Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 2907-2911 (2nd - 6th March 2015)
ReindeerFlotilla:
I'm doing this for illustrative purposes. My apologies for any confusion that may result, but using the quote tags would get tedious as hell:
"Depends on the character."
Man, you're wish washy. Pick a position already.
"Faye can be abrasive as hell,"
This is you projecting. Hell is probably very smooth.
"but she's also been a good friend to several in the cast when push came to shove."
But who was doing most of the pushing and shoving and punching and kicking...
"Dora's been tone-deaf in how she's handled her friends and family,"
What do you have against tone deaf people? I swear, the able-ism is thick...
"but also gave both Sven and Faye several shots at getting it right before she ditched them."
Pass
"Marten's a nice guy who just happens to be a bit too chill and happens to put his foot halfway down his throat from time to time."
Okay, seriously. People don't bend that way. It's not humanly possible without dislocation or hyper extension. And what does "halfway down his throat" even mean? Where is the throat's halfway point?
"See a pattern yet?"
Do you?
If it isn't clear, the issues aren't that there is no valid reason to criticize. It that people latch on to the the tiniest things and use them to expound upon their pet theories as to why character X is horrible, and it's actually quite annoying.
Marigold was not paying attention (why, we don't know), and she reacted by trying to do a thing most humans do when they feel guilty about not paying attention. This is primarily a set up for meaning salad joke.
I really do understand that 18 to 26 hours is a long time to wait for more data, and that speculation about what will happen next is what the forum is for. But it's a long way from "Marigold does her typical Marigold thing" to "Marigold is a horrible friend," to "This is the end of Hanners's relationship with Marigold," to "OMG, Jeph's burning all the bridges!"
Given the comic's lower information density, the level of analysis being thrown at at each strip is overwhelming, especially given that it tends to revolve around matters of taste rather than the question of what something means to the story, if anything.
We had a day full of people attempting to rip Marten a new one for not calling 911 when he found Faye passed out in her own vomit. But the next day we saw Marten treating the issue exactly the way any person in their mid 20's (and any person who has become desensitized to a hard drinker) would. "Dude. Wake up. You gotta get in the shower. Hey, are you in there? Hey, are you okay? Oh shit!" And Jeph conveyed that in one wordless panel.
Then the discussion of Marten's alleged failure as a human went poof. Yesterday's detailed analysis of Tai and Dora's failures was like that, and today's coal raking of Marigold is like that (although, given the shallow look we've had into the romance of Tai and Dora, yesterday was excusable). It's not that there aren't valid things, it the Rule 34-ish nature of the thing: If there's a possible interpretation of the strip that makes a character look bad, someone WILL use it to go off on the character they dislike.
I will complain. I even catch myself hitting the same note over an over. So it's not "hey, stop doing that." It's "hey, if someone is saying there's a whole lot of X happening, maybe stop and consider if they have a point."
aphanisis81:
Reindeer, I'll concede on the point that people flail and grasp to defend their personal hatred of certain characters.
But otherwise, basically you're saying that we're reading too deeply into the text by making predictions such as "it looks like we're in for a downturn in various QC interpersonal relationships."
But there's no such thing as reading too deeply into anything if the interpretive conclusions are reached through actual reading: noticing patterns, recognizing typical character traits, plugging in conventional narrative tropes , making predictions, &c. We might be wrong sometimes, or even often, but - assuming that the reading points to evidence and precedent in the comic - the "reading too deeply" accusation is a blithe and frankly boring line of accusation.
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: aphanisis81 on 05 Mar 2015, 11:59 ---But otherwise, basically you're saying that we're reading too deeply into the text by making predictions such as "it looks like we're in for a downturn in various QC interpersonal relationships."
--- End quote ---
No. If I were saying that, I would say that.
I said that reading the last two strips as "Jeph is burning all the bridges" is a reach, because it is. There's no narrative justification for that. The closest thing there is to a justification is the argument that Jeph is responding to the fan reactions of "not enough drama." That's rather self important of the fans.
Beyond that, all I am saying is that reaching for any and every detail as justification to dump on the character you dislike is rather tedious and "literary analysis" is not a justification for it. So maybe it's worthwhile to listen to and consider the voices who are saying, "this is tedious" rather than waving the "literary analysis" flag every single time.
After all, if it were really literary analysis, it would hint at something we don't already know (which is why yesterday's excoriation of Dora and Tai is excusable, but the Marten incident and today's Marigold really aren't under this frame work).
Mr. Black Licorice:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 05 Mar 2015, 11:49 ---If it isn't clear, the issues aren't that there is no valid reason to criticize. It that people latch on to the the tiniest things and use them to expound upon their pet theories as to why character X is horrible, and it's actually quite annoying.
--- End quote ---
Eh - it is annoying. However, it's how some of our fellow patrons find enjoyment in the comic. And who are we to tell them they are having wrong-fun?
--- Quote ---Given the comic's lower information density, the level of analysis being thrown at at each strip is overwhelming, especially given that it tends to revolve around matters of taste rather than the question of what something means to the story, if anything.
--- End quote ---
True. It's sort of like dissecting road kill - but if that's your thing... I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy the opposite. Someone says one lump of carrion is a liver, and I point out that it looks exactly like the other lump several inches to the left. They argue that it's where the liver is supposed to be. I argue that OF COURSE that's where it's supposed to be, but if things weren't moved around drastically when the beastie got mowed down, it would still be alive, now, wouldn't it?
In the end, we're both standing in the middle of the road poking at a dead animal. That's sorta like reading a daily comic, isn't it?
jwhouk:
--- Quote from: Zebediah on 05 Mar 2015, 08:56 ---So you're thinking the endgame is "everyone breaks up, then Jeph retires"?
--- End quote ---
Anyone happen to notice that it's already been 5 years since that comic was up?
(Hides before AprilArcus says something about continuity... ;) )
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version