Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[idontunderstand]

We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.

[pwhodges]

But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?

We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.

These seem inconsistent; the first says we can't, the second says we can - that's why there is puzzlement.

[Is it cold in here?]

"I don't care if people overanalyze things. I mean, I think it's stupid, and they're wrong 99% of the time, but that's kind of what forums are FOR."

Is anyone ever really ready for a relationship?

[Carl-E]

If you wait until you're completely ready to do something, it will never get done. 

[idontunderstand]

But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?

We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.

These seem inconsistent; the first says we can't, the second says we can - that's why there is puzzlement.

Now I'm even more puzzled.

[Carl-E]

English is not only difficult, it's ugly. 

[idontunderstand]

 

[Tova]

I thought I would able to clear this confusion up, but when I tried to put it into words, I realised I couldn't. So I'll fall back onto the trusty method of answering a question with a question. And since DSL started this by asking what idontunderstand meant, I'll throw it to him.

So, you said:

The point is how Jeph depicts the characters handling the relationship and its aftermath, if any.

You didn't say:

The point is how the characters handle the relationship and its aftermath, if any.

So my question is:

Why did you phrase your statement the first way and not the second?

Even if you think they mean the same thing (which you may or may not), I'm curious to know why you chose that particular way of putting it.

[DSL]

The characters don't exist without Jeph depicting them. Everything that happens in the strip is a result of Jeph writing and drawing.

[Tova]

I don't think you answered my question...

[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.

[Tova]

It's not a difficult question, and I gave a not-difficult answer.

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

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.

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".

[Tova]

That is pretty much the kind of thing I was trying to tease out, and was someone perplexed when I was met with what looked like evasion for no obvious reason. Oh well.

I find the distinction interesting - something akin to player-character separation in roleplaying - and also fundamental to the nature of our discussions here.

[idontunderstand]

pwhodges: Well thanks, that pretty much clears it up (and also thanks for correcting the faulty grammar of my username...).

Still curious about what you, DSL, exactly meant though?

[DSL]

Just checking back in to find out what I said ...

[Tova]

Still curious about what you, DSL, exactly meant though?

Lacking any response to the contrary, I'm going to stick my neck out and offer my interpretation:
"I refuse to be immersed in the narrative."

Normally, lack of narrative immersion could be put down to bad storytelling, but it can happen when someone simply finds the storyline incredulous. I think that's what is really going on.

Feel free to shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong! 

[Is it cold in here?]

If that horse is not dead, it's at least seriously ill.

[Tova]

Sorry. I'm being combative. Don't know why. I'll leave it alone.

[Is it cold in here?]

Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.

[jwhouk]

...as she does a double-grab-ass while kissing her. 

[Carl-E]

It's the patented part of full fledged Dora-kisses. 

[TinPenguin]

Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.

Or, even if it's not about herself, she's aware of just how much Tai is into her, and knows she needs to slow Tai down more than herself.

[Madmartigan]

Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.

Or, even if it's not about herself, she's aware of just how much Tai is into her, and knows she needs to slow Tai down more than herself.

I think it is more about knowing how much Tai is in to her.  Agreed on that.  I think it is more a matter of not knowing how she really feels about Tai in the romantic sense and doesn't wanna commit anything to Tai too fast too soon.  Like a booty call.  That'd be a massive sucker punch to Tai to give into some physical loving and the bumpin of uglies only to figure out she either A:) Still isn't ready for a relationship, particularly a committed one, B:) Just can't see herself long term with Tai, C:) Just doesn't feel that way after all for Tai or D:) The unknown.  Meets someone else, second thoughts, yadda yadda.

Dora being mature in that sense.  Just hope she doesn't tease Tai too much, like the double booty grab, through all this before she decides what she really wants.  That's one way to screw up her progress and become all those past BFs who treated her like dirt.

Hell, I hope they put off the bumpin of uglies for as long as possible.  For both their sakes.

[Is it cold in here?]

At least long enough for Tai to get over the initial unrealism of infatuation and for Dora to understand her own feelings.

[Tova]

It's the patented part of full fledged Dora-kisses.

Hmmm. I imagine I could find prior art if I put my mind to it.

[Carl-E]

Well, there's the one where she flashed Marten, but that wasn't a kiss. 

[dps]

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.

I don't agree, and think that what you are asking DSL about is indeed a distinction without a difference, if I understand both your question and his post that prompted it.  Breaking the 4th wall isn't something the audience does, so IMO the whole issuse of the 4th wall doesn't even enter into the discussion.

Basically, as I see it, he's saying that what we know about the characters, their personalities, situations, backstories, etc., is derived entirely from how Jeph has depicted them.  We don't know anything except what he tells us, so we really have no way to separate what we know from his depiction.  What will happen, and how the characters will react, is a matter of what he shows us.

