THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: mikeybones on 20 Aug 2012, 21:27
-
I know as a new user on most forums it's taboo to make your first post a thread. In my defense I used to post infrequently way back and have no clue where/what my info is. Here's the issue that's been nagging me though:Dora and marten split mainly because she had unresolved issues. Faye coaxes her into therapy to work on them. Dora agrees that it's in her best interest as well as the interest of future suitors that she not date til she's got a better handle on things. She even mentions this when asked out by an older male counterpart(you know the guy) So seeing as the story line never mentioned any grand breakthroughs in her therapy , why is she going through wih a romantic involvement with tai? Why are her friends allowing and encouraging her to do so,especially one who so firsthand what her issues can do? It seems beyond irresponsible on all parts. Did I miss something?
Also,why did marten put up with tai always talking about wanting to bed Dora when Dora and he were dating?had tai been a guy friend saying that, I'm pretty sure marten would have told that dude off. Why the double standard?
-
Welcome back, sorta-new person!
Marten probably figured Tai was kidding. In any event, she was respecting the relationship with her actions.
Why are Dora's friends so supportive? I hope it's because they're being supportive. I hope it's not because they have the stupid old sexist idea that girl-girl relationships aren't as real.
-
Why did he put up with it? Well, presumably because he had no reason not to trust her, even if it was uncomfortable (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=773) or awkward (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1778). And anyway, he could hold his own (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1779) at times.
-
Also do note that Marten and Dora themselves weren't entirely innocent,
I could list the comics if i took the time but there has been more than one occasion where Dora has wondered what Tai was like in bed/naked/etc while still with Marten, and i'm sure Marten has at least once thought what she might have looked like naked (Pretty sure this was after Tai's Clit peircing)
Infact. Here is one i was talking about Dora and Tai (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1249)
-
I think the OP's points are well made. For one thing, Dora did have to be threatened to actually start her therapy, and seems to doubt its efficacy. She knows she has problems in relationships, and we've received evidence of her issues with boys from Sven.
With the issues she has, I doubt her relationships with women would be much better, but I also wonder if she's even had any serious female relationships. We know she found out she likes women early on, and that she had a series of alpha-goth boyfriends before Marten, but since we know nothing about her and women, perhaps there was nothing for us to know, beyond some crushes or youthful flirtations/"experiments".
My point is that she (probably erroneously) may think that things with Tai wouldn't go the way her other relationships have.
Also, the flush of attraction in the beginning of a new romance will often turn off the participant's brains. In an old King Arthur movie from the 80's, Nicol Williamson as Merlin says, "Love is deaf as well as blind" when he can't turn Arthur's attention away from Guenevere. I've come to believe love is actually autistic, shutting out the external world in favor of the internal.
I'm sure she'll be gushing to her therapist about her new romance, assuming things go well on this first date...
-
Well, to be fair, at a time when Dora is cautiously eyeing the shallows of the ocean that is relationships, Tai comes along and floods her with love like a helitanker dumping a few thousand liters of water on a forest fire. If things do go wrong, it's not entirely Dora's own fault.
-
My point is that she (probably erroneously) may think that things with Tai wouldn't go the way her other relationships have.
I actually suspect that she's avoiding thinking about it at all.
Also, the flush of attraction in the beginning of a new romance will often turn off the participant's brains.
Just so. Especially when you are feeling as flattered as Dora seems to be feeling right now from being pursued.
-
I think part of the reason the friends, specifically Marten and Faye, are being so supportive is that they have been watching Tai crushing on Dora for what seems like a long time now. Their judgement for Dora's mental well-being could be clouded for their happiness for Tai getting what she's wanted for so long.
-
I think part of the reason the friends, specifically Marten and Faye, are being so supportive is that they have been watching Tai crushing on Dora for what seems like a long time now. Their judgement for Dora's mental well-being could be clouded for their happiness for Tai getting what she's wanted for so long.
I agree with that which is part of what makes it frustrating. Seems more like they're teasing her and the like because it is Tai and I have a feeling if it were anyone other than Tai, they wouldn't be acting like this at all. Which makes the one-sided heavy attraction all the more dangerous to longevity.
-
I do agree that the timing on this development is rather odd, but as it was pointed out before, Dora's insecurity issues stemmed mostly from men. Tai being female may give her a different perspective that women are not as prone to disloyalty, even if it is irrational. If there's one good thing coming out of this, there's the possibility that Dora's soulmate just wasn't meant to be male and she still has a chance at happiness without years of therapy and abstinence.
I'm not going to set predictions on where this will go just yet, at least not until we hear what her therapist has to say.
