Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Estron:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 06 Nov 2014, 22:26 ---It's not upsetting. It's just... wow, I didn't think you could REACH that level of over-analysis. ;)
--- End quote ---
Precisely what about any of the analysis thus far has been excessive?
BenRG:
--- Quote from: Mad Cat on 07 Nov 2014, 12:50 ---That should totally be the cover of a collected volume of QC in dead tree format.
--- End quote ---
I did get the impression that we're now at the end of Questionable Content vol.3 and that's the cover image. We're now moving onto a new phase including (warning - wild guesses):
* The Chronicles of Marten and Claire;
* The Post-Angus life of Faye Whitaker;
* The Wedding That Shook Northampton (Jim and Veronica put on a party);
* The Sundering and Reconciliation of the Bianchi Children;
* What Kind of a Name for a Band is 'Deathmole'?All this and more in Questionable Content - Volume 4! [/list]
Aziraphale:
--- Quote from: Mad Cat on 07 Nov 2014, 12:50 ---That should totally be the cover of a collected volume of QC in dead tree format.
--- End quote ---
1: Agreed
2: Unrelated: I misread your sig line as "The Quakers were masters of siege welfare," which cracked me up.
davedig:
Hey BenRG did you get my reply okay?
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: NemoX on 07 Nov 2014, 12:28 ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 07 Nov 2014, 11:25 --- I wouldn't say anything if the discussion was merely disagreement about the analysis, itself. But the discussion is edging closely to, if not trampling totally on, criticism of the analyst's motives.
--- End quote ---
I think the issue was more about approach than motives. Or at least that's how I perceived it. Then again somebody else might perceive it some other way. And a third would interpret the whole thing in yet another perspective. So I may be wrong. But that's part of the argument itself, people's interpretation of something and how they express it.
Never saw Pacific Rim, so I can't objectively comment on your point, might watch it sometime and see for myself :)
--- End quote ---
Whenever you discuss approach you discuss motivation. They are inextricably linked. More to the point, the specific language of saying that X is more about Y than it is about elements of the story is language that takes to task the analyst rather than the analysis.
I make no claim about anyone's motives here. But the focus on critiquing the approach as opposed to the facts, evidence, and conclusions, has the effect of conveying an extremely civil attack on the author.
Someone once criticized my pointing out a broad ad hominem as "you think that was ad hominem?" But the thing is, ad hominem means "at the man" literally and "at the person" in general .
No matter how civil one is, when one structured their argument based on the approach/motivation of the author, it's not cool. Unless one can show that the author will derive profit and thus has motive to act unethically.
The fact that our national debates tend to revolve around that tactic muddied the waters an makes it seem reasonable. But the fact is that extremely civil ad hominem is just a manipulation tactic. Don't listen to this person, listen to how I make you feel, it says. That it is, inarguably, civil doesn't make right. But everyone involved profits from the audience not seeing the manipulation involved. As a result, the audience starts to view the method as appropriate discourse.
I make no comment on what you mean. I am telling you what I read, from many, comes across as aimed at April, not her logic. I expect I will disagree with April in the future. I don't really agree now. But her analysis is sound. If I think of a counter argument I will be comfortable stating it. Unless that happens I am going to consider the possibility that April has a point.
Sometimes subtext exists in a work even though the author had no intention of putting it there. That applies to Disney and your argument.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version