The Index of the Giant's Comments IV - A Rich Source of Quotassium

[Keltest]

Not randomly. Because it was funny. Man, if only there were some quote from the Giant that could clarify whether or not "A big happy fulfilling blur" could allow enough clarity to remember his mother without the Roger Rabbit Principle.

The characters are bound by internal consistency, unlike Roger Rabbit. They don't have selective amnesia unless the story specifically calls out their selective amnesia, and they will retain that amnesia even when it would benefit them not to.

[ORione]

The characters are bound by internal consistency, unlike Roger Rabbit. They don't have selective amnesia unless the story specifically calls out their selective amnesia, and they will retain that amnesia even when it would benefit them not to.

You know what would quickly end this debate?

A quote from the Giant.

[DaggerPen]

I'll confess that I'm really confused by the resistance this quote is encountering. Multiple people have chimed in that they didn't interpret Roy's allusion to his mother as him generally being able to remember some details of the afterlife and the Giant's tweets clarified things for them. Now rather than pointing to the somewhat circumspect allusions Roy has made and running into "Rule of funny/internal consistency" debates, we can just link the quote. Isn't this exactly the sort of situation this index was made for?

It's honestly kind of starting to sound like "I found this confusing." "No you didn't." Like, congratulations on your successful interpretation, but not everyone got it from the comic.

[Keltest]

You know what would quickly end this debate?

A quote from the Giant.

Alternatively, a quote from the comic!

Hence, my opposition.

If you can explain to me a scenario where Roy can crack that joke (and it is a joke, I agree), and not remember anything that happened on the mountain without some nonsensical Roger Rabbit logic, I will withdraw my opposition. Until then, I maintain my stance that the answer is there even if you did not know it.

[Peelee]

Alternatively, a quote from the comic!

Hence, my opposition.

This, in a nutshell, goes for me as well. If Roy calls it a big blur, then explicitly recalls at least one bit from said blur, we can reasonably infer that anything later explicitly recalled is not going against the earlier "big blur" comment. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty what Roy is able to recall, but when he does recall something, it should not be cause for confusion - the whole, "if you're making assumptions anyway, why not make assumptions that fit the text rather than ones that don't" argument*. If you're assuming the first recollection was a joke, and another recollection pops up, it's time to revise your assumption.

*This comment, should be taught in literary classes, as it transcends this comic.

[ORione]

I'll confess that I'm really confused by the resistance this quote is encountering. Multiple people have chimed in that they didn't interpret Roy's allusion to his mother as him generally being able to remember some details of the afterlife and the Giant's tweets clarified things for them. Now rather than pointing to the somewhat circumspect allusions Roy has made and running into "Rule of funny/internal consistency" debates, we can just link the quote. Isn't this exactly the sort of situation this index was made for?

It's honestly kind of starting to sound like "I found this confusing." "No you didn't." Like, congratulations on your successful interpretation, but not everyone got it from the comic.

This exactly. Thank you.

Keltest, Peelee, do you think you have more insight into my mind than I do? You don't, so you can either lose this argument, or keep going and we'll stay in an endless loop. A loop that could be resolved by one quote.

Not a quote from the comic, because nothing in the comic contradicts my interpretation.

The thing is, "A big happy fulfilling blur," didn't sound like the sort of thing that could include enough clarity for him to remember his mother, so my interpretation gave the Giant more credit than taking Roy's comment in 670 seriously. Now the Giant has clarified what he meant by blur, and that is not in the comic.

[Keltest]

This exactly. Thank you.

Keltest, Peelee, do you think you have more insight into my mind than I do? You don't, so you can either lose this argument, or keep going and we'll stay in an endless loop. A loop that could be resolved by one quote.

Not a quote from the comic, because nothing in the comic contradicts my interpretation.

The thing is, "A big happy fulfilling blur," didn't sound like the sort of thing that could include enough clarity for him to remember his mother, so my interpretation gave the Giant more credit than taking Roy's comment in 670 seriously. Now the Giant has clarified what he meant by blur, and that is not in the comic.

Roy specifically says he remembers his mother. Where is the confusion here?

[ORione]

One of us is confused, and I think its me. Are you or are you not saying that Roy cannot actually remember anything on top of the mountain?

I'm saying that I thought he couldn't (other than happiness and an idea for a sword move), until I read the Giant's tweet. That's why I'm arguing for its inclusion.

Roy specifically says he remembers his mother. Where is the confusion here?

The confusion was in how he could remember his mother if everything was just a blur.

[Keltest]

I'm saying that I thought he couldn't (other than happiness and an idea for a sword move), until I read the Giant's tweet. That's why I'm arguing for its inclusion.

So again, you made an assumption that's inconsistent with the text, because Roy says he can remember his mother. Not really a lot of room for ambiguity unless you think he meant something other than what he said.