-
Glad to see there's talk on this,was worried no one else found it...bothersome? I'll add more when I'm not on a phone. Just one quick addition to the discussion. Is Jeph just out to screw over Marten? Faye couldn't be with him because she had issues to work out. Faye works those issues out and ends up with Angus. Dora leaves Marten because of Past relationship issues, and before she resolves those issues,she begins dating again. These women ten down or leave him under the guise that if not for their own problems a relationship can exist, yet when the problem is fixed in Faye's case,she goes to someone else. In Dora's case she doesn't even bother to fix it and goes to some one else. I realize there were other issues in both cases but the underlying issues of the women in both situations played a huge role
-
Is Jeph just out to screw over Marten?
Jeph listed three things that will never appear in the comic: two of the old female bit characters, and happiness for Marten.
Dora is a balance of fear and desire. Fear won with Jim, although by 1963 she was already talking about trying to make it work anyway. It's within the plausible range of human fluctuation for desire to be surging ahead now. The apparent absence of fear is indeed troublesome.
It would be really, really bad if Dora is pursuing this out of curiosity. Curious people should pair up with each other and not with someone as serious as Tai seems to be.
-
...Faye couldn't be with him because she had issues to work out. Faye works those issues out and ends up with Angus. Dora leaves Marten because of Past relationship issues, and before she resolves those issues,she begins dating again.
And don't forget Padma and the crossed-signal relationship. She had a different issue - falling for him when she also felt she needed to leave - and couldn't reconcile it, and he was clueless about any of it thanks to a lack of communication (on both sides).
-
...Faye couldn't be with him because she had issues to work out. Faye works those issues out and ends up with Angus. Dora leaves Marten because of Past relationship issues, and before she resolves those issues,she begins dating again.
And don't forget Padma and the crossed-signal relationship. She had a different issue - falling for him when she also felt she needed to leave - and couldn't reconcile it, and he was clueless about any of it thanks to a lack of communication (on both sides).
And I would still argue that Marten's inability to deal directly with the issues arising out of Dora's insecurities until it burst out of him in bitter recriminations was a factor in their split. Maybe with an older and wiser head he might have been able to help Dora work through those issues.
-
Glad to see there's talk on this,was worried no one else found it...bothersome? I'll add more when I'm not on a phone. Just one quick addition to the discussion. Is Jeph just out to screw over Marten? Faye couldn't be with him because she had issues to work out. Faye works those issues out and ends up with Angus. Dora leaves Marten because of Past relationship issues, and before she resolves those issues,she begins dating again. These women ten down or leave him under the guise that if not for their own problems a relationship can exist, yet when the problem is fixed in Faye's case,she goes to someone else. In Dora's case she doesn't even bother to fix it and goes to some one else. I realize there were other issues in both cases but the underlying issues of the women in both situations played a huge role
Pretty much how I see it.
Is Jeph just out to screw over Marten?
Jeph listed three things that will never appear in the comic: two of the old female bit characters, and happiness for Marten.
Dora is a balance of fear and desire. Fear won with Jim, although by 1963 she was already talking about trying to make it work anyway. It's within the plausible range of human fluctuation for desire to be surging ahead now. The apparent absence of fear is indeed troublesome.
It would be really, really bad if Dora is pursuing this out of curiosity. Curious people should pair up with each other and not with someone as serious as Tai seems to be.
Really? When did he list that? Marten never finding happiness seems incredibly depressing. :psyduck:
I do agree that the timing on this development is rather odd, but as it was pointed out before, Dora's insecurity issues stemmed mostly from men. Tai being female may give her a different perspective that women are not as prone to disloyalty, even if it is irrational. If there's one good thing coming out of this, there's the possibility that Dora's soulmate just wasn't meant to be male and she still has a chance at happiness without years of therapy and abstinence.
I'm not going to set predictions on where this will go just yet, at least not until we hear what her therapist has to say.
That'd be a very shallow rational. That's more like an excuse of well, men hurt me so screw men, I'll just try women instead. Not out of any particular attraction to women, but some irrational logic that women won't hurt her. I don't think I could ever get behind that kind of relationship.
-
There's only so much I can gauge coming from a fictional characters head, but I think it's very much plausible. Not the idea that a woman wouldn't hurt her, but the simple fact that she will always see men the same way with her issues intact: selfish, unfaithful assholes that are not to be trusted. The fact that her own brother embodied the issues she's had in her past relationships with males only exacerbates the problem. If Tai's polyamorous ways ruin their relationship, her perspective might change, but I think Sven's influence has pretty much made it a given that she'll have more trouble committing to men.
Let's put it like this. Jim got the no-go, but Tai was an instant makeout. Where else could her mindset be?
-
Let's put it like this. Jim got the no-go, but Tai was an instant makeout. Where else could her mindset be?
That could well be an issue of distance. More time has passed, the wounds aren't as fresh. It's easier to fool yourself that it won't be a problem this time.
-
Jeph listed three things that will never appear in the comic: two of the old female bit characters, and happiness for Marten.
Really? When did he list that? Marten never finding happiness seems incredibly depressing. :psyduck:
I believe it was in a Tumblr Q/A dump a while back - shortly after the breakup, but before Padma?
