Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
Estron:
Um . . . there are some pretty deep and weighty discussions here. I'm just here because I like a webcomic about romance, technology, and weird references to obscure bands.
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: hedgie on 07 Nov 2014, 16:26 ---Good question. And I'm not sure how to answer. Shunning/isolation is a useful extra-legal tool for dealing with totally horrible people without resorting to violence. Then again, it can also be used against innocent people, for say just being to "x" for their gender/race/class/culture/religion, etc. Which raises the question of if || when it's okay to do so. I know personally, I have no problem shunning and insulting racists/homophobes/sexists, and the like.
--- End quote ---
The tools of culture are just that. Tools. They can be used constructively or destructively.
To insult, express contempt, or ostracize is to show a lack of respect. I think it is important to recognize that distinction. It's possible to disagree with a position without taking action to harm those who hold it. Say Billy thinks his god demands no homosexuality. Respect is Billy saying to LGB's, "I'm not getting involved in your faith." There's nothing wrong with that. But telling them "I'm not getting involved with you, at all and I will encourage others to do the same" we've moved from a personal choice to the use of social tools to do harm. That is not respect.
The only counter is the use of similar tools against Billy and his followers. This is also not respect. If respect is always the right thing to do, then sometimes you have to be wrong to defend what you believe.
I, for one, don't believe respect is always right. Sometimes you gotta roll the hard six.
--- Quote from: Estron on 07 Nov 2014, 16:38 ---Um . . . there are some pretty deep and weighty discussions here. I'm just here because I like a webcomic about romance, technology, and weird references to obscure bands.
--- End quote ---
As are a bunch of intellectually curious others. We have to do something with the nearly 168 hours we spend each week NOT reading the comic.
AprilArcus:
--- Quote from: hedgie on 07 Nov 2014, 16:26 ---
--- Quote from: Akima on 07 Nov 2014, 15:48 ---And where does authorial intent fit into that? Who is the author of "Throne Of Blood"; Kurosawa or Shakespeare or both?
--- End quote ---
I'd say Kurosawa, but inspired by Shakespeare. It's not like Joss' "Much Ado About Nothing", or the '90s "Romeo and Juliet" where they just changed the setting, but kept the same dialogue, or various opera or theatre productions that just re-arrange what was already there. It's more about taking certain ideas and themes and then reimagining them into a different context.
--- End quote ---
This is an unanswerable question that literary critics have gone boringly back and forth on for as long as there have been literary critics. The answer is somewhere on a continuum between "The Unique Timeless Embodied Authorial Soul Akira Kurosawa: Auteur, Fountainhead & Demiurge" and "the entire light cone stretching backward from the moment the film was sealed up and shipped to its premiere screening to the quantum fluctuations of the Big Bang itself, all of which have butterfly-effected the formation of the solar system, the evolution of intelligent life, and the politics of 16th century England and 20th century Japan in a stochastic, entangled, un-analyzable way and aren't movies intensely collaborative endeavors produced by hundreds of people each performing a job to the best of their ability but themselves deeply enmeshed in a web of interpersonal influences and interactions totally inaccessible to us, the viewers, and when you get right down to it aren't the very notions of 'consciousness' and 'intent' just illusions and social constructions anyway?"
There is no single correct answer to these kinds of questions, just methodological frameworks for teasing apart the influences and counter-influences that lead to the creation of a work of art. In the case of the Little Mermaid, we can talk productively about Hans Christian Andersen's life circumstances at the time of the original writing, preserved in his and Edvard Collins' letters; the economic pressures and sexual politics of middle-class life in 19th century Denmark; the production history of the film version; lyricist Howard Ashman's own history of gay life in the 70s and 80s and his struggle with AIDS during the writing of the film; the dueling ethos of moral conservatism and artistic freedom at work in the Walt Disney Company; Walt Disney's own politics and legacy in his company... a piece of art has an endless list of authors; but some are more interesting and relevant than others.
My go-to framework for talking about this kind of stuff is Harold Bloom's theory of The Anxiety of Influence. We are all inescapably in the grasp of those who have come before us, and challenged to overcome that influence to produce something original. But by the same token, a completely original work would have no grounding in any existing cultural context, and would have no audience to receive it. The measure of "authorship" is the artist's ingenuity in accommodating both these irreconcilable forces.
Are Momo and Emily just Chiyo and Ayumu from "Azumanga Daioh", or are they original characters? Is Jeph an author or an imitator? Does R.K. Milholland deserve a sort of shared authorship in "Q.C." by writing its emotional antithesis in parallel for over ten years? Is Jeph acting or reacting?
My answer is that these kinds of questions are framed in the wrong way. It is not an "either/or?" — it is a "how much of each?"
valkygrrl:
--- Quote from: AprilArcus on 07 Nov 2014, 10:25 ---
I think there was a missed opportunity here. I imagine a more positive version of this conversation could have played out like this:
valkygrrl: April, your forceful, declarative rhetoric is giving me the impression that you believe that your reading is the only valid one. I would prefer to just watch a movie and not try to look for politics everywhere.
April: I'm sorry my style hurt your feelings! Analyzing fiction is fun for me, and speaking forcefully is how I speak when I'm trying to make a point. I don't mean to take anything away from the way you like to enjoy your media. I'm curious, did you think my interpretation was off-base for any particular reason, or just a reach too far?
and then we'd have been talking to each other like adults, instead of lobbing snark bombs.
--- End quote ---
April: I see you joking and basking in a happy moment. What I don't see you doing is talking about my politics and we can't have that. Lucky for me you referenced an old joke and I've thought of a way to link it to the only thing I want to talk about, even if there's already a thread in discuss for days when the comic isn't related to that subject. Thanks for the opening!
valkygrrl: Huh? What? The squee.... where did the squee go? Oh, OH MY. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar you know.
April: Cigars are phallic and obviously relate to the trans....
valkygrrl: *headdesk* There are other people out there who see only what they want to see.
April: Meanie.
--- Quote from: AprilArcus on 06 Nov 2014, 22:21 ---I know that valkygrrl doesn't care for my flavor of feminism or my gender politics. We've talked about it in private to the extent that that was useful, and I would like to think that these are things that reasonable people can disagree about. Why take potshots? If something I said upset you, just say so plainly and let's see if we can't come to an understanding.
--- End quote ---
If we're going to speak about private discussions, 'as long as it was useful' ended with flinging some words that you consider Bad Things at me and then ignoring my answer. I was given to understand _that_ was to be the pattern for interactions.
AprilArcus:
--- Quote from: valkygrrl on 07 Nov 2014, 17:18 ---If we're going to speak about private discussions, 'as long as it was useful' ended with flinging some words that you consider Bad Things at me and then ignoring my answer. I was given to understand _that_ was to be the pattern for interactions.
--- End quote ---
I recall us going back and forth for six rounds (and 3600 words between the two of us) before I decided I had nothing to say that would move you, and didn't want to hear more from you that would hurt me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version