THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: Gyrre on 21 Jan 2018, 16:52
-
I'm no Nostradamus., just some fun ideas.
-
Hang on, I didn't include enough votes for the poll.
EDIT: poll is fixed!
-
Faye, you're about to break the first rule of robot fight club!
-
"Robot sex dungeon"
:lol: :laugh: :-D
Bubbles would CHOKE right there...
-
Okay, I think I see where this is going now.
In her offscreen conversation with Bubbles, Evie didn't say anything horribly bigoted about AIs in general. Instead, she put forth her working theory that the true determining factor of sentience is continuity of experience (or something along those lines). She assumed that it was a reassuring statement, but she had no idea that Bubbles had had her memory wiped.
Faye is going to reveal this information to Evie now, and Evie is going to realize her awful mistake.
-
"Robot sex dungeon"
:lol: :laugh: :-D
Bubbles would CHOKE Evie right there...
(with an USB cable or three ...)
FYP
-
"Robot sex dungeon"
:lol: :laugh: :-D
Bubbles would CHOKE right there...
...I mean...to Punchbot it seemed almost like it was at times. >.>
Faye is going to reveal this information to Evie now, and Evie is going to realize her awful mistake.
This sounds plausible, but I'm not sure Faye would feel it's her place to share those specific details with a relative stranger, rather than the already mentioned "been through some shit" ambiguity.
-
WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL...
(http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3003)
Bubbles: "Are you here to enter him in the fights?"
Pintsize: "I'm a lover, not a fighter!"
Bubbles: "We have a tournament for that, as well."
:-D
-
Well... there were robots...
and lots of very loud, ah, banging... literally.
-
With the poll, another possibility could be "Melon is a waitress, and the bug thing wasn't a metaphor." :evil:
-
I have to say, a lot of those poll options don’t feel like the start of a comic, they feel more like punchlines.
-
You know, it really isn't fair, the way Amanda and Evie are laughing to themselves about Faye's feelings for Bubbles. That said, I suppose that it's a sign of emotional maturity on their part that they're not needling her about it or going 'Squee' and babbling about 'planning for the big day'. From that, they could probably teach Claire a lot about controlling your reactions! :-D
I think I can see where Jeph is taking this now. Faye coming to a realisation simply because she has to explain something that she's never bothered to think about herself to someone else.
"Robot sex dungeon"
:lol: :laugh: :-D
Bubbles would CHOKE right there...
Either that or we would learn that robots can snort-giggle. Or, possibly, look at Faye and blush brightly, something which Faye won't understand at all.
P.S.: Can anyone read the diner's name on the menus? It looks like 'Happy Hour' or 'Happy House' to me.
-
It looks like an advertisement for their happy hour.
-
I can't possibly be the first to point this out, but I stumbled across #2262 just now and it involves a suggestion that Faye leave Angus for a female robot.
P.S.: Can anyone read the diner's name on the menus? It looks like 'Happy Hour' or 'Happy House' to me.
My guess is that card on the table is just advertising the happy hour specials (common term for 'earlier than normal time for alcohol' in the bar/restaurant world, in America at least) and is not the name of the place.
-
Well... there were robots...
and lots of very loud, ah, banging... literally.
And possibly clanking from the sound of things.
(Yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I know that slang).
-
The way this is playing out, with A and E pretty much smirking all the way through this, and Faye totally unaware of it, makes me wonder what her reaction is going to be like when/if the penny eventually drops.
(Or they flat out just ASK her)
I'm finding it hard to read their expressions though.
Initially I thought it was "Awh how cute! she doesn't KNOW she's smitten with the big robot lady!"
but today's (Amanda especially) makes me think... "Is she laughing AT Faye??"
-
P.S.: Can anyone read the diner's name on the menus? It looks like 'Happy Hour' or 'Happy House' to me.
Sometimes I can match up a location in QC to a real-life Northampton counterpart (for example, Clinton and Brun clearly ate at Local Burger (http://www.localnorthampton.com/)), but I'm struggling with this one. I don't know a place in town that looks like a diner but has live music and a happy hour.
-
Well... there were robots...
and lots of very loud, ah, banging... literally.
And possibly clanking from the sound of things.
(Yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I know that slang).
I'm not sure ifI should be thanking Urban Dictionary or cursing it.
-
Good news: Delivery of books and such from the Kickstarter is now underway!
Bad news: It probably won't end up here until after I move... :-(
-
If Evie met Pintsize I can see how she might jump to that conclusion.
-
I guess I'm seeing this exactly opposite from the general response. I don't think that Faye is smitten with Bubbles. Don't get me wrong: Faye's very, very fond of Bubbles and cares very much about her. They've been through Hell together, and between Bubbles keeping Faye sober and Faye keeping Bubbles from imploding after the memory arc, there is no way that they couldn't be tightly bound to one another.
I just don't think that Faye feels romantically attracted to Bubbles. I think that Amanda, Evie, and Claire, are reading something into her behavior which just isn't there.
But I'd be truly happy to be wrong -- it'd make for some first-rate conflict and character development. Also, squeeing.
-
The most natural reading of Faye's comments is as you said close friendship. There is some room to see unacknowledged romantic interest.
-
I do think that there is a certain kind of love from Faye for Bubbles, I just don't think its romantic.
I don't know how many people have ready CS Lewis' book "The Four Loves", but there's one he discusses called "Philia", the friend bond, when one sees another as close to them as a sibling. Its the one that develops between two people with similar interests, values or in the case of Bubbles and Faye, similar pasts. Both had to deal with extremely traumatic events in their respective pasts; Faye's father committing suicide, Bubbles' team getting killed. Both tried to get away from those events that eventually affected them (Faye's alcoholism, Bubbles' locking the memories and accidental loss of said memories). Both hit rock bottom, but while Faye had Marten and Dora and Hanners, who did Bubbles have? Corpse Witch, the one who had her in that position in the first place. Faye saw herself in Bubbles and has tried to help her, still trying to help her. And Bubbles has done the same with Faye.
The problem is that Bubbles might be feeling "Eros", Erotic/Romantic love (or what people tend to think of today as "the only kind" of love).
There's certainly love between Bubbles and Faye, but I'm also certain that Faye's love is a different kind to the one Bubbles might feel and certainly different to the one Amanda and Evie have convinced themselves of.
-
You can also have romantic love without a sexual component. Which might be Bubbles' state.
Waiting for new strip to post... ugh...
-
Robot Birds and Bees time!
http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3662
-
Of course this is Faye who has a long record of not really understanding her own feelings.
-
I'm beginning to see Evie's role in this strip. She's the author substitute mouthpiece to deliver exposition, specifically about how some elements of AI works in Jeph's universe. There are two obvious things that jump out to me:
- "... can choose..." - That suggests that some synthetics have rigged themselves to experience certain responses without conscious choice or have developed that ability ("It's psychosomatic", as Roko put it);
- "... the vast majority..." - So, yeah, there are some AIs that choose permanent pleasure and nirvana of sorts. I wonder if they're considered medical cases or defectives for recycling?
At least in Pintsize's case, whilst I can imagine the little pervert getting up to all sorts of things, being permanently high isn't one of them. He needs his wits about him if he is to give his best shot at weirding everyone else out and that sort of rules out over-use of such 'recreational DLLs'. May has been shown abusing similar software bugs/features but, again, she doesn't over-use from what I can see.
BTW, Evie's line in panel 4 suggests to me that she knows of Pintsize. Of course, she studies AI psychology, so it's unlikely that she wouldn't know of him. He's probably listed under "Abnormal AI Psychology - Case Study Zero"! :laugh:
However, at least for me, the biggest take-away from this strip is this: For a synthetic, sex is mostly in the mind. They don't necessarily need the specialist software but it's probably more common for them to do so.
[Edit - Fixed two glaring typos]
-
I hope this restaurant scene, with all its exposition, is laying the foundation for some movement in the Faye/Bubbles relationship, whatever that may be. Fayes cluelessness is understandable and realistic for the character, but in the overall story it starts to feel unnecessarily stretched out.
-
I hope this restaurant scene, with all its exposition, is laying the foundation for some movement in the Faye/Bubbles relationship, whatever that may be. Fayes cluelessness is understandable and realistic for the character, but in the overall story it starts to feel unnecessarily stretched out.
I couldn't agree more. Is JJ deliberately playing with our nerves?
-
That's the main problem with exposition, in this medium. Either you have a wall of text, or you need to work it into the story, which messes with your pace. Or, the third option, set up an arc specifically to deliver your message, but that doesn't quite help when you need the context for a certain situation.
I do think that there is a certain kind of love from Faye for Bubbles, I just don't think its romantic.
...
There's certainly love between Bubbles and Faye, but I'm also certain that Faye's love is a different kind to the one Bubbles might feel and certainly different to the one Amanda and Evie have convinced themselves of.
You might have a point there. This is one point where I like the scholastic differentiation: having the separate terms makes the discussion so much clearer.
Either way, I'm not boarding that ship until it's off the stocks. The launch might still have some unpleasant surprises.
Edited for proofreading.
-
For a synthetic, sex is mostly in the mind
Yet another thing they have in common with us.
-
Well, Jeph has now clearly set the groundwork for a human-AI relationship in the comic.
Now, will that be Faye and Bubbles? It's clearly what he's teasing, but who knows.
It's nice to finally get some concrete explanation on robot pleasure after 15 years of Pintsize.
-
It's nice to finally get some concrete explanation on robot pleasure after 15 years of Pintsize.
Did you ever read the little perv's twitter? If so, I'm wondering how learning that he can do that in his head anytime he chooses elicits a 'Finally!' from you ... :wink:
(I could have done without that knowledge)
-
And this why Amanda’s girlfriend had to be a grad student specializing in AI studies to provide exposition.
-
And this why Amanda’s girlfriend had to be a grad student specializing in AI studies to provide exposition.
After reading today's strip, I was also wondering how much of Evie's first 'lecture' was about "terminally obnoxious academics lecturing people about their own lives" and how much was simply .... exposition (i.e. Evie not acting as a character, but as a 'function')
-
I have to say, a lot of those poll options don’t feel like the start of a comic, they feel more like punchlines.
I wrote these before I even got out of bed Sunday. (Wonky sleep cycle)
-
Well... there were robots...
and lots of very loud, ah, banging... literally.
And possibly clanking from the sound of things.
(Yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I know that slang).
I'm not sure ifI should be thanking Urban Dictionary or cursing it.
The answer usually seems to be "both".
'Thanks, I hate it.' or 'Fuck you, I love it.' is the bigger question.
-
New comic is up.
And I was almost expecting an anime collapse or something.
And as funny as the joke was, I feel like it might have a deeper view into Faye's mind regarding Bubbles. Maybe she is oblivious to something that other people see, or it might be that other people are seeing something that isn't there.
-
Now, Faye. It isn't nice to puncture your sister's and her girlfriend's
obnoxious well-intentioned but incorrect impressions of you like that.
Tsk, tsk.
-
New Comic!
...
...
Jeph why? Why would you do this? Why do you want to hurt me Jeph?
-
I do think that there is a certain kind of love from Faye for Bubbles, I just don't think its romantic.
I don't know how many people have ready CS Lewis' book "The Four Loves", but there's one he discusses called "Philia", the friend bond, when one sees another as close to them as a sibling.
(snip)
My rather bitter reading, after a couple of decades of exposure to fandom, is that most either don't know/believe that one exists, or dismiss or ignore it because they're just here for the fantasy/the pr0n.
-
Snhnhnhnhn ... I mean ... Ohnoes! Jeph! What are you doingsnort ...
-
Faye... *facepalm*
Bubbles doesn't want a boyfriend. She wants you.
-
So how are we to interpret Faye thinking back to Bubbles calling her beautiful as she's about to fall asleep, smiling and blushing? That isn't really something you do with just a friend.
-
And as funny as the joke was, I feel like it might have a deeper view into Faye's mind regarding Bubbles. Maybe she is oblivious to something that other people see, or it might be that other people are seeing something that isn't there.
Backing you up here. It‘s obvious that Bubbles has feelings for Faye. But vice versa? I haven‘t noticed comparable feelings by Faye yet. But let‘s wait and see, I suppose it‘s clear in wich direction Jeph is taking the story here.
TM
-
Classic setup, this; the protagonist goes to find their best friend a suitable SO but everyone they identify is either “unworthy” or makes them feel jealous for no obvious reason (only to them of course) until the eventual epiphany/kiss.
-
So how are we to interpret Faye thinking back to Bubbles calling her beautiful as she's about to fall asleep, smiling and blushing? That isn't really something you do with just a friend.
That she's flattered by being thought of as attractive by a good friend (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1699)?
-
So, more stretching…
And at this point it seems almost strange to me that none of the other characters has dropped a hint or two (or ten) on poor oblivious Faye. It seems pretty obvious that the others, even relative strangers like Amanda and Evie, see – something – between Faye and Bubbles. And, even if they're just imagining things, wouldn't it be the right thing to politely point that out to Faye or Bubbles, rather than watching them stumble around each other in the dark?
But I think we’re getting there…
-
Well, maybe tomorrow we'll see ... wait...
*runs off to check Patreon*
Ha. Well. Anyway. As you were. :mrgreen:
-
Always fascinating when an artist who actively dislikes this forum and a large portion of his fanbase for shipping has his own characters ship unironically.
-
As Jeph put it in the news post space today, Faye is oblivious. I think that she also probably has disregarded all of Bubbles hints, partly because I don't think that she has ever consciously considered this but mainly because (and this is sad) I can't see Faye seeing anyone loving her in that manner ever again without being led to that realisation by the nose.