-
http://jephjacques.com/post/11265563239/qa-dump-09
-
http://jephjacques.com/post/11265563239/qa-dump-09
It IS Jeph though. Could be fooling. Also, wouldn't ANY new strips with Marten in relationships then be a self-fulfulling prophesy of failure? I'd just be inclined to skip those strips then. :psyduck:
Back on topic. Was Jim shortly after therapy? He also had a kid. Keep that in mind. He probably wanted stable and Dora couldn't give that.
Straight to make-out with Tai? Legitimately questionable TERRIBLE call right there.
-
Also, wouldn't ANY new strips with Marten in relationships then be a self-fulfulling prophesy of failure? I'd just be inclined to skip those strips then. :psyduck:
Which is why we were all so psyched by Padma.
Back on topic. Was Jim shortly after therapy? He also had a kid. Keep that in mind. He probably wanted stable and Dora couldn't give that.
Jim was right after the starting of therapy. Dora wasn't only not ready for him, but was definitely unprepared for his daughter.
-
The more I see of Tai and Dora, the more I think of an oil fire and someone is about to throw water on it. Hot (not that kind of hot), explosive and someone is going to get burned while half the room goes up in flames.
As DSL said in the discussion thread, it's a pedestal situation and when it breaks (and it will), both of them are going to be really hurt. And I doubt Dora is going to say "Well, therapy has made me realise that the lion's share of the blame is with me, it's my fault." She's going to take a big step back.
-
Marten is friends with them both; he'll have to take quite a lot of the blast when the explosion happens.
-
Faye's therapist was startled, but not worried, when the Sven affair started. Maybe Dora is making more rapid progress than anyone expected.
Yeah, right. Maybe she's completely ready for a relationship and it will quietly work out with mutual acceptance and no drama. Right.
-
Would anyone actually describe Marten as miserable? DOOMED TO NEVER FIND HAPPINESS.
I don't see him like that at all.
-
Well, Marten's human. So is Jeph. So Marten may yet find happiness. Of course, I hope so.
-
Actually, Marten's a character, and those are the words of his author. So no, he's not miserable, because he has no clue as to his inability to find happiness.
It takes lifetime for that kind o misery to set in...
-
My feeling is that he already is mostly happy though. Or at least he completely has the potential to become happy, if he could allow himself to be.
-
Actually, Marten's a character, and those are the words of his author. So no, he's not miserable, because he has no clue as to his inability to find happiness.
It takes lifetime for that kind o misery to set in...
This is dangerously close to the classic "Fictional Characters have no Personality" debate.
-
My feeling is that he already is mostly happy though. Or at least he completely has the potential to become happy, if he could allow himself to be.
Marten is not happy, but in many respects he may well be content. This is a feeling I often decide I have myself.
-
Actually, Marten's a character, and those are the words of his author. So no, he's not miserable, because he has no clue as to his inability to find happiness.
It takes lifetime for that kind o misery to set in...
This is dangerously close to the classic "Fictional Characters have no Personality" debate.
Oh no, he has a personality, and it's pretty upbeat.
And that's because he has no clue as to his author's plans. As have we.
-
The idea that he's content mashes well with the comic title
Yea if he's destined to not find happiness in a relationship then why Boyer reading any story arc involving his love life? We already know the outcome.
-
There are a lot of twists, turns and hijinks between the beginning and inevitable end of a romantic relationship!
Besides, it's well worth the price of admission... :roll:
-
There are a lot of twists, turns and hijinks between the beginning and inevitable end of a romantic relationship!
Besides, it's well worth the price of admission... :roll:
Possibly. The problem comes though if we grow to really like some of his romantic interests yet to know that character is essentially doomed. Like Padma.
-
"Questionably Content". Heh. He could use that as a new band name.
-
Am I the only person who doesn't buy Dora/Tai? They just seem like a really poor match to me. Sticking the one bi character to the major lesbian character also seems a bit off when they're such different people. I don't expect they'll last. In fact, I hope they won't. Don't get me wrong - I would root for a better matched gay/bi partnership.
-
Actually, if you look around the forum, you'll find this is not an uncommon viewpoint.
-
Everyone has summed up Dora/Tai as not a great combo, Don't get me wrong though, it's not specifically because it's "The Lesbian and the only bi chick" issue,
It's because of what Dora is fast becoming, which as everyone elses viewpoint seems to agree with aswell as mine, She is now coming off as a vapid attention-seeker, pretty much regressing to the last time she was truly Bi, which, if my personality reading isn't skewed to hell, would indicate high school, so in short Dora is now grooming a teenagers personality in the middle of her 20's.. which is ridiculous.
That said, Tai having a romantic plot is long overdue properly after her whole sub-arc of trying to become Monogamous again, but Dora just isn't the person for this, Hell as impossible as it is due to it just being a ridiculous concept, but at this moment Tai/Marigold would seem more natural in my eyes.