Again, if you can provide an explanation for that comment that allows him to not actually remember anything from up there, ill hear it and withdraw my objection.

[Peelee]

This exactly. Thank you.

Keltest, Peelee, do you think you have more insight into my mind than I do? You don't

Actually, i do. You are not reasonably inferring that which can be done given the text. This is evident by your repeated insistence that you made an incorrect assumption, yet you refuse to acknowledge it as the reason. QED.

Once the text supports the reasonable inference, your refusal to do do becomes a mistake. This is nothing to be ashamed of - hell, im guilty of the same thing myself at times - but once it has been demonstrated that your incorrect assumption stems from this, your refusal to accept it becomes a willful ignorance, of sorts. Your claim that we are going in circles is self-proving, as you refuse to accept the objective rationale we have demonstrated. Any incorrect assumptions can be cleared up by the precedent recollection. Opposition to this is as nonsensical as opposotion to anything else we are told in-comic.

Tl;dr - your incorrect assumption is understandable, your refusal to accept a satisfactory answer without an extra quote is not.

[ORione]

So again, you made an assumption that's inconsistent with the text, because Roy says he can remember his mother. Not really a lot of room for ambiguity unless you think he meant something other than what he said.

We always make assumptions. We can't understand the work without bringing in our understandings of what the words mean.
Keep in mind, I read 666 before I read 670, because I read the strip in ascending numerical order. So I already had in my mind what Roy could and couldn't remember, then interpreted 670 in that light. How could something be a blur if he could remember something as distinct as who was there? I try to interpret writings in the way that makes the author look best, but it's hard to do when the author contradicts themselves... Except not in this case, because OotS is a comedy, and comedy can do things other works can't, as long as it's funny. So, like DaggerPen said, it was just that mentally scarring. No contradiction. The work makes perfect sense... except the author has now said that he did remember his mother. Huh. I didn't even realize that I assumed that a blur couldn't include remembering his mother, but now I am forced to confront that assumption. Wow, good thing he made that tweet, or I would have believed something incorrect about the comment. I may have even ended up in a tedious, pointless argument. This quote should be preserved, so that others may be saved from such arguments.

Again, if you can provide an explanation for that comment that allows him to not actually remember anything from up there, ill hear it and withdraw my objection.

DaggerPen already gave one:

Chiming in to add that before the tweet I honestly thought that part of the punchline with the joke about Roy's mom was that even though he remembered nothing else beyond the gates but a vague sense of satisfaction, seeing his mom as an attractive young woman with a half naked man leaving her house was just that mind-scarring.

Actually, i do. You are not reasonably inferring that which can be done given the text. This is evident by your repeated insistence that you were confused, yet you refuse to acknowledge it as the reason. QED

I didn't feel confused. The strip made sense to me, although I was wrong in my interpretation. Now I see that it was based on confused reasoning. But I would not have seen that, if not for the tweet.

But thank you for the condescension.

[Keltest]

I didn't feel confused. The strip made sense to me, although I was wrong in my interpretation. Now I see that it was based on confused reasoning. But I would not have seen that, if not for the tweet.

But thank you for the condescension.

The tweet may have brought it to light, but it was not a necessary part of doing so. Anyone could have pointed out your logical inconsistency had it come up without such a tweet.

[Jasdoif]

If you're assuming the first recollection was a joke, and another recollection pops up, it's time to revise your assumption.

See, I thought the recollection in 1022 was a joke. That the Giant provided an explanation is a particularly strong indication that it was in conformance with continuity despite being a joke.

[ORione]

The tweet may have brought it to light, but it was not a necessary part of doing so. Anyone could have pointed out your logical inconsistency had it come up without such a tweet.

You aren't listening to me. I saw no logical inconsistency, because jokes do not need to follow logic.

I have said everything I have to say. That you are repeating your points makes me believe that the same is true of you. If only there was someone who could break this impasse. Someone who has insight into what the author intends.

Anyway, there's no point in continuing. I'm gone, until there's another quote for which I have something to say.

[Peelee]

I didn't feel confused. The strip made sense to me, although I was wrong in my interpretation. Now I see that it was based on confused reasoning. But I would not have seen that, if not for the tweet.

But thank you for the condescension.

Incorrect assumption is the better term, then. Replace "were confused" with "made an incorrect assumption" and my point still stands.

And about the condescension? Anytime. Since, ya know, i took care to try to not sound condescending in that post. But if you are the type of person who refuses to accept valid reasoning in response to an incorrect train of thought and will only accept authorial comment, then it makes sense that you read condescension where there is none intended.

I did not bother to worry about condescension in this post, bytheway. Since it seems you have trouble telling.

[Keltest]

You aren't listening to me. I saw no logical inconsistency, because jokes do not need to follow logic.