So how are we to interpret Faye thinking back to Bubbles calling her beautiful as she's about to fall asleep, smiling and blushing? That isn't really something you do with just a friend.
The key element is 'conscious realisation'. It is probably related to Faye's discussion about ideal partners in this strip (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3605). IMO at least, Jeph is just reminding us here that Faye isn't consciously fully (or even more than slightly partly) aware of Bubbles being attracted to her but, on a subconscious level, a part of her is aware and is more than willing to reciprocate.
This is realistic, IMO. I don't think most people take one look at someone and say 'yes'. They have to fight back against their own neuroses and self-doubts first as well as learn to interpret subconscious messages on both side. No, I'm not expecting any quick resolutions here, BTW.
Classic setup, this; the protagonist goes to find their best friend a suitable SO but everyone they identify is either “unworthy” or makes them feel jealous for no obvious reason (only to them of course) until the eventual epiphany/kiss.
Basically, yeah: It's a classic romcom plot framework. I wonder if Jeph's just going to knock it down quickly or if he's planning on play this out, either seriously or satirically.
Well, maybe tomorrow we'll see ... wait...
*runs off to check Patreon*
Ha. Well. Anyway. As you were. :mrgreen:
Please don't do that; it's not polite.
-
Grin. love panel 6 of today (3663)
-
Always fascinating when an artist who actively dislikes this forum and a large portion of his fanbase for shipping has his own characters ship unironically.
The sort of shipping that is discouraged is when there are no indications in the comic that the relationship might or even could happen. With Bubbles and Faye, it's been made clear enough that Bubbles has feelings for Faye, though maybe not the other way round.
Anyway, Amanda and Evie's wide-eyed enthusiasm about it does them no favours. I wouldn't want to be seen behaving like that.
-
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
-
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
Hmmm...
I was not aware of that!
Sounds like the "Oldfield School of Fandom" to me.
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
-
The line of dialogue from 3663 reminds me of the "artificial-intelligence-based interactive game" Façade from 2005
if you say "melon", Bubbles and Faye will stand there in shock for a moment and remove you from the premises.
-
Faye, next strip would be a great time to say "just kidding."
-
I admit that I find that a little confounding myself.
Edit: Whoops. Totally failed to notice there was another page.
-
Well, maybe tomorrow we'll see ... wait...
*runs off to check Patreon*
Ha. Well. Anyway. As you were. :mrgreen:
Chapeau! The cheerful sadism, the casual delivery: Most inspiring!
I mean, you'll still die a slow, painful death for this, but: Well done!
-
So, more stretching…
And at this point it seems almost strange to me that none of the other characters has dropped a hint or two (or ten) on poor oblivious Faye.
I think Dora did outright ask her at one point, "Do you have a crush on Bubbles?" (possibly jokingly), to which Faye responded, "What? No!" Can't remember the comic number but I think it was around the time they were getting Union Robotics set up.
I agree with Castlerook's interpretation of Faye and Bubbles's relationship - i.e. that Bubbles's feelings are romantic whereas Faye's are platonic. I like Evie as a character as well; I get the impression Jeph wanted to expand on AI lore quite a bit this week, and doing it through a uni student who's studying AI is a good way of having that information come across more naturally.
Nice to see an indirect appearance from Pintsize as well; he doesn't seem to get much comic time nowadays and I must say I've been missing his comedic moments :P
-
Slowly, everybody is aware of the situation, except Faye.
-
Nice to see an indirect appearance from Pintsize as well; he doesn't seem to get much comic time nowadays and I must say I've been missing his comedic moments :P
So it seems Union Robotics hasn't delivered Pintsize's order...
Yet...
-
Classic setup, this; the protagonist goes to find their best friend a suitable SO but everyone they identify is either “unworthy” or makes them feel jealous for no obvious reason (only to them of course) until the eventual epiphany/kiss.
Basically, yeah: It's a classic romcom plot framework. I wonder if Jeph's just going to knock it down quickly or if he's planning on play this out, either seriously or satirically.
It's also a classic tragic plot. Unrequited love is a powerful plot device. Given how much Jeph has kicked Faye around in this comic since the end of the ClaireAndMarten arc, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him kick Faye around some more. It would make Claire look good: this time because she saw the possibility for an affair between Bubbles and Faye but kept her mouth shut. It would make Amanda and Evie look like the kinds of shippers Jeph doesn't like (and thus showing us why he doesn't like said shippers.) It would make an interesting counterpoint to ClaireAndMarten: "OK, so you don't like happy romantic plots? Great, I'll give you an unhappy romantic plot instead and we can see how you like that!"
Oh, and spiteful character abuse. Never forget the potential for pure and unwarranted sadism.
-
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
Hmmm...
I was not aware of that!
Sounds like the "Oldfield School of Fandom" to me.
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
To be fair to Jeph, at one point the forum bordered on "reprehensible" ( and, a few times, crossed it) until the mods and admins got the power to create and enforce rules of civility.
-
Faye's cluelessness knows no bounds. :-D :laugh: :lol:
-
So Faye basically friendzoned Bubbles...
-
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
Hmmm...
I was not aware of that!
Sounds like the "Oldfield School of Fandom" to me.
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
To be fair to Jeph, at one point the forum bordered on "reprehensible" ( and, a few times, crossed it) until the mods and admins got the power to create and enforce rules of civility.
Long before my time, no doubt...
And OMG did I REALLY type THEIR instead of THEY'RE !?!?!?
(I'm more bothered about THAT!) :)
-
Slowly, everybody is aware of the situation, except Faye.
As a general rule, this is how one does these things in romantically- or comedically-themed fiction.
-
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
Hmmm...
I was not aware of that!
Sounds like the "Oldfield School of Fandom" to me.
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
He is kinda fond of us, though. After all, we did do a guest strip (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2316) for him.
-
You think Faye, even if she was totally aware of her feelings, would say "hell yes I have a crush on Bubbles!"
-
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
When you look at how this forum reacted to, for instance, Tilly, a character Jeph actively enjoyed drawing, can you really blame him?
What reason does this forum give him to like it?
-
Always fascinating when an artist who actively dislikes this forum and a large portion of his fanbase for shipping has his own characters ship unironically.
The sort of shipping that is discouraged is when there are no indications in the comic that the relationship might or even could happen. With Bubbles and Faye, it's been made clear enough that Bubbles has feelings for Faye, though maybe not the other way round.
Anyway, Amanda and Evie's wide-eyed enthusiasm about it does them no favours. I wouldn't want to be seen behaving like that.
It's been made clear to the audience, but Amanda and Evie have absolutely zero hints; not from Bubbles, and certainly not from the oblivious Faye.
It's also entirely counter to Faye's demonstrated and stated romantic/sexual orientations, which Amanda as her sister should be aware of; Faye is heterosexual, and has repeatedly rejected robosexuality (sometimes not even when Pintsize was propositioning). Shipping Bubbles with Faye was even deflated 100 or so strips ago when Claire did it (and tied into crack shipping like Sherlock/Mr. Darcy). Rhetorical question: would we or he be as tolerant of a ship if it were a heterosexual couple were shipping a lesbian with a guy they worked and hung out with? Fin with Clarence?
He's always been hypocritical about it; the thing that really set him off was Hannelore shippers, but he also drew her lusting after firefighters to the point of leaping into their arms, on good enough drugs when we met her that she could smoke, and a practice date with Sven. However, we aren't allowed to take any of that as an indication she might be able to work past her neuroses she explicitly wants to conquer some day and speculate about why she would cross that Rubicon and who she would do so for. It's a general "hands off fanbase, I'm the only one allowed to play with my toys!" attitude.
an artist who actively dislikes this forum
I think that was successfully changed through 2011 and the following years. Now, instead of "actively dislikes" I suggest "tolerates with studied indifference".
Hmmm...
I was not aware of that!
Sounds like the "Oldfield School of Fandom" to me.
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
Around the time that Tumblr led him to drink himself into stabbing his hand for the crime of making Marigold self conscious and Marten socially awkward, he also came on the forums and basically ranted about how their denizens disgusted him.*
*Timeframe may be unreliable.
-
This could be as simple as Faye having no same-sex history or fantasies and therefore having a blind spot.
A Freudian would say that if someone avoids a subject that consistently, it's because they know the subject exists and are unwilling to address it.
-
Has anyone else noticed Brun sitting in the booth in the back?
-
At least Faye didn’t jump to a further conclusion and try to hook Bubbles up with Punchbot.
-
Around the time that Tumblr led him to drink himself into stabbing his hand for the crime of making Marigold self conscious and Marten socially awkward, he also came on the forums and basically ranted about how their denizens disgusted him.*
*Timeframe may be unreliable.
It was not these forums which drove him to that; we made the guest comic for him while he couldn't draw because of the stabbing.
While he thinks much of what fans say and do is crazy, since I became a mod at the start of 2011 he has neither threatened to close the forums down nor called them a "fetid sewer", both of which he did in 2010. Being second-guessed by fans all the time may not be to his taste - but he is still paying for this place.
-
Has anyone else noticed Brun sitting in the booth in the back?
If Roko asked me I'd have to say, "It kinda looked like her, but I couldn't tell for sure. Probably a woman, definitely brown hair, maybe dreads."
-
It's also entirely counter to Faye's demonstrated and stated romantic/sexual orientations, which Amanda as her sister should be aware of; Faye is heterosexual, and has repeatedly rejected robosexuality (sometimes not even when Pintsize was propositioning).
One could argue that Amanda 'shipping' Faye in a gay relationship should be taken as evidence for Faye's sexual orientation (possibly) including (possibly unacknowledged or even subconscious) homoerotic elements precisely because the former should be in a very good position to assess her sister's sexual orientation due to long familiarity. By the same token, one could even additionally argue that Amanda's ships should be given greater weight than any reader's ships.
For example: We, the audience, might not know how badly Faye crushed on her biology teacher in 8th grade (or vigorously denied any such crush, despite virtually drooling every time Mrs. Applebaum entered the classroom), but Amanda would be in a position to know.
Counter-argument: We don't know how perceptive Amanda is, how much opportunity she had to observe Faye in social settings including potential mates and how open the two were with each other. I would have strangled my sistermonster for "putting her nose where it doesn't belong", or even hinting at a possible intention for doing so - and took it for granted that those feelings were mutual.
He's always been hypocritical about it; the thing that really set him off was Hannelore shippers, but he also drew her lusting after firefighters to the point of leaping into their arms, on good enough drugs when we met her that she could smoke, and a practice date with Sven. However, we aren't allowed to take any of that as an indication she might be able to work past her neuroses she explicitly wants to conquer some day and speculate about why she would cross that Rubicon and who she would do so for. It's a general "hands off fanbase, I'm the only one allowed to play with my toys!" attitude.
Shipping is not the same as speculating about character X lusting for character Y, or as an author making explicit the desires of one of their characters (or that the character has indeed any sexual desires at all).
Shipping, initially derived from the word relationship, is the desire by fans for two or more people, either real-life people or fictional characters (in film, literature, television etc.) to be in a relationship, romantic or otherwise. It is considered a general term for fans' emotional involvement with the ongoing development of a relationship in a work of fiction. Shipping often takes the form of creative works, including fanfiction and fan art, most often published on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)
By this definition, one could even ask whether an author is even capable of 'shipping', since they have 'divine knowledge and prescience' about their fictional universe - knowledge excludes the possibility of speculation. You can't make a guess when you know. Caveat: Authors are (rumoured to be) people, and people change their minds all the time. I guess one could say that an author is incapable of speculating about their own intentions for future developments in their creations, because they know what their intentions are.
Not even portraying characters in the comic shipping (Amanda, Evie) is shipping - remember Magritte's pipe that wasn't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images)?
(https://i.imgur.com/mkkuTE8.jpg?1)
As to the given examples (I'll omit adding the 'An author's capability to speculate is significantly limited' each time):
- Jeph portraying Hanners as being attracted to (unspecific, hot, clean) firefighters is not shipping - there's no indication that Hanners desires a relationship with a specific firefighter, or firefighters in general, the only things that can be concluded from the incident are that Hanners experiences heterosexual attraction, that she prefers handsome men ... and that her fantasies, should she have any, might include the one or other (hot, clean) firefighter.
- Jeph portraying Hanners jumping into the arms of a specific (hot, clean) firefighter is not shipping - there's no indication that Hanners desires any relationship of any type with that specific firefighter. The only things that can be concluded are that Hanners experiences heterosexual attraction, that she can be just as impulsive as she's obsessive about planning her live (that' no contradiction in OCD - intrusive thoughts are ego-dystonous, i.e. they are perceived as not in line with the personality of the one experiencing them - that's at least half of what makes it so scary and hard to tolerate. Also: personal experience, again) ... and that her OCD has a remarkably selective memory about the whole "aversion to physical contact"-thingy.
- Not completely sure how realistic that is, my intrusive thoughts never revolved around contamination/purity. A puking caudate nucleus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudate_nucleus#Obsessive_Compulsive_Disorder) is astoundingly capable when it comes to making sure the rest of the brain knows everything about its being very unhappy indeed - otoh, OCD is ... abstract ... in a way that e.g. triggered traumatic memories are not. And Sex is a primary drive (caveat: Contamination/Purity-themed intrusive thoughts seem to be particularly visceral, judging by accounts I've read, so YMMV. My OCD was always a 'nerd', that doesn't mean that everybodies' is.)