-
Everyone has summed up Dora/Tai as not a great combo, Don't get me wrong though, it's not specifically because it's "The Lesbian and the only bi chick" issue,
It's because of what Dora is fast becoming, which as everyone elses viewpoint seems to agree with aswell as mine, She is now coming off as a vapid attention-seeker, pretty much regressing to the last time she was truly Bi, which, if my personality reading isn't skewed to hell, would indicate high school, so in short Dora is now grooming a teenagers personality in the middle of her 20's.. which is ridiculous.
That said, Tai having a romantic plot is long overdue properly after her whole sub-arc of trying to become Monogamous again, but Dora just isn't the person for this, Hell as impossible as it is due to it just being a ridiculous concept, but at this moment Tai/Marigold would seem more natural in my eyes.
As I said when the comic first started to seriously consider Tai/Dora, they just weren't/aren't compatible at this point in their lives. Dora is a self-made, reasonably successful young women in her mid to late 20s and if not for the Sven issue, would consider herself very successful. Tai is a college stoner who means well, is having issues of polyamorous and monogamy. Still a party girl, but looking to change.
They both want change, but vastly different kinds related to where they are in life. They are two people with massive relationship issues, Dora the worse, who should have waiting before jumping into a potentially disastrous affair.
You seem spot on with your connection that Dora is reverting to her HS days when she had girlfriends, possibly even her coven days (where she may have been equally self-absorbed). Being with Tai is already stunting the growth of therapy and bringing out an even worse side of Dora. The dress attire does make sense. Probably been a long time since she was with a girl and it was during a period of immaturity. It is definitely unsettling to a gal with her class, business success, and age reverting to this mess. And this is ONLY a day into the relationship. Imagine what subconscious stuff would come out down the line.
The Lesbian/Bi thing isn't even an issue at all. This is one problem with decent age differences. Different places in life and one or both sides trying to "age down" or "age up" to appease their partner. Just ughgh. A massive train wreck is coming. Not sure when, but it still come and I'm betting it'll be a worse kind of breakup than Marten/Dora if they let it last a reasonable amount of time.
Someone needs to nip this in the butt. :psyduck:
I'll be impressed if Jeph manages to pull this off believably because I just see no chemistry, connection, stability, and sanity (I get this is QC, so sanity is ALWAYS in question) but man oh man.
-
Relationships are consummately unpredictable.
My friend insisted that he knew the people involved and that this was true.
He was an accountant. He'd go to dinner parties and ask to be excused after he finished eating so he could go to a corner and read a math book.
She was a model, accustomed to throwing parties and greeting her guests at the door wearing high heels and a pair of red panties.
The first time they met, he asked her out and she said yes.
On their first date, he asked her to marry him, and she said yes.
At last sighting, they were still happily married.
If that can work, Dora/Tai can work. Though it sure looks like they're both in transition right now, which means each one is shooting at a moving target.
-
One thing I'm sort of chewing around is that it may be better for Dora to be with a woman at this point, as that may not trigger her insecurity issues as much as a man much, seeing as her bad experiences seems to have been mainly with men. But, of course, no guarantee for a happy relationship there.
-
It might bypass her fear of being mistreated, but not her fear of being unattractive.
-
Whether Dora/Tai works as a couple, or whether I or you or anyone else likes Dora/Tai as a couple, is beside the point. The point is how Jeph depicts the characters handling the relationship and its aftermath, if any.
-
But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?
-
I think perhaps the most ironic and interesting thing about this situation is that Dora feels like she is doing what she fears people are doing to her when she is in a relationship. She feels like people are just "settling" for her and just like the idea of a relationship rather than really wanting to be with her.
Where as that seems exactly like what she is doing to Tai. It seems like she is interested because Tai is pursuing, not because Tai is Tai.
-
One thing I'm sort of chewing around is that it may be better for Dora to be with a woman at this point, as that may not trigger her insecurity issues as much as a man much, seeing as her bad experiences seems to have been mainly with men. But, of course, no guarantee for a happy relationship there.
That's just avoiding the problem entirely, not solving. Can't say I agree with life decisions such as those. She needs to get over her hurdle with men. Many not for romantic purposes in the future, but over the hurdle in general.
And what isn't to say she runs into the same issue with the ladies as well? Then she's stuck up a river with no paddle.
Agreed Emperor Norton. You'd think with the amount of time they've been around, there'd be at least SOME level of attraction to Tai in the romantic sense to even go out on one date. But, as you said, it is a struggle to see beyond Dora being interested because Tai is so heavily pursuing her. There's still that sense of Dora on a pedestal to Tai, Dora treating Tai like a younger sister (dunno if I'll ever get beyond that even if they do last. Just weird), and the regression socially to her seemingly adolescent bi days.
-
But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?
Why not?
