Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
AprilArcus:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 07 Nov 2014, 13:10 ---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]
--- End quote ---
I definitely agree with this. How would you chop QC up into volumes? I would probably cut it up like so:
* 1-605 (Fall 2004 into Winter 2005): Introductions through the Talk and to the resolution of the Marten/Faye/Dora triangle, ending with Faye's goodbye to her father.
* 606-1970 (Spring 2005 into Spring 2006): From Marten and Dora's first night together through the breakup and to their making nice on Tai's porch, ending with Marten's zen-content stare into the night.
* 1978-2830 (Summer 2006): From Marten's talk with Dora about figuring what he wants from life, through his flaming out with Padma, to his breezy stroll down the street hand in hand with Claire.
I would be tempted to split Season 2 in half along the 1310/1311 four-month time skip, which cuts Marten/Dora neatly into "the good part" and "the bad part", and ends with the Wil/Penelope cliffhanger.
There isn't really an equivalent midway point in Season 3, but if you needed to make one up it would be the two-week time skip between 2375/2376, which puts Marten/Padma and the early Dora/Tai stuff into Season 3.0, and Marten/Claire and Dale/Marigold into Season 3.5.
NemoX:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 07 Nov 2014, 13:31 ---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.
--- End quote ---
That is partly what I was referring to before when I said I'd rather something spark a discussion than an argument. If you do think of a counter argument to something, and present it also in a sound manner, then you have yourself a good thing. Agreeing or not, the point is to hear different points of view and discuss their merits, hopefully in a civil manner with no feelings of being personally attacked. But this is the internet and this is human nature, so I know it just happens in a perfect world. On my part, all I can do is try.
--- Quote ---Sometimes subtext exists in a work even though the author had no intention of putting it there. That applies to Disney and your argument.
--- End quote ---
yeah, that was mentioned before too and I acknowledged that yes, that is the case, even subconsciously we all do it. But if we are talking about intent, whether the subtext is there or not does not warrant assuming its on purpose, but it does warrant discussion.
For the record, I would like to state that I do mean it when I say I just like an actual conversation and to hear other points of view and try to learn new things, if I ever say something that may be perceived as an attack to anybody here, my apologies, I assure you that unless I specifically say so, it is not my intent
Akima:
--- Quote from: AprilArcus on 06 Nov 2014, 22:21 ---And Mulan has an overtly trans masculine text.
--- End quote ---
Pretty much every modern adaption the Hua Mulan legend has transgender text and homoerotic subtext. The Disney version has strong female self-expression and broadly feminist themes. None of this is present in the original poem, where the main themes are patriotism and filial piety. So, referring back to that idiotic Venn-diagram quoted above, who is the "author" of the story, and what did they "mean" when they wrote it? Does the original story change in meaning because it is being read with 21st century eyes, rather than those of the 6th century when it was probably written? If it does, how decisive can the author's intent be?
As Disney's adaption shows, we tend to see a feminist theme in the story, which the original writer certainly did not "mean" when he placed Hua's service firmly in a Confucian context of filial respect for her father and the king, ultimately crowned by her submission to her proper role as a wife and mother. Does that mean that a feminist reading is invalid? Does it mean that a "Western" non-Confucian reading, or even adaption, of the story is invalid because it does not conform to what the original author "meant"? If the answer to those questions is no, as I believe it is, what the author meant cannot be regarded as the last word. I believe one test for the worth of a work of literature, or art generally, is whether it continues to speak to people who live in a very different world from that in which it was created, but this inevitably means that its meaning will be created, at least in part, by the audience, rather than the author.
Friday's comic/poster is awwwsome.
Dalillama:
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---
--- Quote from: NemoX on 06 Nov 2014, 21:50 ---While I respect her right to belief things and have a different opinion, I still find it appalling that such way of thinking is still a thing and they won't face reality.
--- End quote ---
Except you don't seem to respect it; "find[ing] it appaling that such a way of thinking is still a thing" -- dismissing critical thinking as an aberration -- isn't an expression of respect by any rational measure.
--- End quote ---
I realize NemoX has already replied to this, but I'd also like to point out that it is quite possible to respect someone's right to hold a belief without in any way respecting the belief itself. 'I respect your right to believe that' means 'I don't think you should suffer legal consequences for that belief', but does not, in any way, imply ' I consider that belief to be valid, true, or accurate'.
hedgie:
There is the matter of whether or not someone wants to create a "faithful" adaptation of a particular work, or make a re-interpretation based on their own culture and time. I'd consider Disney's "Mulan", with *their* cultural influences and message to be more along with the lines of Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" and "Ran" (MacBeth and King Lear, respectively), than something that was supposed to be faithful to the original.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version