Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
(CW/TW: Abuse) WCDT strips 3731-3735 (30th April to 4th May 2018)
Tova:
Thanks to awgiedawgie's link, I've got a comic to add to the guys-getting-punched-for-saying-the-wrong-thing-was-a-running-gag-back-then pile.
And it wasn't even Faye doing the punching this time.
It all would have been beyond the pale had the genders been reversed, I guess. Food for thought.
Dandi Andi:
--- Quote from: SpanielBear on 06 May 2018, 06:03 ---Question, without going into the morality or nature of those instances (and once you have finished breakfast, naturally), how many were recent and how many were back in the days of cartoon logic applying more (e.g. vespa-avenger, random monks, Scorn being capable of physically hurling a body through space etc.)?
Without excusing abusive behaviour, it does seem that Faye as a character gets caught out by the tone of the comic having shifted over 3000 strips, and that behaviour that at one point, while not exactly acceptable, was not as consequential as it would be now. Pintsize is another example of this (who seems to get a free pass more often than not), as his earlier behaviour might often be seen to step over a line he's now more careful about. But Faye's violence, it is true, still gets bought up in-comic as part of her character, so it's reasonable to consider her in relation to it. How much of her violence is recent?
Again, that's a question I want to ask neutrally- I don't mean to defend her violence, I'm just curious about how it has developed alongside the changing tone of the comic.
--- End quote ---
The problem with answering that question is that there is no unambiguous delineation between the comic's cartoonish "wacky hijinks" and the comic's more serious, grounded tone. While the comic has certainly transitioned from using one tone to the other for many subjects, Jeph always has and continues to use both. We can make distinctions with specific events or subjects, but it is much less clear when looking at the whole text of QC. For example, the Vespavenger or Pintsize having advanced military technology were clearly cartoonish non-reality. Marten and Claire's first night together was clearly a case of Jeph taking trans issues very seriously. Depictions of Faye's violence are, if this conversation is any indication, much more fuzzy.
I think there are some very interesting broader implications present in this conversation. They have come to my mind from a variety of people's comments, so I don't want to direct these as a response to any particular person. But I think they are worth exploring.
1) Should we judge Faye's behavior in the context of the diegetic context of the comic or in the context of the real violence it resembles? Violence in QC is often depicted as being relatively consequence free. If Faye's violence is free of meaningful consequences, should she be judged harshly for it? Or is her violence acceptable within the narrative universe? If we judge her behavior as acceptable in-universe but would be absolutely unacceptable in a realistic environment, is it fair to criticize Jeph for his choice to frame harmful behavior as funny?
I think Dan Olsen of the YouTube channel Folding Ideas has a very interesting take on diegesis and its justification for behavior within a narrative.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV8gAGmbtk
2) How does our use of the word "abuse" effect how we talk about Faye's use of violence? I have seen several people not question the facts of Faye's behavior, but rather question whether that behavior rises to the level of "abuse". Sure, she punches people, but she never really hurts anyone. Sure she threatens and intimidates people, but she never cut them off from friends or tried to control their money/transportation/communication etc. The implication seems to be that her behavior never meets the hallmarks of capital-a "Abuse", so we shouldn't judge it as such; like saying that she does bad things, but she's not a monster.
But is that fair? Are we reluctant to call her behavior what it is because we fail to make distinctions of degree and instead see a distinction of kind? Are we possibly trivializing abuse because it failed to meet a specific threshold and is therefore some other thing and therefore is less important?
Let me be clear that I do not think that anybody at all, not even one of us, is treating Faye's behavior like it isn't important or worthy of critique. If we were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. But it is worth reflecting on whether some of the reluctance to calling Faye's behavior abusive is because we think of abuse as a horrible, monstrous thing (and rightly so), but we don't see Faye as a monster.
We discussed a very similar thing in Discuss! a while back. The subject matter is very sensitive so I will bury the link behind a spoiler bar as well as content warnings.
(click to show/hide)CONTENT WARNING: Sexual violence and rape
https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,29834.msg1383740.html#msg1383740
For what it's worth, I tend to judge Faye's violence in terms of the diegetic framework of the text and assume that it is less impactful than it would be in real life, but that it is not consequence free. I usually read it as a shorthand for Faye being gruff and unpleasant as a defense mechanism for her emotional fragility. I see it as not OK, but I also understand her friends willingness to tolerate it in that context. I am usually more uncomfortable with Jeph's choice to use that violence as a shorthand. And I absolutely do see her violence, threats and intimidation as abuse even with all the horrible baggage that word brings with it.
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: SpanielBear on 06 May 2018, 20:09 ---
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 06 May 2018, 20:01 ---On the eternal abuse side, there's more than one way to take her treatment of Pintsize. What does it mean ethically to hit someone who doesn't feel pain and can have dents just popped out?
--- End quote ---
In general? Depend a lot on the context of the hitting, and how it was taken by the one who is hit. Even if it didn't cause physical damage, it could still be a component of emotional abuse, for example.
(I do not feel able to say whether Faye's treatment of Pintsize falls under abuse or not.)
--- End quote ---
It might be worth noting that at least one character in comic has suspected it did. But then, when she talked to Pintsize in private to ascertain that, Marigold promptly put a dent in him herself.
Near Lurker:
--- Quote from: DaiJB on 06 May 2018, 05:58 ---...AND she knocked out Marten that time he was being drunk and highly unpleasant - I can't remember the strip, but I can remember the follow-up, where Faye blames his injury on "OWLS"... :-D
Edit: Found it! Number 1818.
--- End quote ---
That time he assaulted her, though.
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: Castlerook on 06 May 2018, 20:02 ---
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 06 May 2018, 19:26 ---Amen. Bubbles has baggage from hell but a track record of working to overcome it. Bubbles will be loyal to the extent Marten is or even more. Faye, this is a great partner for you.
--- End quote ---
A great partner is all well and good, but you can't rely on another person to fix your problems.
Faye and Bubbles both deserve happiness, but given Faye's track record with relationships and how she deals with major changes in her life (or rather, how she failed to deal with them), kinda leaves me in the camp of "Its going to be one hell of a rocky road" for any Faye and Bubbles relationship.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely. I'm in the Faye-For-FSM's-Sake-Don't-Screw-This-Up(-For-Once) camp.
If she can get out of her own way for once this could be the best romantic relationship of her life. I started to say "best relationship" but that slot is filled by her friendship with Marten.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version