In fact, since what we see of the characters (including how we project our own experiences/prejudices &c. onto them) has everything to do with how Jeph depicts them, how can we discuss anything else?
-
I agree with the general consensus that Dora is reverting. I floated the idea at the beginning of the week that she hadn't dated girls which was proved wrong by this weeks strips. Reverting to what she did when dating girls is the only plausible explanation for going back to a teenage goth look.
In the bigger picture, I'm worried about what will happen to the larger social circle if Dora/Tai goes out as spectacularly as the majority seems to think it will. The group of friends mostly survived intact after Marten and Dora broke up, but as break ups go, it was fairly amicable. And there was still a period where there was a subtle dance the friends were doing around both Marten and Dora until they reconciled and went back to "friends" status.
In real life, breakups within a circle of friends can cause said circles to implode, forcing people to choose who they are more loyal to out of the pair. There are so many delicate connections that could be shattered here and cause lasting damage to all the people involved.
I really hope Dora is taking this more seriously than she seems to be.
-
But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?
Why not?
In fact, since what we see of the characters (including how we project our own experiences/prejudices &c. onto them) has everything to do with how Jeph depicts them, how can we discuss anything else?
Not too sure what you mean. We can't discuss whether they are a good couple, but we can discuss how they are depicted. What do you mean by depicted? The way they are drawn? I'm honestly confused.
-
Drawn, written (which in a comic includes the drawing) ... everything that influences how we see them. Because that's the only way they exist.
-
We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?
We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.
These seem inconsistent; the first says we can't, the second says we can - that's why there is puzzlement.
-
"I don't care if people overanalyze things. I mean, I think it's stupid, and they're wrong 99% of the time, but that's kind of what forums are FOR."
Is anyone ever really ready for a relationship?
-
If you wait until you're completely ready to do something, it will never get done.
-
But we can't discuss how Jeph depicts the characters, can we?
We can discuss the imaginary world and the imaginary characters that exists therein. I don't see any problem at all with that and I have no idea what you're talking about.
These seem inconsistent; the first says we can't, the second says we can - that's why there is puzzlement.
Now I'm even more puzzled.
-
English is not only difficult, it's ugly.
-
:cry:
-
I thought I would able to clear this confusion up, but when I tried to put it into words, I realised I couldn't. So I'll fall back onto the trusty method of answering a question with a question. And since DSL started this by asking what idontunderstand meant, I'll throw it to him. :)
So, you said:
The point is how Jeph depicts the characters handling the relationship and its aftermath, if any.
You didn't say:
The point is how the characters handle the relationship and its aftermath, if any.
So my question is:
Why did you phrase your statement the first way and not the second?
Even if you think they mean the same thing (which you may or may not), I'm curious to know why you chose that particular way of putting it.
-
The characters don't exist without Jeph depicting them. Everything that happens in the strip is a result of Jeph writing and drawing.
-
I don't think you answered my question...
-
Let's agree to disagree on that.
-
No, sorry, I don't bloody well agree to disagree.
Why did you choose that phrasing? It's not a difficult question.
-
I'd just like to expand on why I think the distinction between the characters and how Jeph depects them is important when it comes to our discussions on these forums.
You may think that the distinction is unimportant or nonexistant. But I think that it is critically important.
It's a question of whether you want to respect the fourth wall, basically.
If you do respect the fourth wall, then we can discuss the ethics of the characters' actions, cleverness, whether they were wise, foolish, or whatever, based on what we've seen. People obviously draw on their real life experiences in doing so. As such, we treat the characters and their stories as real for the purposes of discussing principles that apply to all of us.
However, if we're going to just rip the fourth wall down, then we're just down to discussing what we think Jeph will do next. I don't think that's anything like as useful or interesting a focal point for discussion. Unless you're interested in drawing your own comic, I suppose. Beyond anything else, I can't read Jeph's mind and don't know him.
The discussions aren't really about Jeph: they are about fictional characters, and more to the point, situations and flaws that those characters experiences that we can discuss because we've seen those flaws and situations in our own lives.
Breaking down the fourth wall also leaves geniune discussions open to sabotage. If we disagre as to what is likely to happen next (again, based on our own experiences), and then one thing happens, you can always refuse to cede ground by basically inferring that Jeph is "wrong".
So I do think there is a pretty massive difference between discussing the characters and discussing how Jeph depects the characters, even though one can't happen without the other.
-
It's not a difficult question, and I gave a not-difficult answer.
You may expound however you like; you don't need my help.
-
Most of us discuss actions of real human beings as if they have free will. Yet some believe they don't, that all that happens is pre-ordained. In the QC-verse, Jeph is God. Doesn't stop me from thinking about the likely actions of the characters, but it's foolish to take it very seriously since pre-ordination is a fact, not a conjecture.