TL;DR - Yes, I'd say it is possible to sort of 'forget' getting brainlocked, if your brain fails to connect the sensual object with fear. I don't remember that happening to me, but there's a pretty good reason why I wouldn't: As soon as you realize that you forgot, your OCD realizes, too - so if that ('forgetting' to get brainlocked) had happened to me, I wouldn't remember, because I didn't notice (and if I had noticed, it's highly likely I'd have gotten Brainlocked - Yes, it really is a nasty shite like that. You can sometimes really feel it creeping up on you: "Ohshit ... No, let's just not think about this, c'mon, only this time ...". There was a time that I could get brainlocked about my fear of getting brainlocked - MetaOCD, so to speak. It's why I'd made a habit out of not thinking about OCD for years: So as not to provoke it. Sometimes you can 'sneak past without waking it' by keeping a realization/thought just below full conscious formation).
The fear comes first in OCD, the object is secondary - I'd go so far as to say that the 'object' of the intrusive thoughts is more of a "rationalization" for the already existing fear, in the sense that the brain is trying to create a narrative/explanation for itself for an experience that is non-sensical: 'Knowing' that the thought's object warrants no reason for alarm, like really 'intuitive knowledge' on the one hand, but 'feeling in your bones' that there is, because some stupid administrative subroutine crashed before giving the 'all clear' - apparently, there's no error management procedure for that. No postmodern lions on the steppes of Africa ...) All contingent on my personal experience (limited, subjective) and understanding of the condition (limited, lacking theoretical basis, non-comprehensive)
- Good enough drugs can absolutely switch your OCD clean off. Personal experience with SNRI's - it literally felt like an engine failing to start for lack of fuel (i.e. intensity of fear). A psychologist specializing in the treatment of OCD with extensive clinical experience regarding relevant medication told me that this is exactly the way it should work & feel like when I recounted that experience to her. Shit, even something as profane as beer can help you 'snap out of it' - just not reliably so & the side-effects really aren't worth it.
- When did Sven and Hannelore have relationship, sexual intercourse or ... anything besides a mutually enjoyable and thoroughly chaste date ending with a chaste hug after which they parted ways on good terms as far as we know? (Jeph can't even ship people using his comic - at best, he can fan other peoples' speculations. The 'worst' thing you can accuse Jeph off is teasing the shippers, only to treat them to a metaphorical cold shower by letting Sven & Hanners laugh at them through the 4th wall ("Herp!" "Derp!")
However, we aren't allowed to take any of that as an indication she might be able to work past her neuroses she explicitly wants to conquer some day and speculate about why she would cross that Rubicon and who she would do so for.
I don't see any indication that Jeph has a even expressed a dislike of anyone seeing something as indication that Hanners might be able to "work past her OCD" - it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise, since OCD can be treated with very, very good chance of significant improvement (Exihibit A: Haven't had a brainlock in years. Still crazy, though ...). And Jeph appears to know all about how "working past" looks like: My opinion as someone who lived with the condition for ... at least fifteen years (longer, depending on definitions), Jeph has treated us to a magnificently detailed, sensitive and realistic portrayal of how "making progress with your OCD" (can) look(s) like.
I guess what he is averse to is people speculating about Hanners wanting to make progress so she can finally bang, or even worse: That she wants to make progress so she can finally bang specific person XYZ. "Oh! I have a crush on XYZ! Finally a motivation to get over my OCD! I have ... five weeks to get bang-ready before the risk of someone snatching them away becomes unacceptable" is a naive fantasy - progress doesn't happen on those short timescales (also, it's more than a bit insulting, as it implies that people who suffer for years merely lack sufficient motivation to make an effort with therapy. That's clueless, dumb, insulting - and completely wrong).
And 'crossing the rubicon' hints at a completely wrong picture of the condition: You can't 'push' your way through brainlock, it's not a panic attack, or phobia, it's like the taskmanager of your Win7 installation going tits-up, categorically refusing to end any processes scheduled for termination & bombarding you with error messages (very, very intense messages) - in fact, pushing yourself way beyond your comfort zone is a pretty good way of achieving regression). If Hanners forced herself to bang her crush, it would do nothing for her OCD - in fact, it might make it worse. OCD is not phobia, and treatment is completely different: With phobia, you can sort of "put the phobia under siege until it runs out of fear" by helping the afflicted endure an episode until their body runs out of the required transmitters - that doesn't work with OCD (Yes, I've asked my therapist exactly that question. And got exactly that answer: "It's not phobia, I can't simply make you stand on a tall building, or pet a spider and keep you in the situation until your body is no longer capable of being afraid. That would do nothing for you". One of the many, many, very, very unhappy questions along the lines of "Why doesn't this shit go away already?" I've asked them).
Secondly: Trust me, OCD provides it's own motivation for getting over it - the 'finally getting to bang' is merely an added bonus. It's an intensely unpleasant experience besides limiting your life severely, and I've never heard any indication that this is any different for asexuals. Since Jeph has personal experience with an anxiety disorder (not sure whether it was OCD, though), I'm inclined to believe that his view is similar.
Furthermore, there's no guarantee that the topic of the intrusive thoughts in OCD stays constant in any afflicted - it didn't for me. I wouldn't think it unrealistic for Hanners to return to COD after three years as a sex-addict living in a chaotically messy hotel room ... but a sex-addicted messy accountant agonizing about possible mistakes in her latest report (Dirt, otoh ... yeah, that would be a leap). OCD is like a director who shoots the same movie again and again with different actors, at different sets, with slight different scripts - at age 35, I was completely comfortable discussing topics and exploring thoughts that would have sent me reeling at age 16 - but I was still experiencing symptoms of OCD. It had simply changed scripts.
Examples of different 'thematic complexes' of intrusive thoughts (https://www.ocduk.org/types-ocd) - roughly the most common "intrusive thought 'genres'"
(They're all directed by Werner Herzog based on a script that David Lynch discarded in first Semester ... and yes, Klaus Kinski is a frequent contributor, and no, the stuff he does still has little to do with acting in any conventional meaning of the term, but Werner likes to hate him, so ...)
It's a general "hands off fanbase, I'm the only one allowed to play with my toys!" attitude.
That's neither particularly unfair, nor hypocritical - Fairness implies that the set of people under consideration are all equal regarding certain properties. There's nothing a priori unfair about the position that different sets of rules should apply to authors and fans. And Jeph never said that nobody couldn't write Pintsize/Marigold slashfic, merely that he wouldn't be supporting them financially by hosting their writings on his server (Much less did he forbid anyone anything beyond his powers as proprietor of this website here).
Around the time that Tumblr led him to drink himself into stabbing his hand for the crime of making Marigold self conscious and Marten socially awkward, he also came on the forums and basically ranted about how their denizens disgusted him.*
*Timeframe may be unreliable.
I joined in 2011 when 'Era PwHodges' was already a thing, and I know the 'Wrath of Jeph'-episode only from browsing the threads back then (Somewhere around November 2010, if memory serves?). The only Tumblr-specific things I've ever seen from Jeph were more in the vein of 'amused exasperation' - I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that Tumblr would have "led" Jeph to drinking or stabbing his hand, or being the reason for his tatto, or ... anything, really. Is there maybe evidence for that claim hidden somewhere deep inside the bowels of the forum somewhere?
-
Sorry about the Patreon thing. I guess I like to plug it occasionally, but that was the wrong way to go about it.
With regards to the shipping discussion, on further reflection, given that shipping is such a common thing nowadays, it's not really surprising that Jeph would at some point depict characters indulging in the practice. They do say you should write what you know.
-
I guess one could say that an author is incapable of speculating about their own intentions for future developments in their creations, because they know what their intentions are.
OTOH, it is not uncommon for writers to say they do not know their character's mind until it appears in the writing, and that sometimes they are surprised.
-
By the bye, in case you didn't look at the bottom of the linked strip, I use the royal "we" very literally.
Shipping is enough of a cultural phenomenon that Jeph would be silly not to use it with a few of his characters (especially Tai, Marigold, and Claire - all who have admitted to writing fanfic).
-
I wonder if it's time to excavate the old "OCD Soapbox" thread.
Jeph's breakdown was triggered though not entirely caused by a vicious and incoherent flame about Marigold, as best I remember from Tumblr. He said it was not the only cause but was the rock that broke the camel's back.
Patreon -- let's just say that it's a good thing to sign up for. Now is a good time.
-
Yes, I remember that well. It was this comic (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2307), as I recall. The writer was unhappy with the way Marigold was depicted, and said so in a hateful fashion.
I think that Jeph is wise in general to stay away. Not because he does or should have contempt for us, or anything like that. But I feel that he probably feels a lot of pressure to depict well the various groups of people represented by his characters, and the kind of criticism we get here would place impossible expectations on him. It would do any artist's head in, and I guess he's pretty sensitive to it.
I am 100% sure that he is grateful to his fans.
-
I wonder if it's time to excavate the old "OCD Soapbox" thread.
I'm sorry for being so verbose about it - guess there's stuff that's been wanting out for a while. It's also partially me learning to talk about a very intense & important time in my life with 'regular people', and partially it's fun revisiting strategies and stuff like that.
Feel free to disagree with me, to doubt my conclusions or understanding (experiences, though ... that's another thing), to talk about OCD anywhichway you like (just don't be an ass about it, I guess) - I'm not trying to make OCD a 'Tread lightly and check your privilege beforehand'-topic. I do reserve the right to say 'that's not how it felt for me' or 'that's not how I understood it' or 'I think you're thinking about phobia rather than OCD', always with the caveat that there's millions of other people who have first-hand experience with OCD and that there's hundreds of thousands of people who know better 'what it is' than I do.
Also: Hanners is a fictional character with similarly fictional mental health trouble. Analysing her essentially means analysing Jeph's informed, but finite understanding of a pretty varied anxiety disorder.
Sorry about the Patreon thing. I guess I like to plug it occasionally, but that was the wrong way to go about it.
Actually, I thought it was funny as balls ... :-D
-
New comic. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3664)
Hm. From a moving-the-comic-forward perspective, I appreciate this page. From a how-I'd-feel-if-Evie-was-a-real-person perspective...not so much. Her actions her make me kind of uncomfortable, which I think is exacerbated by the "Evie is good" comment on the bottom.
-
Hoo, boy, Evie is getting into creepy hypnotic territory here...
Seriously...Evie, just stop forcing the issue, you have no clue of the history of the situation. This is getting into levels of creepiness reserved for horror films and bad drama.
Although at this stage, comedic justice would dictate she’s found by one of the professors at SMIF for her paper and tears it apart for unethical behavior.
-
Hmm. Strikes me that Evie is using her powers for good. Blatantly, however, without Faye's consent.
@Case, I'm looking forward to any further thoughts you have about OCD and its portrayal in QC.
-
She's asking good questions. I wouldn't say she's forcing the issue. Just gently prodding Faye into exploring it.
Hmm. Strikes me that Evie is using her powers for good. Blatantly, however, without Faye's consent.
Why do you say "without Faye's consent?" Evie is asking questions, Faye is consenting to answer.
-
The thing that gets me here is that Bubbles has outright told Faye she has feelings for her. Awkwardly, unintentionally, but unambiguously. Like, Faye has absolutely no excuse to not realize where Amanda and Evie are going with this.
-
I would argue that it’s without Faye’s consent due to Evie asking the kind of questions that you hear in a therapy session. She’s asking her girlfriend’s sister deeply probing questions over dinner, with her girlfriend right next to her. Evie is the proof of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
There is a time and a place to ask these questions and dinner the first evening you’ve met the sister is not it.
-
New comic. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3664)
Hm. From a moving-the-comic-forward perspective, I appreciate this page. From a how-I'd-feel-if-Evie-was-a-real-person perspective...not so much. Her actions her make me kind of uncomfortable, which I think is exacerbated by the "Evie is good" comment on the bottom.
I think the "good" means "good at what she does" rather than "good in the moral sense".
She's asking good questions. I wouldn't say she's forcing the issue. Just gently prodding Faye into exploring it.
Hmm. Strikes me that Evie is using her powers for good. Blatantly, however, without Faye's consent.
Why do you say "without Faye's consent?" Evie is asking questions, Faye is consenting to answer.
Yeeeeeeaaaah, I kinda sorta see where both sides are coming from here, but just barely and only as long as Evie sticks to asking questions, and being very, very ... respectful about it. Or a superficially convincing approximation of 'respectful'. Is there an expression like 'prurient interest', only for romance instead of sexystuff? I hate that shit. Imagine my saying 'hate' exactly like Agent Smith:
"I ... hate this place. This zoo. This prison. This reality, whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYL28a0LM_A)
The thing that gets me here is that Bubbles has outright told Faye she has feelings for her. Awkwardly, unintentionally, but unambiguously. Like, Faye has absolutely no excuse to not realize where Amanda and Evie are going with this.
I bet she'd even lie to the Cops about it ...
-
I don't find Evie creepy. It doesn't matter if this kind of behavior would be creepy in real life. This is a comic and characters will be exaggerated. I find her psychoanalysis mannerisms to be humorous.
-
New comic. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3664)
Hm. From a moving-the-comic-forward perspective, I appreciate this page. From a how-I'd-feel-if-Evie-was-a-real-person perspective...not so much. Her actions her make me kind of uncomfortable, which I think is exacerbated by the "Evie is good" comment on the bottom.
I think the "good" means "good at what she does" rather than "good in the moral sense".
Yeah, I in no way interpreted it as "good in the moral sense." Why would I? That doesn't mean it's not uncomfortable as a suggestion of approval or such.
-
Well at least Faye may be getting a clue. :laugh: :-D
-
I think the "good" means "good at what she does" rather than "good in the moral sense".
Yeah, I in no way interpreted it as "good in the moral sense." Why would I? That doesn't mean it's not uncomfortable as a suggestion of approval or such.
OK!
Dunno - ambiguity of everyday language?
I guess?
-
I did say I really liked Evie, didn't I?
I really like Evie.
-
Evie: "Pay no attention to the shipper behind the curtain."
