos that's storming between our ears? And maybe it's worth reevaluating some of the opinions that seem to have their roots in dark waters?

I think its less "Rich put a gay person in the strip" and more "Rich put a gay person in the strip while also pushing X Y and Z values at the same time." If feels forced to many people, and it certainly seems like he put it in there not because his message needed it, or the story needed it, but because he wanted it in there. Rich has always been pushing an agenda, but this strip seems to be the first step in a path several authors have taken where the story comes secondary to their agenda, rather than Rich putting them equally and harmoniously up til now.

[Jormengand]

The D&D rules, actually. First edition established that succubi and incubi are literally the same kind of demon, in different forms.

I ask again, who says demons don't have genders in the same way humans do?

Sabine clearly thinks of herself and refers to herself as female. Isn't it entirely possible and entirely likely that she identifies as female?

[Keltest]

I ask again, who says demons don't have genders in the same way humans do?

Sabine clearly thinks of herself and refers to herself as female. Isn't it entirely possible and entirely likely that she identifies as female?

Does it matter? At all?

[Ridureyu]

Social problems fixed.

Comic is perfect now.