For a while, I used to hang out on a forum of people discussing the print comic Luann. They discussed whether, for example, the actions of a manager toward an employee were legal, and whether he could sue for ... whatever. That to me was taking the story too far. It was clear to most readers that the creator of the strip didn't think in those terms. I read the discussion of character and emotions and possibilities for future action and behavior here, for edification and entertainment and in light of my own experiences. But again, I don't take it seriously. Yet, anyway.
-
It's not a difficult question, and I gave a not-difficult answer.
When I ask "why did you say A instead of B", it is not answering the question by claiming that there is no difference between A and B.
I want to know why you said A. Regardless of whether you think they are the same thing (which I'm perfectly willing to accept for the time being purely for the sake of the argument - it's irrelevant).
Even "no reason; I chose arbitrarily" would do.
If you're not interested in answering, fine. I'll drop it.
-
Talented writers have said more than once that it feels like their characters have free will and are not under the writer's control.
Straczynski even said "I don't make the news, I just report it".
Anyway, we and Jeph are playing a game of make-believe, and the nature of that game is that we think of the characters as real as long as we're playing.
-
Just for the record I have a feeling I've been misquoted somewhere.
I understood this quote
Whether Dora/Tai works as a couple, or whether I or you or anyone else likes Dora/Tai as a couple, is beside the point. The point is how Jeph depicts the characters handling the relationship and its aftermath, if any.
as meaning that we cannot discuss anything else than the technicalities of the comic, such as the drawing style, how successful Jeph is at portraying a believable character, how successfully it deals with contemporary issues, if that's it's goal and purpose, etc. And I can't understand that point of view, that's why I asked. I think I phrased my question somewhat stupidly, since what I meant wasn't really that we can't discuss things like that, but that we can, and most likely will, discuss many other things than that. I don't see any problem with discussing the actions and ideas of the characters in any given fictional story, be it a webcomic, The Count of Monte-Cristo, or the Bible. What the hell is a story for if you can't at least partly treat it as real and applicable to the real world?
-
From his conversation with Tova upthread, one might conclude that DSL believes you are making a distinction without a difference to support it. That is, that the depiction necessarily includes all of that by its very nature and that separating out the physicality (as much as it can be on electronic media) of the artwork from the characterisation of the subjects is somewhere between pointless and impossible.
But I could be wide of the mark here.
-
@idonotunderstand: Ah, I see...
I would suggest that DSL's remark about depiction can be seen as ambiguous, and you have taken it one specific way. It could be taken to refer to the manner in which Jeph describes whatever happens in the relationship (however that may be decided); or it could be taken to refer to the way that Jeph decides what happens (though like other writers, he often says that the characters decide).
The issue is whether "depict" refers to the design of the description, or to the design of the story (the decision what is to be described). To illustrate that the word can lean both ways, consider: "I decided to depict this aspect of their relationship explicitly, to make it clear what's happening" and "I decided to depict their relationship as developing positively, rather than hesitantly".
-
That is pretty much the kind of thing I was trying to tease out, and was someone perplexed when I was met with what looked like evasion for no obvious reason. Oh well.
I find the distinction interesting - something akin to player-character separation in roleplaying - and also fundamental to the nature of our discussions here.
-
pwhodges: Well thanks, that pretty much clears it up (and also thanks for correcting the faulty grammar of my username...).
Still curious about what you, DSL, exactly meant though?
-
Just checking back in to find out what I said ...
-
Still curious about what you, DSL, exactly meant though?
Lacking any response to the contrary, I'm going to stick my neck out and offer my interpretation:
"I refuse to be immersed in the narrative."
Normally, lack of narrative immersion could be put down to bad storytelling, but it can happen when someone simply finds the storyline incredulous. I think that's what is really going on.
Feel free to shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong! :evil:
-
If that horse is not dead, it's at least seriously ill.
-
Sorry. I'm being combative. Don't know why. I'll leave it alone.
-
Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.
-
...as she does a double-grab-ass while kissing her. :-\
-
It's the patented part of full fledged Dora-kisses (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=565).
-
Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.
Or, even if it's not about herself, she's aware of just how much Tai is into her, and knows she needs to slow Tai down more than herself.
-
Well, today's comic is relevant. Dora says she needs to take it slow(ly). She may realize that she's not ready to jump in yet.
Or, even if it's not about herself, she's aware of just how much Tai is into her, and knows she needs to slow Tai down more than herself.
I think it is more about knowing how much Tai is in to her. Agreed on that. I think it is more a matter of not knowing how she really feels about Tai in the romantic sense and doesn't wanna commit anything to Tai too fast too soon. Like a booty call. That'd be a massive sucker punch to Tai to give into some physical loving and the bumpin of uglies only to figure out she either A:) Still isn't ready for a relationship, particularly a committed one, B:) Just can't see herself long term with Tai, C:) Just doesn't feel that way after all for Tai or D:) The unknown. Meets someone else, second thoughts, yadda yadda.
