Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

QC Featured in Deeply Problematic Article

<< < (3/4) > >>

Wiregeek:
But akronnick, it's so hard to read a review that isn't completely positive or completely negative, it's much easier to just read things that say THIS SUCKS or THIS ROCKS and masturbate with sandpaper!

Tergon:
But wiregeek, sandpaper is so scratchy, it's so much easier to use tissues and a bottle of lavender-scented hand lotion!

Wiregeek:

--- Quote from: Tergon on 30 Aug 2010, 01:18 ---But wiregeek, sandpaper is so scratchy, it's so much easier to use tissues and a bottle of lavender-scented hand lotion!

--- End quote ---

But Tergon, I had to switch to scentless after I was rock hard at the old folks home!   :-o

/pavolvian penis would be an awesome band name

Carl-E:
But... but... but...

Oh, nevermind. 

raoullefere:
Pointing out failures of a work in what poses as a piece of criticism is one thing—claiming a work fails simply because it does not fully advance your personal agendas is quite another. I'm speaking particularly of the article examining how Hannelore and Faye are positive examples of disabled persons. The writer explains how they work well as such and how they do not. That is criticism.

Then, however, the writer goes on to lament that Jeph has no physically disabled character, and how she* wishes he'd include someone missing a leg or other body part, or perhaps someone who's wheelchair-bound. That's where the whining begins. Whether or not any characters are physically disabled has nothing to do with how well or poorly Jacques executes his work. The comic is Questionable Content, not Lookit all the Handicapable Peeples!. That's her agenda, and it moves this article from interesting, even thoughtful, observations straight into the Land o' Bullshit.

I do not think at any time Jacques has intended his comic to be some sort of flagship for disability awareness. Instead, he deals with the disabilities of some specific characters. For that matter, I think Jacques also covers parental neglect and its results in an adult's behavior very well in two characters (probably not the ones you're thinking of). At the same time, that neglect is the result, I think, of simple self-absorption. But, horrors, Jacques doesn't include a character who's scarred because one or both parents is a philanderer or, worse a child abuser. If he's going to deal with these issues at all, shouldn't I bitch that Questionable Content ought to present the entire spectrum?

No, because, again, that is utter nonsense. My job as a critic is to acknowledge where Jacques succeeds and fails with those characters who present this problem, not to suggest how he can reshape his work to further my cause. If I were to do that, anyone with any sense should quickly sing the 'get over yourself' chorus to me. As I do to her.

*An assumption, I admit.

Edit: So I calmed down a little.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page