-
I'm torn. On the one hand, Evie may push things where I desperately want them to go. For literally months now I've wanted to reach through the fourth wall and shake Faye silly over how oblivious she i about her own damned feelings, nevermind Bubble's.
On the otherhand, it's very obvious that Evie see's this as the perfect opportunity to document a human/AI romantic relationship as it unfolds in real time, and the last thing these two needs is for Evie to go Steve Irwin on them.
-
Hello! I've been reading the comic for a long time now, and reading the forum for a couple of months, and I figure now's the time to throw in my two cents.
The thing about Faye's sexuality here is that it can be surprisingly easy to not realize you might not be entirely straight. I went until well into high school before realizing that I wasn't straight and I'm still not entirely sure how to label myself anymore, heheh. But if Faye's had no reason to seriously question her sexuality before, any hypothetical crushes she might have ever had on other women might not have registered as 'crushes' and might have registered as something more like 'huh I like that style'.
-
Well, it might not be entirely romantic, but there is *something* in Faye's heart for Bubbles. Especially if she feels jealous.
Also, the way Evie is drawn reminds me of Dora. And not in a "everyone looks the same in this comic" way. Because they don't.
-
Really, who are these self-aware freaks who know what's going on in their hearts. Damn things are like a 100X100X100 Rubik's cube.
(I once crushed on a girl for three years before realizing it; granted, I was around ten when it started, but that didn't stop me from being like, "Damn, I am dense" once I figured it out.)
Really, however Faye ends up feeling, I expect her to need some time to reflect to figure out whatever it is. I think it'd be good for her to consider loving Bubbles (romantically) as a possibility even if she realizes in the end that no, she doesn't feel that way.
-
She's asking good questions. I wouldn't say she's forcing the issue. Just gently prodding Faye into exploring it.
Hmm. Strikes me that Evie is using her powers for good. Blatantly, however, without Faye's consent.
Why do you say "without Faye's consent?" Evie is asking questions, Faye is consenting to answer.
What's setting off my alarms is that this is a psychology major asking potentially analytical questions in a strip titled "Psychoanalysis". The Pugnacious Peach has not consented to a therapy relationship though as you note she is voluntarily answering the questions.
-
Hello! I've been reading the comic for a long time now, and reading the forum for a couple of months, and I figure now's the time to throw in my two cents.
The thing about Faye's sexuality here is that it can be surprisingly easy to not realize you might not be entirely straight. I went until well into high school before realizing that I wasn't straight and I'm still not entirely sure how to label myself anymore, heheh. But if Faye's had no reason to seriously question her sexuality before, any hypothetical crushes she might have ever had on other women might not have registered as 'crushes' and might have registered as something more like 'huh I like that style'.
Welcome, new person with relevant life experience! Welcome sotajumala as well!
-
Bubbles might be a superb choice for a life partner for Faye.
The other way around?
I think Bubbles needs somebody steadier. Though they are clearly getting along well.
-
Evie is indeed coming disturbingly close to Shrinking Heads Without a License.
-
Well, at least Faye'll see what Amanda and Evie were on about. Evie is asking the right questions. To be honest, consent or no, there have been times I could have used someone asking me those questions.
-
If Evie uses the phrase, "let's go deeper, deeper..." I'm gonna start watching the background for a bespectacled woman with purple hair, or a pink-haired woman in a finely-tailored suit...
-
This is an intriguing strip in many ways. Firstly and most importantly, it shows that, for whatever reason (I'm betting low self-esteem), Faye has never confronted her own feelings for Bubbles before. However, yes, she wants Bubbles for herself. That's selfish, true but it is is also a fact that most relationships find their birth in the realisation that you want this person in your life.
I also suspect that panel 8 reflects what I said in my comment on yesterday's strip: Faye genuinely has issues with the idea that she has any right to approach Bubbles about her feelings; that lack of self-worth is clearly holding her back. That's sad but it doesn't entirely surprise me, given Faye's past travails.
Finally, I have to agree with iicih: I'm feeling a little uncomfortable with Evie analysing and diagnosing Faye without her informed consent. It's pushing on the boundaries of professional ethics a little. At least she isn't taking notes or suggesting new prescriptions!
Oh, and Amanda is being a typical little sister by giggling at her sister's issues. She still has a bit of growing up to do!
The thing that gets me here is that Bubbles has outright told Faye she has feelings for her. Awkwardly, unintentionally, but unambiguously. Like, Faye has absolutely no excuse to not realize where Amanda and Evie are going with this.
Like I said above, there is a part of Faye that cannot believe it or at least cannot believe that she is the right choice.
-
On the otherhand, it's very obvious that Evie see's this as the perfect opportunity to document a human/AI romantic relationship as it unfolds in real time, and the last thing these two needs is for Evie to go Steve Irwin on them.
Yeah, this is really only increasing my concern about what impact she'll have on their relationship. :x
Not in an "I think this is bad for the comic" way, though. It definitely fits the character.
-
Speaking as someone who's brother completed a PhD (in Engineering, but nonetheless), it is completely fair that Evie is going way too psychoanalytical. Depending on how far through it she is, her PhD might be most of what Evie thinks about, if not almost her entire life right now.
There were weeks where I almost didn't see him, despite us living at the same address.
-
Speaking as someone who's brother completed a PhD (in Engineering, but nonetheless), it is completely fair that Evie is going way too psychoanalytical. Depending on how far through it she is, her PhD might be most of what Evie thinks about, if not almost her entire life right now.
There were weeks where I almost didn't see him, despite us living at the same address.
This is my thought too. It's probably just the way Evie processes the world, not deliberately trying to psychoanalyze Faye.
I still think that there are too many problems with Bubbles and Faye being together.
-
I'm still arguing with myself about today's comic.
Personally, I would respond very poorly to this kind of questioning by someone I barely know, even to the point of telling the other person to shut the hell up. On the other hand, in Faye's case maybe a little "professional" nudging toward the (hopefully) right direction is better than "OMG!! You totally have the hots for Bubbles, why can't you see that??!"
Hm… let’s see how this works out.
-
EDIT: @Frankquith: Ignore this if you did not mean "Evie might see Fayebubs as potentional research subjects"
(And yes, graduatebrain is weird, obsessive and generally a jerk. You could call it a hideous egomaniac if it'd acknowledge the concept of "other people" in the first place. Speaker at the graduation ceremony seriously suggested to us that the first thing we should do after getting our 'new surname' was to apologize profusely to everybody who was still talking to us.)
On the otherhand, it's very obvious that Evie see's this as the perfect opportunity to document a human/AI romantic relationship as it unfolds in real time, and the last thing these two needs is for Evie to go Steve Irwin on them.
Speaking as someone who's brother completed a PhD (in Engineering, but nonetheless), it is completely fair that Evie is going way too psychoanalytical. Depending on how far through it she is, her PhD might be most of what Evie thinks about, if not almost her entire life right now.
There were weeks where I almost didn't see him, despite us living at the same address.
Speaking as someone who holds a PhD (in theoretical physics, but nonetheless): Nurrr-urrrh. Nope. Never would.
And that's before thinking about ethics committees and rules on conduct with human subjects in research (not that I have the first idea what those rules are, I just know that Zimbardo raised quite a stink with his Stanford Prison experiment) - it's not Berkely in the 1960s anymore. The finest paper ain't worth it when you don't have a career left because no researcher outside North Korea will even talk to you (let alone be seen with you) ...
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/human/index.aspx?tab=4
Not to mention that your SO's sister is probably a really bad choice for a testing subject in the first place, because:
a) She's connected to you. Means that your presence has a high chance of influencing the resultant data in unforeseen ways. Did I hear anybody say "Re-pro-du-cea-bili-ty"?
b) You wanna keep that SO? Or ever again have anyone with relatives & and an internet connection consider you for the role of SO again? Like ever? Yeah, bad choice ...
Edit: One of your testing subjects is a combat veteran who smells of Black Ops so badly the Army denies knowing how to spell her name? Right, let's dive right into her artificial brainmeats, potentially full of stuff that Really Scary PeopleTM don't want anybody to know about ... ("Key members of parliament. Key ..." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes))
EditEdit: Chapter 1.4 (http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4312310.aspx?tab=2) of the American Psychological Association's "Ethics in Research With Human Participants" is titled "Informed Consent" - a whole chapter in the first section of a 215 page guidebook (not even the actual legal protections or institutional procedures) devoted to the one term "informed consent" alone.
-
"Yes, these people are responsible for me living the lifestyle that I have, and appreciate my artistic output... but their all weirdos and I want nothing to do with them." ... kinda thing ??
That saddens me.
When you look at how this forum reacted to, for instance, Tilly, a character Jeph actively enjoyed drawing, can you really blame him?
What reason does this forum give him to like it?
I'm tempted to point at your own "sig line" as response... :)
-
I guess one could say that an author is incapable of speculating about their own intentions for future developments in their creations, because they know what their intentions are.
OTOH, it is not uncommon for writers to say they do not know their character's mind until it appears in the writing, and that sometimes they are surprised.
Absolutely.
When I look back at my first scribblings, and then at the books that emerged, I am often shocked.
My worst (or best) example was my 'Werewolf' book where I had the whole thing plotted out.
Stuff happens, friendship between teenage boy and young man (the wolf), stuff happens, stuff happens, Teenage Boy saves the world.
And then I wrote the book... and the Teenage Boy was torn apart half way through the book.
Even as I was writing it I was actually saying out loud to myself.. "What the hell are you doing!?"
The only way I can explain it is that the story didn't want to be written the way I wanted it...
And ultimately I think it was all the better for it.
So, yeah... Authors are often just as in the dark about what they are going to write than those reading the final work.
(And it's the departures from the "expected" that cause the drama... (both ON and OFF the page*!) :)
*Tilly / The Last Jedi... ;)
-
I like Evie. She seems to master maieutics. In a socratic way, I mean.
Asking some accurate questions without freaking out is a far fetch from "psychoanalysis", guys...
-
I would argue that it’s without Faye’s consent due to Evie asking the kind of questions that you hear in a therapy session. She’s asking her girlfriend’s sister deeply probing questions over dinner, with her girlfriend right next to her. Evie is the proof of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
There is a time and a place to ask these questions and dinner the first evening you’ve met the sister is not it.
And yet Faye is completely comfortable in answering, so I don't understand the fuss.
This is the problem with getting offended on behalf of someone else who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
-
To me this is very similar to Claire's "involvement" with her brother's lovelife. Creepy and unwanted.
-
And yet Faye is completely comfortable in answering, so I don't understand the fuss.
This is the problem with getting offended on behalf of someone else who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
Generally, we tend to think similarly about "getting offended on behalf of others", but here, I have to cry "Objection, your honor!"
"Consent" is not the same as "going along with leading questions" - There's myriad reasons why someone might answer questions they don't want to even have people ask them. Conflict-avoidance. Submitting to authority ... or plain old "not understanding where this is going before it's too late".
"Consent" is not the same as "informed consent" - and apparently, that's something that shrinks (and especially research-shrinks) discuss a lot about. Like: A! LOT! I've not even really started poking (let alone skimming the stuff that turns up) and I'm already drowning in regulations, best practises, ethics codes, landmark congressional comittees & hearings and dozens of high-powered dedicated monitoring institutions.
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/06/informed-consent.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/ethics.aspx
-
To me this is very similar to Claire's "involvement" with her brother's lovelife. Creepy and unwanted.
Knowing Faye as we know her after all those years, I think we can safely assume that if Evie was doing something "unwanted", Faye would let her know in very direct and non-ambiguous terms...
-
Seriously, just compare Amanda's and Evie's reactions. Which one seems to be the healthiest and the most willing to help?
-
Evie is actually making the attempt to learn how Faye feels. Amanda on the other hand is projecting, assuming, and poking fun. Evie hasn't asked anything inappropriate and is being perfectly polite.
-
I know we (if I may include myself, a long-time lurker and infrequent poster) are in the habit of over-analysing these strips. We enjoy discussing the ramifications and debate is healthy. We must not however forget that they are entertainment.
In addition I feel that in the current circumstance, when you are out to dinner with sisters and partners, asking 'personal' questions is nothing more than getting to know one another.
My family is scattered all over the world. When we meet, its for a few intense days and then we may not see each other for a long time. On that basis, I don't actually "know" my sisters-in-law, and other relatives *that well*. But to not ask personal questions means never getting to know them better.
Of course people are welcome to take offense or decline to answer. But I don't think its overstepping boundaries in such a scenario to jump straight into deeply personal matters when its family.
-
And that's before thinking about ethics committees and rules on conduct with human subjects in research (not that I have the first idea what those rules are, I just know that Zimbardo raised quite a stink with his Stanford Prison experiment) - it's not Berkely in the 1960s anymore. The finest paper ain't worth it when you don't have a career left because no researcher outside North Korea will even talk to you (let alone be seen with you) ...
Seriously? You honestly believe that Evie would be professionally blacklisted because she once talked to her girlfriend’s sister about feelings?
She hasn’t tried to use this in her research and I don’t see her doing so in the future, so how would her professional peers even know in the first place?
-
While I agree that in the comic itself there is no cause yet for alarm, the context, both of Evie's research, and the title of today's comic, might infer that such research might not be too far fetched. And in that case, it would not be unthinkable. Thus far, it's unlikely.
Personally, I don't think that that is what is going to happen. But then, I consider Evie more as a handy character to provide exposition (hence her field of study), and as a catalyst (hence her relationship with Amanda).
But then, that's my interpretation of her function in this narrative. It might be that the story will still take us elsewhere.
Edited for spelling, as always.