Dora being mature in that sense. Just hope she doesn't tease Tai too much, like the double booty grab, through all this before she decides what she really wants. That's one way to screw up her progress and become all those past BFs who treated her like dirt.
Hell, I hope they put off the bumpin of uglies for as long as possible. For both their sakes.
-
At least long enough for Tai to get over the initial unrealism of infatuation and for Dora to understand her own feelings.
-
It's the patented part of full fledged Dora-kisses (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=565).
Hmmm. I imagine I could find prior art if I put my mind to it.
-
Well, there's the one where she flashed Marten, but that wasn't a kiss.
-
I'd just like to expand on why I think the distinction between the characters and how Jeph depects them is important when it comes to our discussions on these forums.
You may think that the distinction is unimportant or nonexistant. But I think that it is critically important.
It's a question of whether you want to respect the fourth wall, basically.
If you do respect the fourth wall, then we can discuss the ethics of the characters' actions, cleverness, whether they were wise, foolish, or whatever, based on what we've seen. People obviously draw on their real life experiences in doing so. As such, we treat the characters and their stories as real for the purposes of discussing principles that apply to all of us.
However, if we're going to just rip the fourth wall down, then we're just down to discussing what we think Jeph will do next. I don't think that's anything like as useful or interesting a focal point for discussion. Unless you're interested in drawing your own comic, I suppose. Beyond anything else, I can't read Jeph's mind and don't know him.
The discussions aren't really about Jeph: they are about fictional characters, and more to the point, situations and flaws that those characters experiences that we can discuss because we've seen those flaws and situations in our own lives.
Breaking down the fourth wall also leaves geniune discussions open to sabotage. If we disagre as to what is likely to happen next (again, based on our own experiences), and then one thing happens, you can always refuse to cede ground by basically inferring that Jeph is "wrong".
So I do think there is a pretty massive difference between discussing the characters and discussing how Jeph depects the characters, even though one can't happen without the other.
I don't agree, and think that what you are asking DSL about is indeed a distinction without a difference, if I understand both your question and his post that prompted it. Breaking the 4th wall isn't something the audience does, so IMO the whole issuse of the 4th wall doesn't even enter into the discussion.
Basically, as I see it, he's saying that what we know about the characters, their personalities, situations, backstories, etc., is derived entirely from how Jeph has depicted them. We don't know anything except what he tells us, so we really have no way to separate what we know from his depiction. What will happen, and how the characters will react, is a matter of what he shows us.
OTOH, I think that there are other ways that the question might be framed where the distinction does make a difference. If we talk about HOW the characters should behave, or what advice we'd give them if they were someone we knew IRL, we can separate that from what we think Jeph shoud have happen. For example, in the present story arc, I think most of us feel that instead of going on a date with her, Dora should have told Tai something along the lines of, "I'm flattered, and I am attracted to you, but I can't handle a new romantic relationship right now, so if that's what you're looking for, I'm not the person to look for it with". But if we talk about it in terms of what direction Jeph should take the story, it's entirely reasonable to say the he should have Dora go on the date, because it leads to more potentially good story lines going forward (though Dora turning Tai down would not have been completely without storytelling potential).
I hope I'm not rambling too much here, and that I've actually made the point I was trying to make.
-
OTOH, I think that there are other ways that the question might be framed where the distinction does make a difference. If we talk about HOW the characters should behave, or what advice we'd give them if they were someone we knew IRL, we can separate that from what we think Jeph shoud have happen. For example, in the present story arc, I think most of us feel that instead of going on a date with her, Dora should have told Tai something along the lines of, "I'm flattered, and I am attracted to you, but I can't handle a new romantic relationship right now, so if that's what you're looking for, I'm not the person to look for it with". But if we talk about it in terms of what direction Jeph should take the story, it's entirely reasonable to say the he should have Dora go on the date, because it leads to more potentially good story lines going forward (though Dora turning Tai down would not have been completely without storytelling potential).
Not wanting to go too deeply into a discussion that has already been killed off. But (although I have no idea which question you're referring to in your first sentence quoted above) that's just the separation I had in mind. And as far as I could tell, the OP of this thread was framed very much in the first case you mentioned (how the characters should behave, etc). But DSL stated that was beside the point, and that all that was important was what direction Jeph chooses to take. Whereas I think that, while either conversation is perfectly cromulent, the thread was about the first case, and that this was far from "beside the point".
I hope that clarifies my position for you.
-
"God ha' mercy! What cannot be racked from words in five centuries? One could wring, methinks, a flood from a damp clout!"
-- William Shakespeare, as depicted by Isaac Asimov in his short story "The Immortal Bard"
-
DSL, If you don't want to partake in the discussion, you're free to stand aside.
-
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!
-
Who are you parroting there, eh?
-
Equinenecrosadism. *
Kinda rolls off the tongue, don't it?
