Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3231 - 3235 (30th May to 3rd June 2016)
retrosteve:
--- Quote from: heyjames4 on 31 May 2016, 11:17 ---I don't remember seeing much of Renee's personality in the Padma & Jim/Dora arcs. She was described to us by Angus from his perspective, and we saw her in crowd scenes where the focus was on the Eliot-Padma-Marten triangle.
I'm excited to see what she's like in her own words.
--- End quote ---
Angus made it pretty clear in http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1363 that Renee had "a doctorate in belittling people", and his housemates threw a "Ding Dong, the witch is dead" party when they broke up. That's a pretty scary description right there. Are you still excited to see her?
tomveil:
--- Quote from: Coffee_Kaioken on 31 May 2016, 08:46 ---So, not sure if anyone else mentioned this already, but, "Renee" reminded me of someone...
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1859
Possible return of older characters?
--- End quote ---
And here she is drawn:
http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1865
She could bring some nice diversity ... y'know, a character who makes burping jokes instead of farting jokes.
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: Larm Hargraven on 31 May 2016, 13:17 ---Renee's incredibly off-key and, unfortunately, poorly written introduction. Right off the bat it's violent threats in the strips as well as being supposedly abrasive and grossly over-protective in a story-situation where it's unwarranted. We have no grey area with Renee, she's coming in at 100% steam.
--- End quote ---
But that could be the actual characterisation of Renee, rather than a poorly written one (which implies that it might not be accurate); people in real life can be unexpected in that sort of way. Also Jeph might quite simply be relying a bit more than is sensible on our remembering Renee (if indeed it is the Renee we've met before) and the earlier outline of her character which is not so much out of line with this.
Larm Hargraven:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 31 May 2016, 14:34 ---
--- Quote from: Larm Hargraven on 31 May 2016, 13:17 ---Renee's incredibly off-key and, unfortunately, poorly written introduction. Right off the bat it's violent threats in the strips as well as being supposedly abrasive and grossly over-protective in a story-situation where it's unwarranted. We have no grey area with Renee, she's coming in at 100% steam.
--- End quote ---
But that could be the actual characterisation of Renee, rather than a poorly written one (which implies that it might not be accurate); people in real life can be unexpected in that sort of way. Also Jeph might quite simply be relying a bit more than is sensible on our remembering Renee (if indeed it is the Renee we've met before) and the earlier outline of her character which is not so much out of line with this.
--- End quote ---
And hey, that's all good, but it turns her into a 1-Dimensional character, or at best, 2-Dimensional. And what I mean is that if that's all her characterization is, her importance in these strips should be seen far less than we do already. It'd mean she's either poorly written or written to be a throw-away character. That's really all I want pointing out, how the character is written isn't equalling to how much everyone is assuming her importance in this story-arc, and to a degree, her need to even be in it. Think filler episodes like the "Fly" one in Breaking Bad, if you've ever seen it.
alanari:
--- Quote from: APersonAmI on 31 May 2016, 13:45 ---
--- Quote from: alanari on 31 May 2016, 13:01 ---
--- Quote from: themacnut on 31 May 2016, 10:09 ---A woman with a history of being too trusting for her own good would not pull a shotgun/harpoon on a stranger at a bar whose only "crime" was staring morosely at his drink. If anything, this suggests the opposite; the main reason Brun is giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt is that he's shown himself to be pretty harmless, something Renee has yet to see.
--- End quote ---
I can only speak for myself, but in my case this is not the contradiction you think it is.
I've had my bad experiences, of course. Can't be prevented with a personality like mine. Some of them were traumatic. I'm careful around anyone I don't know. Not that found of weapons though, I'm just keeping my distance.
Problem is, I lower my defence too fast. As soon as someone is nice to me, I tend to assume that he is a nice person. Which is not necessarily true. That makes me vulnerable to anyone who knows to play nice to get what he wants.
If I were in Bruns place, I would be careful around customer Clinton, but I wouldn't distrust Clinton, the guy who helped after the fire. This situation, not strangers but also not really friends, is where I'm the most vulnerable.
--- End quote ---
Oh... *hugs sympathetically, after checking for consent*
I am an aspie, and what you are talking about is quite familiar to me. When someone commits an action that seems intended to hurt me for the first time since I have met them, my reaction has sometimes been mainly to observe. I do not comprehend hostility, so my first reaction at the strange behaviour is to attempt to understand it. It is on the second attempt at my person that I strike back.
Against school bullies, this was tremendously efficient. Leave or ignore them the first time they try to drag down my dignity, choose a moment and then hit them as hard as I can the second time they do anything hostile. For example, at one time, three guys mocked and jeered at me without provocation, and I ignored them the first time they did it. The second time they mocked me, I pretended to leave, going for my coat, but turned the motion into a backhand strike to the face of the most aggressive one, and then screamed "IS THIS ENOUGH!?" at his surprised, prone, body. He nodded silently, the other two looked shaken and didn't make a move as I took my coat and left. They were never hostile to me again.
Against people faking friendship for years, and then suddenly taking advantage of me, the strategy was... less efficient. That was a long time ago, and I have gained some experience at finding the signs, but I still default to trusting people who do not show hostility.
All this is to say, I understand and sympathize with your situation.
--- End quote ---
Hello fellow aspie :)
I don't mind digital hugs. Thanks for checking though
Hostility without obvious reason. Yeah, I'll never get it and I'm never prepared for it. I'm way more passive than you, I'm just keeping my distance if possible and endure everything if not. People I'm not emotionally attached to can't really hurt me anyway.
Being taken advantage of.. yeah, I feel you. I even tend to believe in them, that there must have been some kind of mistake and that a friend wouldn't do that to me. It usually takes a while to realise that my trust was misplaced.
I don't really have a strategy. I'm just sad and hurt. I'm no longer bitter about it when it happens though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version