Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

WCDT: 2811-2815 (13-17 October 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread

<< < (194/198) > >>

Gladstone:
Comic's up.

Marten is a good friend.

Edit: Oops, hey, wrong thread entirely.  My bad.

bhtooefr:
New week, over here: https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,30235.0.html

ReindeerFlotilla:
I've gathered that "unacceptable" is not a constant, so I don't really worry about that much. Fictional characters can't respect each other's boundaries. If they did, they'd be boring. They'd also be unrealistic.

Boundaries aren't respected in real life. Primarily, because everyone's map is different and we haven't invented perfect communication. Certainly, there are people who intentionally ignore boundaries, but that's a different topic.

To me, it's like trigger warnings. I find them annoying to the point of being triggering. Thanks to my experiences, I have a galaxy of triggers. I've yet to see one given a warning. Lots of people gleefully post up stuff that stresses me the hell out, because--in their world--those things are cute.

I could argue that the people doing this stuff are wrong, and from the view point that makes trigger warnings a thing they are. They're blithely posting imagery that represents some extremely traumatic experiences. While the experiences of mine are mine, the particular problem is pretty wide spread, so it's not just me who has reactions to this kind of stuff.

The problem with that is that almost everyone has some kind of issue, and almost every issue has some kind of trigger. Carried to logical conclusions, everything should carry a trigger warning.

The same applies to boundaries, carried to logical ends. instead, in both cases, we seem to settle on nigh universally accepted limits. These subjects demand trigger warnings, those boundaries aren't acceptable to cross. So we end up with rules like, don't kill people.

Claire's mom was out of line, but only in the sense that Claire didn't appreciate what she did. It seems like common sense that you consult people, or at least warn them, under such circumstances. Still common sense is neither of those things.

It don't see the same kind of reality violation in what Claire's mom did as you see in Faye's string of assault and battery. Social violation, yes. But I read it as a mother treating her adult offspring as a child, rather than respecting the offspring's adult status. Considering my mother still does that, after decades, it doesn't strike me as unrealistic.

ASB84:

--- Quote from: AprilArcus on 19 Oct 2014, 09:14 ---I don't understand the critique about "pandering to shippers". QC is only really interested in three things: indie music, artificial intelligence, and relationship drama. Only one of those things can drive a narrative forward. Subtract the relationship drama, and there isn't much of a comic left.

I'm especially astonished to see this accusation leveled at Marten/Claire, since Claire's whole character seems to have been designed to lure Marten out of the corner of passivity that he's been stuck in since strip #1. She's someone whose in-your-face temperament would catch Marten's attention, but whose sexual reticence would force him into decisive action. Her character traits (motivated, anxious) fill the negative space of his (unambitious, reassuring) like puzzle pieces. Maybe we could productively accuse Jeph of MPDG-ism vis a vis Claire, but she is too obviously purpose-built for a relationship with Marten for me to imagine that she was introduced on a lark and then paired with him due to fan pressure.

It's interesting to me that only Dora/Tai and Claire/Marten fall into the bullseye of "pandering to shippers". It makes me wonder if you (or the people whose opinions you are citing) might have a particular type of shipper (or ship) in mind. The fact is that it's still really rare to see LGBT relationships portrayed in a way that feels both casual and authentic (especially BT relationships, which often constitute the invisible back half of the acronym). So yeah, there's a lot of excitement for these couples in certain circles, because the people in them are unused to having their experiences reflected back at them positively through pop-culture.
--- End quote ---

As I said in my follow-up post, I think it comes down to how much you like the pairings, the way they were set up in the narrative, and I guess how much you identify with them. If you're not a fan of them, the knee-jerk reaction is to call it "pandering", which I will admit isn't the perfect term and definitely myopic. I can see where other readers are coming from when I say that, I think I know what they're ultimately getting at, but I will back off using the term myself. It is ill-fitting and a bit confrontational, which wasn't my intention.

I can't speak for everyone who isn't necessarily thrilled with Marten/Claire and Dora/Tai (or at least feels a bit so-so about them), but I'd say it comes down to a combination of not being fond of a particular character, the narrative leading up to the characters getting together, or the scenarios created by the relationship. "Pandering" then becomes something of a buzzword to represent a vocal minority that isn't really feeling those developments.