-
And that's before thinking about ethics committees and rules on conduct with human subjects in research (not that I have the first idea what those rules are, I just know that Zimbardo raised quite a stink with his Stanford Prison experiment) - it's not Berkely in the 1960s anymore. The finest paper ain't worth it when you don't have a career left because no researcher outside North Korea will even talk to you (let alone be seen with you) ...
Seriously? You honestly believe that Evie would be professionally blacklisted because she once talked to her girlfriend’s sister about feelings?
She hasn’t tried to use this in her research and I don’t see her doing so in the future, so how would her professional peers even know in the first place?
Yeah, I probably read Frankquith's post (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,33983.msg1397834.html#msg1397834) under the premise of this one by ChipNoir
On the otherhand, it's very obvious that Evie see's this as the perfect opportunity to document a human/AI romantic relationship as it unfolds in real time, and the last thing these two needs is for Evie to go Steve Irwin on them.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Apologies to all concerned, "This isn't my soapbox at all! How did that get here?"
Edit: If you're dying to know what I think is going on (and who wouldn't be?) - Cornelious' post above, ditto everywhere.
-
Faye is someone who hasn't said "no" but doesn't know where the interaction is going.
In other contexts we've learned not to call that "consent".
Reproducibility at least used to be a non-requirement for publishing about psychotherapy. Case studies were the norm in the older things I've looked at. If Evie is going there (no evidence she is) she damn well better get Faye and Bubbles to give explicit verbal consent, as soon as possible and ideally an hour ago.
-
Bubbles did say she has feelings for Faye. She didn't say what those feelings are. "Affection" is ambiguous. Bubbles said she wished she knew herself what she had meant by it.
Put it together with calling Faye "beautiful" and it gets clearer.
I hope Bubbles doesn't get hurt, but that's not the way relationships work. I hope that whatever goes wrong will be like a bruise that she can quickly recover from and not like re-breaking a bone that's still healing.
-
Tomorrow is the last comic of the week, and in my opinion, we are in for a major cliffhanger for the week end. I bet on something like Faye getting (or being made) aware of things, and us not knowing how she feels or what she will do about it. And if JJ really wants to torture us, monday will be like "and now, something completely different!", with Pintsize farting. Or even something we can't possibly say no to, like "In the meantime, Hannelore..."
-
I'm tempted to point at your own "sig line" as response... :)
It says to love them anyway.
It doesn't say anything about liking them.
-
Seriously? You honestly believe that Evie would be professionally blacklisted because she once talked to her girlfriend’s sister about feelings?
She hasn’t tried to use this in her research and I don’t see her doing so in the future, so how would her professional peers even know in the first place?
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of jealous academics?
I notice that person-who-from-the-back-resembles-Brun is still very much there, and it is a college town. And Evie is steepling her fingers, a sure sign she's wielding her mojo. "Look over there. That woman is making shrink-eyes across the table and steepling. Start taking video, this is going to be interesting."
That may attract attention. Or not.
Seriously, Evie is another Spookybot, written in to move one part of the story along. She's much more gracefully executed, but she's serving the same narrative function.
-
I think many of us are jumping the gun. We still don't know yet whether Amanda and Evie are seeing something that isn't there, or if Faye is the one not recognizing her real feelings. It is entirely possible for someone to have a close and deep friendship with someone else without romantic or sexual feelings being involved, and also have a selfish desire to want their friend to all to themselves.
Although if Faye does end up going "robosexual", she will be the second main female character (after Dora) to find no satisfaction in hetero relationships and end up turning to alternative sexuality for fulfillment. I find this...interesting.
-
I have to say, I'm not getting that bad a vibe from Evie in this instance. It's very different from her lecturing at Bubbles about how bad AI discrimination is. There she was talking over someone who was clearly upset, and treating a personal subject as an academic thought experiment.
Here, to me at least, that isn't the case. She's asking questions not telling Faye how she should feel, and Faye seems comfortable asking them.
I get that the nature of the questions is quite analytic, but I think that may be more a case that Evie just talks that way- she has an academic background, she's used to talking in that environment, so it's become her normal tone. It definitely doesn't strike me as an impromptu public therapy session, just sort of Socratic questioning- not to trap someone, but to get them to consider their assumptions.
They *are* personal questions, that is very true, and if Faye were to tell her that she has no business to ask them, she would be well within her rights to do so. But she hasn't. And as others have said, if you make Faye uncomfortable she *will* let you know.
Again, I'm not defending Evie's treatment of Bubbles, I just don't think that interaction should lead to assumptions about how this one is being taken.
Also, if you would personally find Evie's line of questioning offensive if you were in Faye's position- that's fine and legit. No one has the right to demand you answer their questions about your personal life. I think that should be your choice, as much as it is Faye's.
-
Although if Faye does end up going "robosexual", she will be the second main female character (after Dora) to find no satisfaction in hetero relationships and end up turning to alternative sexuality for fulfillment. I find this...interesting.
Dora is (and has always been presented as) bisexual; there's nothing unusual about it. She's always been open to dating both men and women, she just happened to date a man, it didn't work out, and now she's dating a woman. There's no "turning" there, things like this just happen. Some relationships work out, others don't.
As for Faye discovering she is bisexual/biromantic/robosexual...I am getting the feeling that it may be heading in that direction, whereas before it felt very much ambiguous. Whether this involves just romantic feelings or sexual ones too, remains to be seen, but she reminds me a lot of myself and how I felt about a friend I didn't realise (or didn't want to acknowledge) I had feelings for. The wanting to keep them to yourself, feeling jealous of potential romantic partners. I'd be surprised if this lead to Faye giving Evie a bemused "what? No, she's just a friend and nothing more" reply once she realises where this is going. There is something there; we just don't yet know exactly what.
-
The 'Oblivious character falling in love with their best friend and everyone sees it but them' is a well worn trope and clearly what Jeph is going for here. Any doubt should have been put to rest after Faye's talk about how she feels about Bubbles and dating in today's comic. Pretty much everyone around them sees this happening. Some have been keeping it to themselves because they know of Faye's history or out of fear maybe. Some have come right out and said/asked about it. At this point I think that Faye is the only one who hasn't figure it out, which will probably change tomorrow.
And it makes sense that they don't want to vocalize it or think too much on it. Both have been seriously hurt in the past by the loss of people close to them. Both feel a lot of self loathing and believe themselves to be unworthy or are afraid to hope. Both tend to hold most people at arm's length to keep from getting hurt and both are afraid to get too close to someone lest they lose them again. So it make sense to not want to think or talk about it. And again, most of the people around them know better than to push the issue.
And then we meet Evie, who is custom tailored to be the kick in the butt Faye needs to think about this. She has a link to Faye through Amanda, yet has no direct stake in dancing around the subject. She's got psychology knowledge to not only see what's not being said but to push Faye into realizing it. Amanda or one of her friends just telling Faye she's got the hots for Bubbles wouldn't do anything. Faye would just brush it off, and I think Evie realizes that. Which is why she's using leading questions to get Faye to actually think and talk about her feelings towards Bubbles.
I don't get why people are hating on Evie for doing this though. Unless they think Faye should just continue to wallow in denial? At some point that trope has to have a pay off and the storyline has to resolve, or it's just bad writing. Evie isn't psychoanalyzing or pushing Faye into doing anything. Just asking some leading questions to get Faye to think. If a mechanic hear's a friend's car and starts asking questions or pointing out that the timing seems off, should they be yelled at for butting in? Why specifically does Evie's psychology training preclude her from talking about the very subject she's studying except in a professional environment?
Although if Faye does end up going "robosexual", she will be the second main female character (after Dora) to find no satisfaction in hetero relationships and end up turning to alternative sexuality for fulfillment. I find this...interesting.
I think you are reading way to much into that. Dora was established almost from the beginning as being bisexual. Her issues with Marten had nothing to do with him being male or even really to do with Marten at all. They had to do with her trust issues. Something that breaking up with Marten made her finally realize she needed to address. The fact that she's been in a stable relationship with Tai for so long is more an indication that Dora has realized that learned to trust more and that Tai was willing to put in the emotional labor that Marten wasn't. None of this have anything to do with their respective genders or sexualities.
Most of the relationships shown in the comic have been heterosexual, with at least as many stable, working hetero relationships as homosexual ones, possibly more. Faye and Angus has a long term successful relationship until Angus got his dream job and got on the bus. It wasn't his gender that was an issue, but distance and Faye's fear of abandonment.
We have seen people with close and deep friendships that don't lead to romance. Brun and Renee for one. Notice how they don't blush and swoon while complementing each other or talk about each other the way Faye and Bubbles do. I don't know where Jeph will take the story, but I can plainly see he's been dropping hints all along. Had one of them been male I don't think people would be questioning so hard that there was some attraction at work there.
Also, the phrase 'alternate sexuality' is loaded with bad subtext. By describing homosexual attraction as 'alternate' it establishes that heterosexual attractions as being 'normal' or at least baseline. That to have homosexual attractions is different from what is expected/normal/baseline.
-
I'm really not that worried about what Evie is doing 'now', because I've been there. I suppose LGBT member sometimes you look at other people who haven't realized their own feeling and you look at yourself and think "...I owe this person a nudge because they have no idea who they actually are." People have many a time said they had no idea for years that they were gay, because social conditioning puts a block against that being a thing.
Personally I find that bizarre. I pretended to have crushes on girls, and then the moment puberty hit I knew instantly that I wanted to think about boys. A lot. In very overtly hormonal ways. I guess it's just different depending on what you're nurtured into.
Regardless, this could be as simple as Evie, who IS a at least bisexual, seeing someone like herself struggling with complicated feelings and trying to push her towards the truth. The two DID fangirl the hell out if it till they hit a brick wall with Faye's lack of undestanding.
My concern isn't Evie pushing her towards this. My concern is what Evie will do once something actually happens.
-
Just asking some leading questions to get Faye to think. If a mechanic hear's a friend's car and starts asking questions or pointing out that the timing seems off, should they be yelled at for butting in? Why specifically does Evie's psychology training preclude her from talking about the very subject she's studying except in a professional environment?
But you don't normally need a state license to practice as a mechanic. Electrician or plumber, yes, but I don't know of any state that licenses mechanics. Evie, however, aspires to a professional level beyond that. A medical student would need to tread carefully, and have you seen what practicing attorneys do to law students who cross the line into practicing law before they're admitted to the state bar?
-
But you don't normally need a state license to practice as a mechanic. Electrician or plumber, yes, but I don't know of any state that licenses mechanics. Evie, however, aspires to a professional level beyond that. A medical student would need to tread carefully, and have you seen what practicing attorneys do to law students who cross the line into practicing law before they're admitted to the state bar?
The problem is, the line between professional analysis and asking someone about their personal life is quite thin, but anyone can do the latter. To put it another way, if it was Amanda asking the same questions, this wouldn't be an issue. But there really isn't any proffesional malpractice in asking an acquaintance, who is talking about their friend and if they should find them a partner, "do you think that is what they really want?" That kind of insightful question doesn't take training to ask, nor is it particularly out of place.
-
f it was Amanda asking the same questions, this wouldn't be an issue.
But Amanda doesn't aspire to licensure as a clinical psychologist. Even if nothing ultimately came of it, even if it was logged out as unfounded and the malicious action of a jealous busy-body, the sort of attention a complaint would generate is seldom if ever welcome.
-
f it was Amanda asking the same questions, this wouldn't be an issue.
But Amanda doesn't aspire to licensure as a clinical psychologist. Even if nothing ultimately came of it, even if it was logged out as unfounded and the malicious action of a jealous busy-body, the sort of attention a complaint would generate is seldom if ever welcome.
I am really, really confused as to what the issue is here. Evie hasn't diagnosed Faye, hasn't pathologised her, hasn't prescribed any therapy or medication. She has just asked a question. It's like saying a doctor would be risking their career if they asked a friend "how are you feeling?". I know there are huge ethical issues around analysing or doing any kind of work with anyone without their knowledge or consent, I do. But I just cannot see any way in which Evie might be violating proffesional boundaries here.
-
f it was Amanda asking the same questions, this wouldn't be an issue.
But Amanda doesn't aspire to licensure as a clinical psychologist. Even if nothing ultimately came of it, even if it was logged out as unfounded and the malicious action of a jealous busy-body, the sort of attention a complaint would generate is seldom if ever welcome.
I am really, really confused as to what the issue is here. Evie hasn't diagnosed Faye, hasn't pathologised her, hasn't prescribed any therapy or medication. She has just asked a question. It's like saying a doctor would be risking their career if they asked a friend "how are you feeling?". I know there are huge ethical issues around analysing or doing any kind of work with anyone without their knowledge or consent, I do. But I just cannot see any way in which Evie might be violating proffesional boundaries here.
^This. I am seriously baffled sometimes by analysis taking place on this forum going overboard.
So far all Evie has done is ask questions that, while more intrusive than I would appreciate, are not at all out of the ordinary for normal conversation.
-
I don't see anything wrong with what she's doing here, either, really. My only concern is if she should turn it into a case study, but as I said before, I think that is very unlikely.
If asking this kind of questions of your acquaintances is liable to get aspiring psychologists blacklisted, I feel pretty confident that very quickly there would be a shortage of psychologists.
Is she, in fact, practicing here?
There's a difference between practicing medicine, or law, or what have you, and using techniques you glean from your profession in your daily life. And, as such, if asking questions in this way is this specific, I know quite a few people who must be equally censured, despite having no formal training in psychology whatsoever.
As I noted before, without the context, outside the box, and any other character, would this be a problem?
-
You're all jumping to conclusions about where Evie is going with this, if anywhere.
You need to set aside your readers' omniscience again.
-
If Evie is going there (no evidence she is) she damn well better get Faye and Bubbles to give explicit verbal consent, as soon as possible and ideally an hour ago.