I have said everything I have to say. That you are repeating your points makes me believe that the same is true of you. If only there was someone who could break this impasse. Someone who has insight into what the author intends.

Anyway, there's no point in continuing. I'm gone, until there's another quote for which I have something to say.

Roy is obligated to follow internal consistency as much as every other character, even when cracking a joke. Redcloak is not going to suddenly appear at the godsmoot to crack a joke at the expense of the clerics there. He might do so from his current location, but its been shown that characters have a degree of awareness of what cutaway panels are, so its logically consistent.

[Peelee]

See, I thought the recollection in 1022 was a joke. That the Giant provided an explanation is a particularly strong indication that it was in conformance with continuity despite being a joke.

Aha! But would you contend that without the explanation, that continuity could conceivably have been ruptured? That may prove to be a slippery slope, my friend.

[Cizak]

You aren't listening to me. I saw no logical inconsistency, because jokes do not need to follow logic.

Jokes absolutely need to follow logic. Even Elan's most random bits all follow the logic of "Elan is the one who is the most spontaneously goofy".

[Jasdoif]

Aha! But would you contend that without the explanation, that continuity could conceivably have been ruptured? That may prove to be a slippery slope, my friend.

I have to believe the Giant found some degree of significance in the explanation, in order to have come up with the explanation in the first place. But there lies a slippery slope; I don't want to foster any ideas that the Index is in the position of reading the Giant's mind. I don't see a peel in that.

Regardless, that significance could easily be reinforcing the importance of internal consistency, though, in which case it wouldn't be as significant in its own right (we already have an entry mentioning "I am still obligated to adhere to the internal consistency of the story I have already written."). I can easily see what ORione is saying, particularly since Roy's mention of a part "a cool little nightlight with my name on it" is primarily comedic because the audience knows the details Roy isn't actively aware of (that "nightlight" is in fact a sapient creature, a lantern archon named "Roy's Archon"). Whether or not that makes it Index-worthy, I don't know.

What I do know, is I should be prepared to start the next Index thread in (relatively) short order if this ultimately comes to a vote....

[Keltest]

I have to believe the Giant found some degree of significance in the explanation, in order to have come up with the explanation in the first place. But there lies a slippery slope; I don't want to foster any ideas that the Index is in the position of reading the Giant's mind. I don't see a peel in that.

Regardless, that significance could easily be reinforcing the importance of internal consistency, though, in which case it wouldn't be as significant in its own right (we already have an entry mentioning "I am still obligated to adhere to the internal consistency of the story I have already written."). I can easily see what ORione is saying, particularly since Roy's mention of a part "a cool little nightlight with my name on it" is primarily comedic because the audience knows the details Roy isn't actively aware of (that "nightlight" is in fact a sapient creature, a lantern archon named "Roy's Archon"). Whether or not that makes it Index-worthy, I don't know.

What I do know, is I should be prepared to start the next Index thread in (relatively) short order if this ultimately comes to a vote....

Yeah, we should maybe think of a name for that at some point.

Also, Roy remembers Roy's Archon. He first met him before climbing the mountain, and at the very least said goodbye to him on the clouds.

[Peelee]

I have to believe the Giant found some degree of significance in the explanation, in order to have come up with the explanation in the first place. But there lies a slippery slope; I don't want to foster any ideas that the Index is in the position of reading the Giant's mind. I don't see a peel in that.

I know I'm too yellow to make such a ripe claim.

[unbeliever536]

I'll confess that I'm really confused by the resistance this quote is encountering. Multiple people have chimed in that they didn't interpret Roy's allusion to his mother as him generally being able to remember some details of the afterlife and the Giant's tweets clarified things for them. Now rather than pointing to the somewhat circumspect allusions Roy has made and running into "Rule of funny/internal consistency" debates, we can just link the quote. Isn't this exactly the sort of situation this index was made for?

It's honestly kind of starting to sound like "I found this confusing." "No you didn't." Like, congratulations on your successful interpretation, but not everyone got it from the comic.

Just want to chime in to support this sentiment.

On the name: how about "We've seen this one before"

[Lissou]

I was one of the people who thought "wait, I thought he didn't remember details?" when I read 1022, but I also oppose including the quote. The answer is in the comic and if we start including tweets for everything someone read wrong or didn't notice on their first (or second, or third) read, the index would become absolutely useless. It's difficult enough to find the information you need when you need it, let's limit it to information that is completely impossible to get from just the comic. The quote from the Giant clarified things, but no more than people pointing me to the right strips would have.

[Ceaon]

I feel this discussion about the tweet masks a more important discussion underneath, namely 'when does the index become less useful than the forum search function?', and 'how do we keep the index organized enough that people can use it for its stated purpose?'.