And I think DSL is, indeed, participating. The quote was perfectly germaine.
(http://i070.radikal.ru/1008/4c/aef5235d9dda.jpg)
*Literally, beating a dead horse.
-
You're all weirdos.
-
Germaine like Greer? Or germane like relevant?
Because the first really would be weird….
-
It was also Jermaine. (can't believe I knew that)
-
You're all weirdos.
Of course we all are! That's beauty of it and QC being weird.
-
A horse (http://gifsoup.com/MzgzNTc4MQ) that is not dead.
-
Honestly now though: I have no idea what all this horse-imagery is about. We've been discussing for about one page, all in all. We've had discussions on Dora's new hairstyle longer than that. It's fine if you think it's a stupid discussion, but then would you at least tell me why? Some stuff is lost in translation, it seems.
-
Going in circles and thirteen posts in a row that aren't about the Tai/Dora relationship.
-
How is it going in circles when some people won't clarify what they're saying? And OMIGOSH, THIRTEEN POSTS, somebody better call the fire brigade on that it's a miracle the board doesn't collapse under the weight of THIRTEEN posts I mean jesus
Let's drop the sarcasms though, shall we? I feel like this is the "make fun of idontunderstand and Tova" thread right now.
-
Oh, dear.
So sorry about that, no one's trying to make fun of anyone (at least, I'm not, and as I read it no one else is, either). Clearly some things are definitely being lost in translation.
The expression "beating a dead horse" is used whenever a topic is hashed out, rehashed, and then revisited again, even though either a) everyhthing that could be said has been said, or b) it doesn't matter. In this case, the difference between what DSL said and what others said (was it you? I don't remember anymore) was so minute as to not even matter. Discussing the characters, and discussing how Jeph depicts the characters, is essentially the same thing. Either way, we are discussing Dora, Tai, Marten, and how they behave, because that's what Jeph is depicting.
However, you (and others) seized on a slight difference in semantics, even though DSL disclaimed it (as I recall - I'm not going through the whole thread again!)
So that's why we've been calling it "beating a dead horse". There's really no reason to keep going around about a difference that really doesn't exist!
And again, sorry for making you feel like your English is inadequate - it's really very good, but as I'm sure you know, there will always be some idioms that just don't travel well!
-
I feel like this is the "make fun of idontunderstand and Tova" thread right now.
The moderators will enforce the civility rule long before a thread goes that sour.
-
Oh, dear.
So sorry about that, no one's trying to make fun of anyone (at least, I'm not, and as I read it no one else is, either). Clearly some things are definitely being lost in translation.
The expression "beating a dead horse" is used whenever a topic is hashed out, rehashed, and then revisited again, even though either a) everyhthing that could be said has been said, or b) it doesn't matter. In this case, the difference between what DSL said and what others said (was it you? I don't remember anymore) was so minute as to not even matter. Discussing the characters, and discussing how Jeph depicts the characters, is essentially the same thing. Either way, we are discussing Dora, Tai, Marten, and how they behave, because that's what Jeph is depicting.
However, you (and others) seized on a slight difference in semantics, even though DSL disclaimed it (as I recall - I'm not going through the whole thread again!)
So that's why we've been calling it "beating a dead horse". There's really no reason to keep going around about a difference that really doesn't exist!
And again, sorry for making you feel like your English is inadequate - it's really very good, but as I'm sure you know, there will always be some idioms that just don't travel well!
I probably shouldn't speak for someone else (especially since I've already done it once in this thread) but I think that idontunderstand knows what "beating a dead horse" means (though he might not have gotten the equinenecrosadism bit). He just doesn't see how it applies to this thread. Maybe I'm just projecting, though, because frankly, I don't see how it applies, either--it seems to me that there is still a disconnect between the way DSL views the discussion of the comic and the way Tova views it. And Tova said that he didn't want to let it go, and that he didn't want to agree to disagree with DSL, so I tried to explain to him what I thought DSL was trying to get across, and then it seemed like everyone thought I was beating a dead horse, which I don't see why people think that. It's not like I resurrected a thread from 2 years ago or something.
-
Ho hum. Oh well. I think the discussion has gone to waste now anyway. To be honest I've forgotten what's been said already. It might be a slight difference in semantics or it might be an actual issue, I'm not even sure anymore. I'll leave it.
Props to Carl-E for being my white knight of stupid misunderstandings. :-D
-
*BLOOOP*
"Ten seconds to a Warp Core breach."
*BLOOOP*
-
When has Dora ever dated someone she had a lot in common with?
-
When she was goth, she dated goths.
And she and Marten looked a lot alike.
Other than that...
-
They encouraged because now Dora will be doing Tairapy when she isn't doing therapy :-D
.
.
.
Ok, terrible joke...
When she was goth, she dated goths.
And she and Marten looked a lot alike.
Other than that...
So all her past relationships were some sort of masturbation?
-
"Self-abuse"?