Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2801-2805 (29th September - 3rd October) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Zebediah:
It's possible that Jeph just decided she looks better without the glasses. Or that the glasses made her look too much like Claire - more than one of us were briefly confused by her first appearance and wondered for a moment how there could be two of Claire.
Method of Madness:
That'd be strange, since Claire's not currently wearing glasses.
valkygrrl:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 04 Oct 2014, 06:06 ---
--- Quote from: valkygrrl on 03 Oct 2014, 23:52 ---Hasn't it only been about three weeks of comic time since Marten had a one night stand with D?
--- End quote ---
I've been reading some old strips too, specifically the stretch from the Lake Party to the Wedding and I've noticed that Jeph never really bothers to make elapsed time entirely clear. I mean, at one point, in-universe jumps two weeks (Marten arranging with Hannelore to go to the wedding with her to within a few days of the wedding when Hanners falls sick and Claire steps up). So, we can't really be sure how long ago the one-night stand was in-universe.
--- End quote ---
That's what I used to count. The one night stand with Marten drinking with Steve and Angus as the night after that, two weeks for the callback, counted Marten shirt changes as days from when the callback was announced and then added a few days of wiggle room.
Call it a best guess based on available info.
HeavyP:
I expect they're reading glasses. Presumably she wears them while cooking to help her see to measure ingredients and the like - I can flip a pancake just fine without my glasses, but it's damn sure easier to measure ingredients and see the little bubbles that mean you *need* to flip the pancake with my glasses on.
Thrillho:
--- Quote from: Saabstory88 on 03 Oct 2014, 08:35 ---
--- Quote from: greekstreek on 03 Oct 2014, 08:12 ---
--- Quote from: Orkboy on 03 Oct 2014, 07:44 ---It's not that it's cheaper, it's that a significant number of American workers, between the standard 40-hour work week, 5-15 hours of overtime every week, up to an hour or two spent commuting, and errands, are out of the house for 12-14 hours a day. Assuming that you gotta get some sleep sooner or later, spending another hour or two on cooking and cleaning the mess you made while cooking just isn't feasible to do every day.
--- End quote ---
This. My wife is an emergency room doctor, and I work in a very competitive tech industry. We are both out of the house at 8am and returning around 7pm, starving and exhausted. It is far easier to call during my commute and place a takeout order at one of the 15 restaurants a block from my home so we are eating by 7:15. Afterwards we just throw away the takeout containers and I spend time with my wife as opposed to cleaning and doing dishes. I will cook on weekends when I have the time.
In this case, I suppose you can consider takeout "cheaper" from a time perspective. I work so much that my free time is 100% as valuable to me as my work hours, so any removal of free time to do unenjoyable or time-consuming chores is a net-loss. If you look at things holistically, everything can be expressed in terms of utility, and the utility of my time spent cooking and cleaning is worth far less to me than the possibility of spending my time doing other things minus the utility of the cost of more expensive food.
--- End quote ---
Incredibly true.
--- End quote ---
Equally true in the UK, yet without any 'eating out all the time' culture involved. Ready meals, stuff you can microwave, maybe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version