Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

Dora,Tai, and Therapy

<< < (13/22) > >>

DSL:
Let's agree to disagree on that.

Tova:
No, sorry, I don't bloody well agree to disagree.

Why did you choose that phrasing? It's not a difficult question.

Tova:
I'd just like to expand on why I think the distinction between the characters and how Jeph depects them is important when it comes to our discussions on these forums.

You may think that the distinction is unimportant or nonexistant. But I think that it is critically important.

It's a question of whether you want to respect the fourth wall, basically.

If you do respect the fourth wall, then we can discuss the ethics of the characters' actions, cleverness, whether they were wise, foolish, or whatever, based on what we've seen. People obviously draw on their real life experiences in doing so. As such, we treat the characters and their stories as real for the purposes of discussing principles that apply to all of us.

However, if we're going to just rip the fourth wall down, then we're just down to discussing what we think Jeph will do next. I don't think that's anything like as useful or interesting a focal point for discussion. Unless you're interested in drawing your own comic, I suppose. Beyond anything else, I can't read Jeph's mind and don't know him.

The discussions aren't really about Jeph: they are about fictional characters, and more to the point, situations and flaws that those characters experiences that we can discuss because we've seen those flaws and situations in our own lives.

Breaking down the fourth wall also leaves geniune discussions open to sabotage. If we disagre as to what is likely to happen next (again, based on our own experiences), and then one thing happens, you can always refuse to cede ground by basically inferring that Jeph is "wrong".

So I do think there is a pretty massive difference between discussing the characters and discussing how Jeph depects the characters, even though one can't happen without the other.

DSL:
It's not a difficult question, and I gave a not-difficult answer.
You may expound however you like; you don't need my help.

Redball:
Most of us discuss actions of real human beings as if they have free will. Yet some believe they don't, that all that happens is pre-ordained. In the QC-verse, Jeph is God. Doesn't stop me from thinking about the likely actions of the characters, but it's foolish to take it very seriously since pre-ordination is a fact, not a conjecture.
For a while, I used to hang out on a forum of people discussing the print comic Luann. They discussed whether, for example, the actions of a manager toward an employee were legal, and whether he could sue for ... whatever. That to me was taking the story too far. It was clear to most readers that the creator of the strip didn't think in those terms. I read the discussion of character and emotions and possibilities for future action and behavior here, for edification and entertainment and in light of my own experiences. But again, I don't take it seriously. Yet, anyway.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page