I think you've hit the nail on the head about those relationships appealing to some people more than others because of what they represent: positive portrayals of LGBT couples. I'll admit, I've been a bit hesitant to mention that I'm not a huge fan of either pairing, lest it come across as transphobic or homophobic, because those aren't my beliefs or politics at all. The fact that LGBT couples are being portrayed positively in a work of fiction absolutely is a good thing, a point that needs to be made, and I think Jeph does it in a way that doesn't shoot the message. I completely support that. However, being a straight, cisgender male, I think it's safe to say I don't feel as strong a connection or a representation in those relationships. To me, those relationships represent equality and understanding that believe in; to others however, they represent equality and understanding that they are fighting for. I think that creates a more powerful connection to those characters and their relationships.

That said, I'm not one for shipping in general, and I don't necessarily feel any kind of connection with the Marten/Dora, Wil/Penelope, or Steve/Cosette pairings, either (well, maybe Wil/Penelope to some extent, but only because I'm kind of a shy fella at times, albeit with less poetry-related comedic mishaps). That's probably because the relationships that I'm familiar with and characters I can identify with are common in fiction, so I guess I kind of take them for granted or feel spoiled for choice. Marten/Claire and Dora/Tai, and the politics of QC in general are absolutely fine with me, well in tune with my beliefs. It's the characterisation and the narrative that concern me, and believe me, I'd feel the same way if we got a Marten/Emily pairing (I'd probably be even less of a fan of that, as Claire is a much more fleshed out character while Emily is still more of a one-note joke), or a Marten/Hanners pairing (needless to say there's a LOT of reasons why that wouldn't make sense).

Long story short: I withdraw the use of "pandering", and hope that I've clarified my position a little better. I also hope that I've made my politics clear and that my feelings about both pairings have nothing to do with being bigoted or anything like that, because that's not who I am or what I'm about at all.

On the subject of Dora and Tai though, I think Alphawolf55 summed up in a sentence what bothers me a little about it.


--- Quote from: Alphawolf55 ---My problem with Tai and Dora is how creepy Tai acted with that relationship and how she gets what she wants.
--- End quote ---

I kind of feel that, too. I think if Tai were a man - let's say it was Steve in the role - then the storyline might be perceived a little differently. On one hand, it's a positive portrayal of an LGBT relationship, which once again is great to see, but on the other hand, it's kind of a bad portrayal of relationships and friendships in general. A long-standing crush on a friend's significant other, half making a move on them not long after the relationship ends, Dora reciprocating interest simply because someone pursued her and is obviously more infatuated with her than she is with them...that stuff just feels a bit uncomfortable to me.

I think it's similar to the objection a portion of the fanbase had to Dora making a move on Marten so soon after "the talk" with Faye. All other things aside, the way the character in question acts, even if it's understandable, doesn't sit well with some people. Our reactions are based on our real life experiences, and given that I feel a certain way about hooking up with friends exes, and have found myself in a relationship where I made the mistake of "Wow, this person is interested in me, and that hasn't happened  a lot lately, so I think I'm interested too (but in fact, we weren't really compatible)", my take on Dora/Tai is shaped by that to some extent.

I also always got the impression that Dora's feelings towards Tai were more big sister/Team Mom than anything else, her general flirtatiousness with pretty much everyone not withstanding. But that could just be me reading things incorrectly.

At the end of the day, not everyone is going to love every storyline development or feel a strong connection to it. While I have my criticisms and concerns, I don't hate the developments either, and I am interested in seeing where the story goes next. I'm hooked on QC, and whatever quibbles I may have with this or that, I'm not about to say it's jumped the shark or it's terrible or I'm done with it, or anything of that nature. Like I said, I'll be reading. :)

mvdwege:

--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 19 Oct 2014, 13:13 ---All of which is a longish way of saying, while I don't expect Jeph to go all Brecht on us, I don't think a more "political," or even just realistic, slant of sorts would be unwarranted.

--- End quote ---
I think Jeph is already telling an explicitly political story. It mean seem obvious to those of us that agree (which is most of Jephs fandom, I guess), but a work of art where the characters and plotlines showcase a level of inclusiveness that some of us in the real world are merely striving for, but miles away from reaching, is a political position.

And given the aggression explicit inclusiveness seems to call up these days, it is in fact a rather radical and outspoken political position.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page