Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Dora,Tai, and Therapy
Tova:
--- Quote from: DSL on 26 Aug 2012, 17:32 ---It's not a difficult question, and I gave a not-difficult answer.
--- End quote ---
When I ask "why did you say A instead of B", it is not answering the question by claiming that there is no difference between A and B.
I want to know why you said A. Regardless of whether you think they are the same thing (which I'm perfectly willing to accept for the time being purely for the sake of the argument - it's irrelevant).
Even "no reason; I chose arbitrarily" would do.
If you're not interested in answering, fine. I'll drop it.
Is it cold in here?:
Talented writers have said more than once that it feels like their characters have free will and are not under the writer's control.
Straczynski even said "I don't make the news, I just report it".
Anyway, we and Jeph are playing a game of make-believe, and the nature of that game is that we think of the characters as real as long as we're playing.
idontunderstand:
Just for the record I have a feeling I've been misquoted somewhere.
I understood this quote
--- Quote from: DSL on 24 Aug 2012, 13:59 ---Whether Dora/Tai works as a couple, or whether I or you or anyone else likes Dora/Tai as a couple, is beside the point. The point is how Jeph depicts the characters handling the relationship and its aftermath, if any.
--- End quote ---
as meaning that we cannot discuss anything else than the technicalities of the comic, such as the drawing style, how successful Jeph is at portraying a believable character, how successfully it deals with contemporary issues, if that's it's goal and purpose, etc. And I can't understand that point of view, that's why I asked. I think I phrased my question somewhat stupidly, since what I meant wasn't really that we can't discuss things like that, but that we can, and most likely will, discuss many other things than that. I don't see any problem with discussing the actions and ideas of the characters in any given fictional story, be it a webcomic, The Count of Monte-Cristo, or the Bible. What the hell is a story for if you can't at least partly treat it as real and applicable to the real world?
Mr_Rose:
From his conversation with Tova upthread, one might conclude that DSL believes you are making a distinction without a difference to support it. That is, that the depiction necessarily includes all of that by its very nature and that separating out the physicality (as much as it can be on electronic media) of the artwork from the characterisation of the subjects is somewhere between pointless and impossible.
But I could be wide of the mark here.
pwhodges:
@idonotunderstand: Ah, I see...
I would suggest that DSL's remark about depiction can be seen as ambiguous, and you have taken it one specific way. It could be taken to refer to the manner in which Jeph describes whatever happens in the relationship (however that may be decided); or it could be taken to refer to the way that Jeph decides what happens (though like other writers, he often says that the characters decide).
The issue is whether "depict" refers to the design of the description, or to the design of the story (the decision what is to be described). To illustrate that the word can lean both ways, consider: "I decided to depict this aspect of their relationship explicitly, to make it clear what's happening" and "I decided to depict their relationship as developing positively, rather than hesitantly".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version