[Gwynfrid]

I have to believe the Giant found some degree of significance in the explanation, in order to have come up with the explanation in the first place. But there lies a slippery slope; I don't want to foster any ideas that the Index is in the position of reading the Giant's mind.

Right. I can think of at least three different possible reasons why the Giant wrote that tweet, supporting three entirely different ways to think about its inclusion. This shows why such speculation is useless.

I was one of the people who thought "wait, I thought he didn't remember details?" when I read 1022, but I also oppose including the quote. The answer is in the comic and if we start including tweets for everything someone read wrong or didn't notice on their first (or second, or third) read, the index would become absolutely useless. It's difficult enough to find the information you need when you need it, let's limit it to information that is completely impossible to get from just the comic. The quote from the Giant clarified things, but no more than people pointing me to the right strips would have.

My view exactly.

I feel this discussion about the tweet masks a more important discussion underneath, namely 'when does the index become less useful than the forum search function?', and 'how do we keep the index organized enough that people can use it for its stated purpose?'.

There are two different situations: If you remember exact terms from a quote, then the forum search will beat the Index every time. If, however, you're looking for a subject matter without a particular term in mind, then the Index helps. It helps more, of course, if it's well organized and its size kept under control. Hence, the debates about inclusion of some new quotes.

[Zherog]

I'm in favor of indexing the quote. It seems to me to clear up confusion / mis-interpretation / bad assumptions for quite a few people. So that implies to me that having it readily available for future discussions would be helpful.

*

And for whatever this is worth...

...

But thank you for the condescension.

...

And about the condescension? Anytime. Since, ya know, i took care to try to not sound condescending in that post. But if you are the type of person who refuses to accept valid reasoning in response to an incorrect train of thought and will only accept authorial comment, then it makes sense that you read condescension where there is none intended.

...

For whatever it's worth, Peelee, I also detected a bit of condescension in your argument. But that said, I didn't think it was being done maliciously, if that makes sense. The big downside to text-based discussions is we lose body language and tone/inflection of voice - two real big pieces of "verbal" communication. Without those clues to guide me in how to read your text, I got the sense you were exasperated about going round and round with ORione. (Much like ORione was clearly exasperated to be going round and round with you.)

Normally, I wouldn't jump into something like this - because it's at least as off topic as the Star Wars discussion was, and it has the further downside of potentially leading to hurt feelings on either (or both) side(s). But I made an exception here, because I think this is a really good example of the issue with the quote, to be honest.

ORione and I read your tone as condescending. At least in my case, it was based on clues in your posts leading up to that point. New information, however, indicates author intent was different than what was originally perceived. :)

I think there's room in the index for a quote that resolves an issue like this. Somebody who didn't read your posts in that way could tell ORione or myself to go re-read what's there; they would be right, too. Or, somebody could instead point directly to your quote and provide us with 100% absolute proof of the author's intent - not to be condescending, and in fact attempting to go out of his way not to be. The former results in a discussion about what did or didn't the author intend; the latter makes it clear what the author intended.

Like I said, I don't think you had ill-intent. But I do see parallels between the Tweet and the perceived tone of voice from your comments.

[Peelee]

For whatever it's worth, Peelee, I also detected a bit of condescension in your argument. But that said, I didn't think it was being done maliciously, if that makes sense. The big downside to text-based discussions is we lose body language and tone/inflection of voice - two real big pieces of "verbal" communication. Without those clues to guide me in how to read your text, I got the sense you were exasperated about going round and round with ORione. (Much like ORione was clearly exasperated to be going round and round with you.)

Honestly, I appreciate that. Like you say, text removes a lot of context that imparts meaning, and it's good to know if my efforts aren't coming across as well as I'd like them to, so I can try to work on that. Thanks!

[Keltest]

Frankly, ORione is coming off very heavily to me as arguing for the sake of arguing. I can understand how someone might breeze through those pages once or twice or thrice and misunderstand what Roy was saying, perhaps quite wildly.

But in this situation we have here, where Roy is remembering something from above the clouds, and people being confused because he said he couldn't really remember, we have a specific example of him remembering something from above the clouds. And in the future, should something else come up, we have two examples.

Had this quote come out prior to the second memory being shown, I could maybe see the value. As it is, we can definitively prove everything in the tweets without actually resorting to using them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm in favor of indexing the quote. It seems to me to clear up confusion / mis-interpretation / bad assumptions for quite a few people. So that implies to me that having it readily available for future discussions would be helpful.

Not as helpful as a primary reference. We really don't need to archive a word-of-god quote that already has an in-canon answer.

GW

[Gilphon]

Infrequent poster dropping in to voice my support for including the quote- I can imagine a situation where I'd want to dig it up, and if one forgets that it was on twitter instead of the forum, it could be tricky to find without using the index.