Yes, this I agree with.
-
If Evie is going there (no evidence she is) she damn well better get Faye and Bubbles to give explicit verbal consent, as soon as possible and ideally an hour ago.
Yes, this I agree with.
To be fair, me too. If she *does* turn this into an academic exercise, I agree she is way out of line. I just don't see that as having happened yet.
-
Considering that the information Evie has about Faye come from a secondhand source (Amanda) and likely to be a little out of date (due to Faye moving to Northampton), and considering she has no idea how messed up Bubbles' life was until recently, using this as an opportunity to force a revelation in Faye, well to me, it feels like a recipe for disaster.
Its kind of why I feel like Jeph is using this story to enter the idea of shipping and how out of control it can get. Instead of asking Faye if she could see Bubbles as a romantic partner, Evie is using skills she's only learned recently in an impromptu therapy session over dinner.
The thing is, is it her (or Amanda's) place to play the matchmaker? There's taking an interest, then there's trying to set up to people to fulfil your own gratification (I mean, look at Amanda). I think that's what I'm taking umbrage with.
-
Well, yes. I don't think I need to reiterate my feelings about shippers. 8-)
-
You need to set aside your readers' omniscience again.
And let's not forget the auctorial fallacy.
Anyway, tomorrow we'll probably see where this is going.
Is anyone else wondering how Bubbles is doing in the mean time? I'm not sure we left her in the best of places.
-
Here's another way to express what's disturbing me about Evie and raising uncertainties which may or may not get comforting answers.
Evie is asking questions which she, of all people, should know are the type of questions that lead to insights and revelations.
The Pugnacious Peach has not given permission to be made self-aware.
-
There's a difference between practicing medicine, or law, or what have you, and using techniques you glean from your profession in your daily life. And, as such, if asking questions in this way is this specific, I know quite a few people who must be equally censured, despite having no formal training in psychology whatsoever.
As I noted before, without the context, outside the box, and any other character, would this be a problem?
If the other character intended to pursue a career as a licensed psychologist, yes indeed, it certainly could become one.
If you're applying for a tow operator's license and they discover that you've previously operated an unlicensed tow truck, you're going to face additional scrutiny before you're issued a license.
If you are seeking to be licensed as a massage therapist and your name has been associated with massage parlors specializing in "happy endings," you're probably in for a hassle.
If you are seeking to be licensed as a real estate agent and they have reason to believe you've been involved in selling swampland in Florida...
If you are trying to become licensed as a used car dealer and they have reason to believe you've curbsided a dozen flood cars from out of state over the past six months....
Yes. If you've come to the attention of licensing authorities any whiff of practicing prior to obtaining licensure may cause you problems. If it turns out to be unfounded so so insignificant that the authorities opt not to take action, the problem goes away. But the subject has still been on the hot seat for a while and will probably not remember the experience fondly.
And then, here in the US, there's HIPAA. For non-USAians, it's a federal law involving privacy of patient medical records, including psychotherapy (and much, much more, but that's the nutshell version). That's another potential wrinkle Evie may find difficult to iron out, especially if the other customer (the one who looks like Brun from the back) recognizes her and is a gossip. You're non-professional friend having an identical conversation has no obligations under HIPAA, but an aspiring clinician does.
-
Here's another way to express what's disturbing me about Evie and raising uncertainties which may or may not get comforting answers.
Evie is asking questions which she, of all people, should know are the type of questions that lead to insights and revelations.
The Pugnacious Peach has not given permission to be made self-aware.
Isn't that part of the social contract though? If you have a conversation, you may learn something. It may be something you didn't want to know, although chances are it'll just be finding out that the other person agrees with you that weather's awful. I don't expect to have to give consent to have my mind changed.
You seem to be saying that because Evie can be assumed to have the skills to drive a conversation in a certain way, she needs to make sure the other person is okay with her doing so. But I think that is placing far to much emphasis on the effectiveness of her training. Being a psychiatrist doesn't make you suddenly able to induce revelations in others with a few words- it would be amazing if it did, and scary. But in truth, analysis takes months, sometimes years, and doesn't just happen over coke and a burger. Evie isn't going to make Faye do anything or think anything as a result of asking leading questions. Worst case scenario she gets it entirely wrong, get's her foot wedged in her mouth and Faye chews her out.
Because Faye is not powerless, is not a shrinking violet, and has demonstrated that she is quite happy to tell people where to get off if they are out of line. But she hasn't. They're just talking. Faye has every right to say stop if she feels pressured or insulted, but she hasn't.
As to the idea that Evie is somehow practicing without a licence- just no. She and Faye are not in a proffesional relationship, Faye cannot be construed to be or have thought herself Evie's client, Evie has not charged for her services or even presented what she is saying as an expert opinion. What she and Faye discuss is not covered by patient/doctor priviledge, and only confidential insofar as any private conversation being held in a public place might be.
Seriously guys they are Just. Talking. Whether it is rude, impolite, personal, tmi- these are all things that Faye can feel, but it would be on her to say that. The reason Evie was being obnoxious before was because Bubbles *did* clearly say she was uncomfortable, many times and Evie ignored her. Faye has not said anything to indicate that Evie is out of line.
-
Bubbles might be a superb choice for a life partner for Faye.
The other way around?
I think Bubbles needs somebody steadier. Though they are clearly getting along well.
I'm pretty sure this things have nothing to do with choice... In my experince, at least, you just fall into it, even if it takes a long time to realize what's happening.
-
I would argue that it’s without Faye’s consent due to Evie asking the kind of questions that you hear in a therapy session. She’s asking her girlfriend’s sister deeply probing questions over dinner, with her girlfriend right next to her. Evie is the proof of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
There is a time and a place to ask these questions and dinner the first evening you’ve met the sister is not it.
And yet Faye is completely comfortable in answering, so I don't understand the fuss.
This is the problem with getting offended on behalf of someone else who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
Agreed. If Faye had a problem with this she wouldn’t shy away from making her objections known.
-
Except none of that is what Evie is doing. She's not in session with Faye. She's not offering her consulting or psychotherapy. She's asking probing questions. In a conversation that was already about relationships. That is not the same thing. If rules were that strict it would be almost impossible for anyone seeking almost any kind of medical degree to talk to people about how they are doing. This is all expanding what is happening to absurd degrees and guessing at ways she could, but is not, twisting what's happening to improper means. I know the forum loves to overanalyze the comics, but this is really going beyond.
-
The Pugnacious Peach has not given permission to be made self-aware.
Neither does Evie have any way of knowing whether Faye can deal with what she (potentially) learns about herself (or has even tried to get Faye's measure in that respect, as far as we know).
No, none of her behaviour is "bad", or a clearcut "wrong" per se, it just strikes me as ... careless and lacking in respect for Faye's personhood and the seriousness of the task of assisting another with their insights into their own mind. And I share Castlerook's hunch that it seems as least as much about self-gratification as it is about helping Faye.
IDK, maybe it's just down to different upbringing, or cultural differences or whatever.
-
There are two different issues here: one, whether Evie is practicing psychotherapy without a license, and, two, what she intends to do with conversation.
Point one is completely unsupportable. She has not presented herself as a therapist. Right now, this is nothing more than a conversation -- a very creepy conversation, yes, but only a conversation, all the same.
Point two is a completely different kettle of mush. Evie has emphatically *not* provided Faye with any opportunity to give informed consent to be an experimental subject. She has even more emphatically gotten no kind of consent from Bubbles. If she's using this interview to inform her dissertation, she's way, way, way over the line. If she uses this interview and her IRB learns about its context, then she absolutely is in a boatload of trouble.
-
New comic!
And Evie proves she knows where the line is....somewhere at least.
-
I love the rainbow that she makes with her hands as she gestures the word "spectrum." It's such good webcomic artistry. :) Good job, Jeph!
-
The Pugnacious Peach has not given permission to be made self-aware.
Neither does Evie have any way of knowing whether Faye can deal with what she (potentially) learns about herself (or has even tried to get Faye's measure in that respect, as far as we know).
No, none of her behaviour is "bad", or a clearcut "wrong" per se, it just strikes me as ... careless and lacking in respect for Faye's personhood and the seriousness of the task of assisting another with their insights into their own mind. And I share Castlerook's hunch that it seems as least as much about self-gratification as it is about helping Faye.
IDK, maybe it's just down to different upbringing, or cultural differences or whatever.
I do see what you mean about lacking respect. Today's comic shows that it's going in a different direction, but if she *had* been trying to force revelation out of Faye, I agree that would have been surprisingly intense pressure on her part, to say the least. It would still have been ultimately Faye's decision as to whether her own comfort zone was exceeded, as it was before, but I'd certainly become uncomfortable in her shoes.
As it stands, it looks like the dramatic payoff is being deferred at least until Monday.
...
...
(*twitches*)
-
Evie seems to be studying research psych, not clinical. She certainly isn't a Psychiatric student- that's a whole different ball game, at least in Canada. She isn't qualified to do analysis on a professional scale; which is great, because she's not doing that. She's asking vaguely invasive questions of her girlfriend's sister.
And this anecdotal adventure with Faye couldn't be used in her course work, because it isn't a professional experiment and can't be cited. I never reached grad student, but even my entry level classes would never accept a discussion over dinner as evidence. Evie's just interested because this is her field.
Perhaps it's because I have a giant, nosy family who tend to date nosy people, so I'm rockin' a cultural bias here, but Evie isn't doing anything here I'm a stranger to.
-
Knowing Jeph he'll switch to some other plot thread monday.
Arrrgh...
-
My alarm bells are much quieter now that it's clear Evie is not trying to make Faye face up to her (perceived) feelings for Bubbles.
-
Or she’s realized she’s up against a brick wall and decided it’s not worth the effort.
-
Ye of little faith.
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
I've noticed that too. The forums can get downright toxic sometimes. I was actually looking for a way to delete my account during the Tilly arc so I could resist the temptation to keep coming back.
-
Really, who are these self-aware freaks who know what's going on in their hearts. Damn things are like a 100X100X100 Rubik's cube.
(I once crushed on a girl for three years before realizing it; granted, I was around ten when it started, but that didn't stop me from being like, "Damn, I am dense" once I figured it out.)
I can relate. I once got terribly upset at a female coworker because she was sick and still at work instead of at home resting.
It hit me about an hour later when I was putting out christmas ornaments why I was so upset about it and I started laughing hysterically.
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
Me, I'm more at the point of
"Yes, yes, this trope is familiar and I'm sure people find it, and/or Faye continuing to miss All The Hints, very cute. Wake me when there's some actual progress and/or realization, rather than Jeph doing the equivalent of waving a laser pointer in front of a cat, pls?"
-
I want Evie and Momo to meet and converse.
-
And the Friday faceplant. sigh. Remember what I said about a trope being drug out too long without a pay out?
-
I want Evie and Momo to meet and converse.
Oh yeah, that could be an interesting conversation.
-
I want Evie and Momo to meet and converse.
I'd love to see Emily meet Melon and Brun.
-
To me, panel 4 basically explains the entire purpose (at least from the characters' POV) for this arc fragment: Amanda wants Faye to be as happy as she is with Evie. Something she saw in Bubbles and Faye's interactions, no matter what it was, has convinced her that there is a chemistry there. Whether Evie saw the same thing or whether people with psych training tend to automatically start trying to unpick the Gordonian Knot of the brains of everyone they meet out of force of habit is something that I don't know.
It's only occasionally that we see it but Faye has a good heart. In the end, she wants the best for all of her friends, even if she doesn't know really how to achieve that some days.
-
I love the rainbow that she makes with her hands as she gestures the word "spectrum." It's such good webcomic artistry. :) Good job, Jeph!
Agree on the good comic artistry. For me, in the last three comics each of the last panels has been brilliant as well! So well drawn, so evocative.
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
Maybe. However good drama tends to require a degree of conflict. A 24/7 hugfest would not engage people.
-
Does every conflict require a villain?
-
I want Evie and Momo to meet and converse.
Yes please.
Also: no, conflict doesn't require a villain. And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
-
"Emily bumps into Melon as she's leaving Union Robotics"
...And then the weirdness fields generated by Melon and Emily coalesce into a single Nimbus of Unreality that grows uncontrollably, encompassing the whole city and transporting it to Rainbow Unicorn Valley...
-
"Emily bumps into Melon as she's leaving Union Robotics"
...And then the weirdness fields generated by Melon and Emily coalesce into a single Nimbus of Unreality that grows uncontrollably, encompassing the whole city and transporting it to Rainbow Unicorn Valley...
...and that's far from the stangest things that could happen.
-
Evie isn't trying to force Faye into anything. She's asking her gentle, probing questions that might allow Faye herself to come to a realisation. You can ask these kind of questions of anyone without having any foreknowledge of them. Sometimes people need that prod to make them consider what they really want. On the other hand, Amanda, nobody needs telling that they ought to bang their best mate.
-
...And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
I'm struggling to think of one that doesn't have any...
Everything I've ever studied has lain down "conflict" as the foundation for virtually every story out there.
-
...And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
As Joe sniped me to saying... well, yes? Yes it does?
You're right that it doesn't need a villain to cause it, but... every story, period, requires conflict.
-
I think whether story requires conflict is perhaps arguable, but I would say that drama does require conflict.
I don't think that QC sans conflict will happen any time soon.
-
I would say every story has a conflict but that doesn't mean it's always two people disagreeing or fighting. Almost every story can be defined as establishing the status quo, conflicts happens, then return to status quo. There's obviously details that make each story unique and the return to baseline can have changes from the established at the start one but if you want, a lot of stories can be described very broadly as that. Although long form media with no forseeable end like webcomics can blur the lines even more.