OTOH, I think that there are other ways that the question might be framed where the distinction does make a difference.  If we talk about HOW the characters should behave, or what advice we'd give them if they were someone we knew IRL, we can separate that from what we think Jeph shoud have happen.  For example, in the present story arc, I think most of us feel that instead of going on a date with her, Dora should have told Tai something along the lines of, "I'm flattered, and I am attracted to you, but I can't handle a new romantic relationship right now, so if that's what you're looking for, I'm not the person to look for it with".  But if we talk about it in terms of what direction Jeph should take the story, it's entirely reasonable to say the he should have Dora go on the date, because it leads to more potentially good story lines going forward (though Dora turning Tai down would not have been completely without storytelling potential).

I hope I'm not rambling too much here, and that I've actually made the point I was trying to make.

[Tova]

OTOH, I think that there are other ways that the question might be framed where the distinction does make a difference.  If we talk about HOW the characters should behave, or what advice we'd give them if they were someone we knew IRL, we can separate that from what we think Jeph shoud have happen.  For example, in the present story arc, I think most of us feel that instead of going on a date with her, Dora should have told Tai something along the lines of, "I'm flattered, and I am attracted to you, but I can't handle a new romantic relationship right now, so if that's what you're looking for, I'm not the person to look for it with".  But if we talk about it in terms of what direction Jeph should take the story, it's entirely reasonable to say the he should have Dora go on the date, because it leads to more potentially good story lines going forward (though Dora turning Tai down would not have been completely without storytelling potential).

Not wanting to go too deeply into a discussion that has already been killed off. But (although I have no idea which question you're referring to in your first sentence quoted above) that's just the separation I had in mind. And as far as I could tell, the OP of this thread was framed very much in the first case you mentioned  (how the characters should behave, etc). But DSL stated that was beside the point, and that all that was important was what direction Jeph chooses to take. Whereas I think that, while either conversation is perfectly cromulent, the thread was about the first case, and that this was far from "beside the point".

I hope that clarifies my position for you.

[DSL]

"God ha' mercy! What cannot be racked from words in five centuries? One could wring, methinks, a flood from a damp clout!"
-- William Shakespeare, as depicted by Isaac Asimov in his short story "The Immortal Bard"

[idontunderstand]

DSL, If you don't want to partake in the discussion, you're free to stand aside.

[Is it cold in here?]

 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
     rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
     bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!

[pwhodges]

Who are you parroting there, eh?

[Carl-E]

Equinenecrosadism.  *

Kinda rolls off the tongue, don't it? 

And I think DSL is, indeed, participating.  The quote was perfectly germaine. 





*Literally, beating a dead horse. 

[idontunderstand]

You're all weirdos.

[Mr_Rose]

Germaine like Greer? Or germane like relevant?
Because the first really would be weird….

[Redball]

It was also Jermaine. (can't believe I knew that)

[Madmartigan]

You're all weirdos.

Of course we all are!  That's beauty of it and QC being weird. 

[DSL]

A horse that is not dead.

[idontunderstand]

Honestly now though: I have no idea what all this horse-imagery is about. We've been discussing for about one page, all in all. We've had discussions on Dora's new hairstyle longer than that. It's fine if you think it's a stupid discussion, but then would you at least tell me why? Some stuff is lost in translation, it seems.

[Is it cold in here?]

Going in circles and thirteen posts in a row that aren't about the Tai/Dora relationship.

[idontunderstand]

How is it going in circles when some people won't clarify what they're saying? And OMIGOSH, THIRTEEN POSTS, somebody better call the fire brigade on that it's a miracle the board doesn't collapse under the weight of THIRTEEN posts I mean jesus

Let's drop the sarcasms though, shall we? I feel like this is the "make fun of idontunderstand and Tova" thread right now.

[Carl-E]

Oh, dear. 

So sorry about that, no one's trying to make fun of anyone (at least, I'm not, and as I read it no one else is, either).  Clearly some things are definitely being lost in translation.   

The expression "beating a dead horse" is used whenever a topic is hashed out, rehashed, and then revisited again, even though either a) everyhthing that could be said has been said, or b) it doesn't matter.  In this case, the difference between what DSL said and what others said (was it you?  I don't remember anymore) was so minute as to not even matter.  Discussing the characters, and discussing how Jeph depicts the characters, is essentially the same thing.  Either way, we are discussing Dora, Tai, Marten, and how they behave, because that's what Jeph is depicting. 

However, you (and others) seized on a slight difference in semantics, even though DSL disclaimed it (as I recall - I'm not going through the whole thread again!)

So that's why we've been calling it "beating a dead horse".  There's really no reason to keep going around about a difference that really doesn't exist! 

And again, sorry for making you feel like your English is inadequate - it's really very good, but as I'm sure you know, there will always be some idioms that just don't travel well!