-
Does every conflict require a villain?
Every conflict requires an antagonist; I'd argue that they don't have to be a villain in the traditional sense. You've got two sides that both believe they're right sometimes - say, Les miserables, where javert isn't exactly that villainous. The closest to a villain there are the thenadiers.
-
Yes. So, to drag the (worthwhile) conversation back to QC for a moment, then, I would say that we need not be looking for a villain in every QC story arc. Though of course it does happen from time to time. Corpse Witch and Beatrice would be recent examples.
Most conflict in QC derives from flawed characters either dealing with inner conflict (e.g. Bubbles and Faye dealing with past events), or coming into conflict with each other when their actions cause harm (usually due to ignorance rather than maliciousness).
We've seen Evie say things that have hurt Bubbles. You could thereby view her as a villain, whereas I would put her in the category of an otherwise well-meaning character causing harm through a form of ignorance. The problem with immediately viewing her as a villain is that this will colour your perception of every interaction involving her in the future, and will cloud your objectivity. I can understand the desire to see her punished if this situation feels very personal for you, but I personally would rather see her learn.
-
Over the course of three-and-a-half-thousand strips, Marten has said a number of harsh, hurtful, and thoughtless things. He is the primary antagonist.
-
Most conflict in QC derives from flawed characters either dealing with inner conflict...
I was about to say that conflict in a story doesn't necessarily require a villain, as it can be internal - but you ninja'd me.
-
I would argue that you don't even really need an identified character as an antagonist or conflict driver. For example, Hannelore's primary foe is her mental health issues. Tilly (to a very small degree), Juicy and Beatrice are just proxies around which we can see this foe has succeeded in greatly narrowing the scope of her life.
IMO, Jeph tends to use this tool a lot. He very rarely has out-and-out villains (this is what made Corpse Witch so notable in his work). He more often has the characters struggling against themselves with others' behaviour simply demonstrating why these internal problems are such a huge issue for the protagonist in the narrative. He even did more-or-less the same thing in Alice Grove, with Alice's main antagonist being her past, her fear of her essential created nature and her sense of guilt as to what she had been created to be and with what she had been a willing and eager participant in her youthful ignorance.
-
Over the course of three-and-a-half-thousand strips, Marten has said a number of harsh, hurtful, and thoughtless things. He is the primary antagonist.
I couldn't disagree more. I hope it's some kind of humoristic or affectionate remark...
In case you say that seriously, just let me kindly remind you that you're in no way forced to read that comic.
-
Over the course of three-and-a-half-thousand strips, Marten has said a number of harsh, hurtful, and thoughtless things. He is the primary antagonist.
Thoughtless... yes.
Hurtful... Maybe? But I doubt intentionally?
Harsh...? Really?
Pintsize is far more of an antagonist than Marten has ever been... YYMV of course.
-
Does every conflict require a villain?
In a literary sense? Yes and no. Villain doesn't automatically translate to evil. It's entirely a case of the character that stands in the way of your protagonist. Your protagonist and your villain both want something, and only one or the other can get what they want without in some way preventing the other from doing so.
It really does just come down to who your protagonist is. If you're protagonist is of some sort of moral stance you agree with, that tends to mean you think of the their villain/antagonist as evil.
But the reality is a villain, or the less baggage term 'antagonist' in a story conflict can literally be someone who just wants the same sandwich as your protagonist. The only distinction is whose perspective you're writing the story from.
That's kinda what makes it easy for people to take sides in these stories: With a few exceptions, Jeph has a neutral author's voice. Yeah he puts in smarmy commentary post-hoc, but he inserts no narrative boxes. There's only a few internal narrative moments. He just lets these characters go in their natural element, and leaves us to decide how to interpret them.
We really do get to decide who the protagonist an antagonists are a lot of the times, and we might be a bit hardwired to do so.
-
Points for Evie.
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
Maybe. However good drama tends to require a degree of conflict. A 24/7 hugfest would not engage people.
On the other hand the weekly comic strips over the past few months always seem to devolve into 'I hate the latest person/existing character and let me explain why in extreme detail, then argue endlessly about it.' I mean yeah, everyone has characters they like and don't like. But nearly every day I look in these threads it seems like people are trying to turn everyone into a villain and it's draining and depressing? Remember when Hannelore gave her mother a little shove and people were literally saying she should be arrested for it? Frankly I've been coming to the forums a lot less lately because it just seems filled with negativity and I have enough of that in my life from other sources.
-
I'll have to agree with that. Not everything must be criminalised, and punished to the full extent of the law.
In a literary sense? Yes and no.
...
We really do get to decide who the protagonist an antagonists are a lot of the times, and we might be a bit hardwired to do so.
I much prefer to talk about protagonist and antagonist. It's not just baggage; villain has always been pejorative, from its medieval beginnings onwards. Arguably that's denotation. So, a villain is evil, nowadays, no matter how you put it.
That's what I meant with our auctorial fallacy as well; you need to be very careful: the story you hear is not necessarily the story your author is telling. It's easy to interpret things, and then make the leap that the author says such and such. Mind the gap between text and interpretation.
Oh, this is 300, I guess. Pneumatic ratchet pants?
-
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
Maybe. However good drama tends to require a degree of conflict. A 24/7 hugfest would not engage people.
On the other hand the weekly comic strips over the past few months always seem to devolve into 'I hate the latest person/existing character and let me explain why in extreme detail, then argue endlessly about it.' I mean yeah, everyone has characters they like and don't like. But nearly every day I look in these threads it seems like people are trying to turn everyone into a villain and it's draining and depressing? Remember when Hannelore gave her mother a little shove and people were literally saying she should be arrested for it? Frankly I've been coming to the forums a lot less lately because it just seems filled with negativity and I have enough of that in my life from other sources.
I feel the same. I'd love to find a forum where the members are into the same stuff i am....QC amongst others fits the bill (not to annoy the Tillys) - we are generally 15-45yo weeaboos who like anime, guitar music, sci-fi, much like OBA.
Thus, I feel/hope we are part of a community.......
.......except I've never been part of a community before where if I don't use the right pronouns, I am denounced. I guess thats a community of acquaintances, not friends......maybe thats because in 40 years on this earth, I have still not met anybody who thinks they are so important they deserve their own pronouns.......
.........and..........
.......I've never been part of a community before where we were discussing the fact that people *might* take a *family* discussion over a meal, turn it to a research thesis and therefore should have asked for consent.
This is really a step too far......high drama and fantasy, full novels, require antagonists, conflict and villains - surely a webcomic can make a heavy point lightly, or a light point with too heavy a touch, and remain a comic and not a dissertation to be criticised?
I note that during all this criticism, its the characters who are criticised, and not the author?
-
I have still not met anybody who thinks they are so important they deserve their own pronouns.......
This is the only thing I will say on this topic.
No one is so important that they deserve their own pronouns.
Everyone is important enough to deserve ordinary, decent respect in how they are seen and identified.
That is all its about, respect.
-
Pneumatic ratchet pants?
I've always assumed that this is a reference to the Techno Trousers in a couple of Wallace and Gromit films - though the term doesn't appear there, so I could be wrong.
-
-
I have still not met anybody who thinks they are so important they deserve their own pronouns.......
This is the only thing I will say on this topic.
No one is so important that they deserve their own pronouns.
Everyone is important enough to deserve ordinary, decent respect in how they are seen and identified.
That is all its about, respect.
-
<stuff>
.......except I've never been part of a community before where if I don't use the right pronouns, I am denounced...maybe thats because in 40 years on this earth, I have still not met anybody who thinks they are so important they deserve their own pronouns.......
<more stuff>
This is the only thing I will say on this topic: It is possible to use too many ellipses.
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony implicit in me, of all people, pointing that out)
-
I do think that this forum as a whole seems to very very quickly look for the worst in every new character introduced (sometimes inventing things that aren't even THERE. Seriously if half the stuff that offended the people on the forum was how they treated people they meet in real life, I can't imagine how they would ever have any friends).
It is honestly why I went back to lurking for a long time rather than ever posting. It is just tiring.
-
I have still not met anybody who thinks they are so important they deserve their own pronouns.......
This is the only thing I will say on this topic.
No one is so important that they deserve their own pronouns.
Everyone is important enough to deserve ordinary, decent respect in how they are seen and identified.
That is all its about, respect.
It is about respect. It is also about kindness and humanity.
My daughter is trans. I wrote a wall of text about how our culture is cruel to her in ways both great and small, but I'm not posting it. It suffices to say that gender non-conforming people are ostracized, marginalized, and in danger every day of their lives.
Although we alone can only do so much to make those things better, there is one thing we can do, out of kindness if not out of respect. We can honor their names and pronouns.
-
sometimes inventing things that aren't even THERE. Seriously if half the stuff that offended the people on the forum was how they treated people they meet in real life, I can't imagine how they would ever have any friends.
Sooooh ... best to imply they're social outcasts that nobody wants to be around, so they have something real to be offended by?
P.S.: Is there anybody left who knows who 'those people' and ... the other 'those people' are? I think this Forum has a serious problem with 'Those people whoTM ...'-debates. Well, it is a problem if you're one of those people who wonder what would happen if all the people who complain the loudest about those other people whoTM who are being too easily offended (or the ones who 'like' the complaints of the people who are offended about the people who are too easily offended) discovered that most of the people who they thought were on their side were actually referring to them when they were talking about "those people whoTM ...". The "other people whoTM", of course.
Savvy? :wink:
P.P.S.: That should about guarantee that everybody has a reason to suspect they might be implicated. And justified in being offended by it ...
-
On the subject of pronouns: If someone identifies as a woman, I will use she/her, if they identify as a man, I will use he/him, if they identify as neither I will use they/them.
But I just can't memorize individual pronouns for every person who decides they need a new one. From a practical standpoint, and from the standpoint of I don't even know how xie is pronounced.
That was what I interpreted when the person said "their own pronouns", rather than saying they wouldn't identify a trans person by the gender they identify as.
-
sometimes inventing things that aren't even THERE. Seriously if half the stuff that offended the people on the forum was how they treated people they meet in real life, I can't imagine how they would ever have any friends.
Sooooh ... best to imply they're social outcasts that nobody wants to be around, so they have something real to be offended by?
No, it is implying that they treat the new characters more harshly than they do real people. Because I seriously doubt that anyone would feel that a real person was somehow in the wrong for just asking a few leading questions without pressuring the person to answer them in an attempt to get them to realize something. We've just as a whole gotten way more critical of people in this comic than I could imagine ever being with real people. Myself included! I've been involved in arguments in the past on these forums where I've done the same thing.
You look for malice where there is none.
-
sometimes inventing things that aren't even THERE. Seriously if half the stuff that offended the people on the forum was how they treated people they meet in real life, I can't imagine how they would ever have any friends.
Sooooh ... best to imply they're social outcasts that nobody wants to be around, so they have something real to be offended by?
No, it is implying that they treat the new characters more harshly than they do real people. Because I seriously doubt that anyone would feel that a real person was somehow in the wrong for just asking a few leading questions without pressuring the person to answer them in an attempt to get them to realize something. We've just as a whole gotten way more critical of people in this comic than I could imagine ever being with real people. Myself included! I've been involved in arguments in the past on these forums where I've done the same thing.
Fair enough.
You look for malice where there is none.
Who, like me specifically, looking for malice in your post, right now? No, I don't think you have much malice in you. Less than average, if anything, judging by what I've seen from you. It's an old Gamer-burn ("pWnED u, Noob!", "At least I have a life ..."), is all.
I do think that this is one of those periods when there's been strain in the community and everybody is kinda vaguely pissed with those people whoTM who are being too easily offended and feel that now is the time to voice their agreement with the people who've pointed out that they think that some peopleTM on this forum are too easily offended - and I'm pretty sure that many who are happy now to have someone to agree with would be very surprised if they knew who those they agreed with had in mind.
-
Fair enough. I've been a bit prickly the last few days, just not doing well (I have caught what I refer to as "The Malaise", which is just that feeling of not enjoying anything and feeling listless and vaguely bad for no reason). I apologize if I come off as more critical or nasty than intended :)
-
Fair enough. I've been a bit prickly the last few days, just not doing well (I have caught what I refer to as "The Malaise", which is just that feeling of not enjoying anything and feeling listless and vaguely bad for no reason). I apologize if I come off as more critical or nasty than intended :)
I don't think you have anything to apologize for - I think we have a cultural 'Those people whoTM'-problem that makes disagreements seem worse than they are, and the 'camps' seem larger than they are - which sometimes ends up in disagreements becoming worse than they need to be and many, many people feeling ill-treated. You just happened to be in front of my soapbox.
Hope The Malaise pisses off soon.
-
...And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
As Joe sniped me to saying... well, yes? Yes it does?
You're right that it doesn't need a villain to cause it, but... every story, period, requires conflict.
http://www.thewriteturn.com/kishotenketsu-the-four-act-narrative-or-the-plot-without-conflict/
"All drama needs conflict" is common knowledge. In western/european schools. That doesn't make it universal truth any more than any other euro-centric "truths" about civilization, social norms, etc.
-
It might be that what I understand is different from what were talking about here, but that structure, interesting as it is, is narrative, but not drama to me, necessarily.
Plot and narrative without conflict are easy enough to imagine. Calling it drama, to me, does imply a certain kind of narrative, a certain genre, really.
-
...And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
As Joe sniped me to saying... well, yes? Yes it does?
You're right that it doesn't need a villain to cause it, but... every story, period, requires conflict.
http://www.thewriteturn.com/kishotenketsu-the-four-act-narrative-or-the-plot-without-conflict/
"All drama needs conflict" is common knowledge. In western/european schools. That doesn't make it universal truth any more than any other euro-centric "truths" about civilization, social norms, etc.
What is conflict?
It is the opposition to the completion of a goal.
A character wants to be happy? What stands in the way of that goal?
Conflict is the process by which character development occurs, where a character has to reflect on their past and their actions in order to move forward. But more importantly, one can not separate the story from the conflict and vice versa, the fact is, they are mutually inclusive. Without conflict, there is no story to tell.
William Faulkner once wrote that the "Only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself."
To put it another way, a story without conflict is like food without flavour (http://avajae.blogspot.ie/2012/11/conflict-key-to-good-story.html), as that article puts it.
-
You're free to not like different styles of story.
That doesn't mean your preferred style is the only valid one.
-
Never said it was.
You are the one who seems to have a particular bugbear about the topic.
-
It should be pointed out that even in stories based on the Kishotenketsu structure, conflict is often present. Just because the structure is not based around conflict like in the three-act western structure, does not mean that conflict is nonexistent in the stories.
To be honest, human existence without conflict rarely exists. Managing to write something with literally no conflict would be difficult, just because it would be so foreign to the human experience.
-
I do think that this forum as a whole seems to very very quickly look for the worst in every new character introduced (sometimes inventing things that aren't even THERE. Seriously if half the stuff that offended the people on the forum was how they treated people they meet in real life, I can't imagine how they would ever have any friends).
It is honestly why I went back to lurking for a long time rather than ever posting. It is just tiring.
I know what you're talking about.
Some fraction, I don't know how much, is an unintended effect of how well Jeph writes. With a few words and a few pictures he makes characters real enough to remind forum-goers of real people from their pasts. Then his readers respond with the same emotions they felt toward the person from the past. Sometimes those feelings are at traumatic levels of intensity.
EDIT: on top of that, the game of overanalyzing everything can make us lose perspective. I step back, I stop over-thinking Evie, and I see the fact is the the last few days have had me laughing out loud on every strip.
-
These fora could use a heavy dose of the MST3K mantra, and I don't mean the bit about Tilly getting shot into space.
-
Adding to the current meta-discussion, I've also been baffled by the response to Evie*; less so regarding the initial dislike - she did demonstrate a certain lack of social grace, which probably struck a chord with some people more so than with me because I've been lucky enough not to have my lived experiences talked about like that - but more so regarding the following analysis of her entire character and motivations. It seemed as if people were almost starting to see her as some sort of "intellectual terror", an academic completely out of touch with ethics and basic decency, solely fuelled by her desire to further her research. (Obviously this is an exaggerated image of people's reactions to her, but not, I'll argue, an unfounded one.) We have barely met this character, and so we are sorely lacking the necessary amount of data for any sort of thorough character analysis; let's not jump to conclusions, eh? And maybe, just maybe, not think the worst of a character from the get-go because of less-than-perfect initial impressions?
*I was also shocked at people's hatred of Tilly, but let's not get into that here and now.
-
http://www.thewriteturn.com/kishotenketsu-the-four-act-narrative-or-the-plot-without-conflict/
"All drama needs conflict" is common knowledge. In western/european schools. That doesn't make it universal truth any more than any other euro-centric "truths" about civilization, social norms, etc.
I... did you really have to make it a 'European' thing?
Despite having studied mandarin a while back -- Some poetry even! "Shī Shě shí shī shǐ" or "The Story of Mr. Shi Eating Lions" is one of my favourite literary works of all time -- I wasn't familiar with this particular narrative structure, because while I have made an effort to study other cultures outside my own, all of my formal literary and screenwriting education has been what's commercially viable in my own culture. That's a fair criticism.
If you had taken a kinder tone, I could have pointed out this is a more abstract style suited for other works, and doesn't work in a slice-of-life format like QuestionableContent, but thanked you for broadening my education, and that could have been a cool good interaction.
But instead you kind of... insinuated prejudice on my behalf. And that's kind of not cool?
-
Does that distinction even make sense, whatwith 'Drama' being a classification in European art? (originally Greek, right?)
We could, of course, debate which is worse: Implicitly excluding non-European art while talking about one category in a European taxonomy of art, or implicitly lumping non-European art into a European taxonomy of art ... but does that make sense? And isn't it a bit ... 'Eurocentric'? (*)
What would the respective non-European artists think about such a discussion? Don't they have their own terms for what they do?
(*) I mean, I'm a Euro on a largely USnian board, so I got no problem with a wee bit of Eurocentrism every once in a while ...
-
I'll reiterate that I think it's important to distinguish between narrative structure, and genre. There is not always a one to one relationship between the two.
Personally, I have written a few things that do not have any conflict in them, and that might fit the suggested pattern. However, I never would have called it drama. Even though it's in prose format, I consider it very much closer to poetry.
And as such, drama is a genre in itself. It can take the form of kishotenketsu, even, according to the cited article. But central to the drama is the action - from which the name itself derives, in old Greek - the conflict.
Now, just as a reaction to MrNumbers's post that every story needs conflict, I can agree. But genres are what they are. And it's fine, and wonderful that not everything is in the same genre, but let's just celebrate the diversity, rather than make sweeping statements.
It's true that the literary canon has been a little one sided - many of the comment's on Bloom's magnum opus are certainly justified. And we should include non-European art. But we should, in my opinion, recognise it in its own genres and categories. There are some categories that are probably common to both European and non-European; especially on the higher levels of the taxonomy.
-
But instead you kind of... insinuated prejudice on my behalf. And that's kind of not cool?
You declared all stories - not even just dramas, but all stories, "every story, period" - require conflict, and think it's not cool if I point out that fairly narrow school of thought on story structure isn't a universal truth?
Okay.
Edit: I initially refrained as I was worried I might let a little bit too much of my honest response to that post shine through if I wrote it too hastily, but after taking a moment to settle, I'll add something a little closer to that mood: You know what's not cool? Tone-policing. Especially when it's done in the same breath as admitting ignorance of something you'd previously spoken of as if you had some kind of (unearned) authority on the topic.
I can't say you've presented a case for me to care about having a "cool, good interaction" with you when that's how you respond to "a fair criticism."
-
-
I am also aware of strong criticism of tone policing in some quarters (it's been directed against me personally on another forum, together, to be fair, with links to thoughtful arguments on the matter); however, I feel that it is appropriate here, and I am not fully convinced by the arguments against it in other places either.
-
Tone policing is the only way the moderators have found to reconcile the owner's disgust with flame wars with our commitment to being inclusive of a wide variety of people. Being cool and civil is expected in this tiny corner of the Internet even under provocation.
I am also aware of strong criticism of tone policing in some quarters (it's been directed against me personally on another forum, together, to be fair, with links to thoughtful arguments on the matter); however, I feel that it is appropriate here, and I am not fully convinced by the arguments against it in other places either.
What had to be good enough for Valdis and TIR is certainly good enough for me (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,28160.msg1395294.html#msg1395294).
Edit: Speaking of which:
Fair enough. I've been a bit prickly the last few days, just not doing well (I have caught what I refer to as "The Malaise", which is just that feeling of not enjoying anything and feeling listless and vaguely bad for no reason). I apologize if I come off as more critical or nasty than intended :)
I don't think you have anything to apologize for <snip>
On second thought, make that: I don't think you have anything to apologize for, and if you do, I'm guilty of it to at least the same degree, if not more. Sorry for that. I didn't find a better way to communicate what I wanted to say upthread. Maybe should have tried harder.
-
...And no, good drama doesn't require a conflict.
As Joe sniped me to saying... well, yes? Yes it does?
You're right that it doesn't need a villain to cause it, but... every story, period, requires conflict.
http://www.thewriteturn.com/kishotenketsu-the-four-act-narrative-or-the-plot-without-conflict/
"All drama needs conflict" is common knowledge. In western/european schools. That doesn't make it universal truth any more than any other euro-centric "truths" about civilization, social norms, etc.
"The third act of a Kishōtenketsu story is a complication, but it is not a conflict.
The contrasting dislocation might provide the reader with a sense of chaos as this third, seemingly random situation is explored, but this is not a conflict.
It might be argued that the third act of Kishōtenketsu might be able to be a conflict, but conflict certainly isn’t integral to the plot resolution or narrative development as it is in Western narrative structures.
A further difference is that the character does not need to engage with the complication of the third act. The twist might simply be a shift in setting or focus, that will bear some relevance to the establishing acts in the fourth act."
Complication / Conflict
TomAYto / TomAHto
However...
Your intitial comment questioned that "all *Drama* needs conflict."
Drama, by it's very definition, *is* conflict... and conflict itself has many, MANY facets.
"Contrasting dislocation"? "Sense of chaos"?
Says "conflict" to me.
The article you quoted also flatly states that "Kiki's delivery Service" is a classic example of this (apparent) non-conflict trope...
Except it isn't. Miyazaki, (The director of the film) has stated that the movie portrays the gulf between independence and reliance in teenage Japanese girls...
Conflict.
In the film she is basically stalked by a young guy... Conflict.
She and her cat have a falling out... Conflict.
She forgets how to fly... Conflict.
(Yeah, that'll do.)
-
Hmm. This is educational.
Less educationally but more fundamentally, there's an old definition that says "The King died" is a news report, and "The King died, then the Queen died of a broken heart" is a story. Pretty sure that was from a Euro-descended background. I don't see it as conflict. Ditto Hemingway's "For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn." which he represented as being a story.
(Actually I can beat that one from real life. On the bulletin board for ads at one job, "Estate sale: motorcycle helmet". )
-
I think another issue we're having, is what is the definition of conflict? If we're discussing conflict in the context of drama, or narrative, in general, the term does not hold the same definition as it does in other contexts. There's our internal conflict as well.
But let's move away from the term conflict, for a while. Let's go back to our ancient Greeks, who seem to have meddled somewhat in this discussion already, and borrow their term for the concept: agon. This is the word that gives us protagonist, antagonist, and agonising. Its meaning approximates contest, which is less strong than conflict.
The main function of agon, is to provide a certain tension, to drive the story, regardless of the cause of that tension. It may be your classic melodramatic good guy and bad guy, it might be one man's fight against the sea (not to mention a marvellous marlin), or someone's growth over time.
"Then the Queen died of a broken heart" contains this tension, even if it is not explicit. There is the tension between the instinct of survival and the emotions of grief. Hemingway's shortest story has the same kind of tension, in its implicit context that the child never got to wear them. It's less poignant, to me, in the estate sale example. But well, in six words or less, your tension practically must be implicit.
Even in the most basic narrative, there is the tension of time - of what was, and is, and will or will not be - or conversely, like in De avonden the sense that nothing changes despite that being the normal order of things. Granted, that will not always be the most interesting of narratives, but that in itself stresses the importance of that tension.
It might be that I've spent too much time reading my scholastics, but a proper definition of the question, and the terms used, can sometimes enlighten things to a surprising degree. So, I guess that this is what, in a narrative context, I understand by the term conflict. And I hope it helps enlighten why I do think it is quite essential for most narratives - poetry is another thing, though, where the same rules do not always apply.
-
I think another issue we're having, is what is the definition of conflict? If we're discussing conflict in the context of drama, or narrative, in general, the term does not hold the same definition as it does in other contexts. There's our internal conflict as well.
(forgive the snippage but...)
^^^^^^^^
In a nutshell!
-
To get back to the starting point:
It's interesting, and frustrating, to me how quick some members of this forum are to search for a villain in every storyline.
Maybe. However good drama tends to require a degree of conflict. A 24/7 hugfest would not engage people.
Good drama may or may not require conflict. Discussion of art does not. That was the point - the behaviour of people here on this board, in this thread right here. Not the behaviour of fictional people on the other side of the 4th wall.
-
Let's make this more concrete. Where is the conflict right now? Here's what I think.
There is conflict between the way Bubbles and Faye appear to be viewing their developing relationship.
There is conflict between the way Faye sees her relationship with Bubbles, and the way the rest of the world sees it.
There is conflict between Evie's academic view of AI society and Bubbles' very real, lived experience of it.
All of these stories will be interesting as they play out, but I don't see evil or maliciousness on any side of these conflicts.
-
Looks like Melon reporting back with news of how her new "pet" is doing wins.
-
I'm posting in an old thread but this would be off topic in the current WCDT.
Evie is wrong (https://xkcd.com/1955/)
-
We haven't progressed at all since The Man in the White Suit, have we?
-
It's interesting that you should mention The Man in the White Suit. Along with its stable-mate, I'm Alright Jack, it is a debunking of the power of scientific and social progress to make the world a better place. Both films highlight the tragically human habit of choosing to reject objectively beneficial change simply because doing otherwise would lead to short-term inconvenience or financial loss or reduction of personal power on your part. In both cases, the protagonist ends up the tragic loser with the entire world having risen as one to strike them down for daring to threaten the status quo, no matter how bad said status quo might be.
-
It's interesting that you should mention The Man in the White Suit. Along with its stable-mate, I'm Alright Jack, it is a debunking of the power of scientific and social progress to make the world a better place. Both films highlight the tragically human habit of choosing to reject objectively beneficial change simply because doing otherwise would lead to short-term inconvenience or financial loss or reduction of personal power on your part. In both cases, the protagonist ends up the tragic loser with the entire world having risen as one to strike them down for daring to threaten the status quo, no matter how bad said status quo might be.
..Ummm...
I'm about 100% certain that's *why* Tova referenced it in the first place, Ben.. :)
-
We haven't progressed at all since The Man in the White Suit, have we?
"The status quo will do whatever it takes to retain the status quo."
-
Otherwise it would have changed already.
-
Otherwise it would have changed already.
Jake from Adventure Time expresses a rather cynical view about how the status quo works, but I can't really argue with him on his point.