Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Tai - Pot

11 (13.8%)

Sven - Luuurrrve

24 (30%)

Marten - Zen

3 (3.8%)

Dora - Coffee

5 (6.3%)

Jim - Muffins

6 (7.5%)

Sam - Cane Toad Secretions

10 (12.5%)

Hannelore - Antiseptic Mouthwash

14 (17.5%)

Dale - Maple Syrup

7 (8.8%)

Total Members Voted: 74

[aphanisis81]

I wonder if Jeph is trying to set up an omnishambles in Marten and Claire's social circles - possibly as a direct "fuck you" to those who said there's too much squee.

Angus nudged Faye over the brink
Sven and Faye are pushing Dora over the brink
Faye and Marigold are pushing Hanners over the brink
Dora's now hurt Tai
Who knows what'll happen with Clinton and Emily
Dora being pushed over the brink will put further strain on Hanners, and strain on Penny and Cosette
Penny and Cosette being strained will affect Wil and Steve
Faye's also putting strain on Marten, and Tai will probably put strain on Claire somehow
Faye being fired will put strain on Sam, which may put strain on Jim, which may affect Veronica, Renee, and Elliott
Wil being strained may rub off on Elliott too
All of this relationship drama will rub off on Amir, too. And don't forget Clairemom, too.

There, every current character that lives or works in Northampton, affected negatively by the fallout of Angus breaking up with Faye.

Except for a certain Dr. Buenvenida. She's rolling in the kilobucks.

I was thinking the same thing. We might be seeing a new era of QC, in which half a dozen relationships that were cultivated over nearly 3,000 strips will be at-best estranged for awhile. I'm all for it. And I bet #3,000 will be a god damn doozy.

[TheCaffeinatedPanda]

Aside: so what is the meaning of those little stars that appear above some people's avatars?

They're rating your potential as a labourer for when they take over the world.

Gods, I'm screwed.

[pwhodges]

Aside: so what is the meaning of those little stars that appear above some people's avatars?

They relate to the number of posts you've made, but change less frequently than the descriptions immediately below your name (which are listed somewhere in the wiki).  Admins and mods get to have different symbols.

[Zebediah]

I was thinking the same thing. We might be seeing a new era of QC, in which half a dozen relationships that were cultivated over nearly 3,000 strips will be at-best estranged for awhile. I'm all for it. And I bet #3,000 will be a god damn doozy.

So you're thinking the endgame is "everyone breaks up, then Jeph retires"?

[MrNumbers]

Genuine question: What are Marigold's redeeming qualities?

Honest, brave, hardworking, good to Momo almost always, friendly to Hannelore despite having to improvise the whole concept.

Previous discussion.

Delayed response, but, cheers. Honestly.

I know it was an awful question to ask, but it honestly has been confusing me for a while. I've been wondering what other people see in her that I simply haven't, and this has been wonderfully illuminating.

[ReindeerFlotilla]

Maybe I just have a different type of friend, but if someone shows up at my house, I generally don't think its my responsibility to entertain them. Its one thing if plans were made and all that jazz, but this doesn't see like that is the situation here. I take my me time seriously. I actually stayed downstairs one time when we had unexpected visitors and my wife hung out with them. I just stayed in bed and said I had a migraine. There are times when I just can't be around people.

And if I was reading something when they came in, I probably wouldn't immediately put it down just because they got there. Granted, I might have more random junk around my house for friends to pick up and thumb through than Marigold has (my main social hobbies are board games and ttrpgs, and different friends will be looking through those). And I had another friend who would sit on a chair on her laptop while I sat on the couch with mine, and we would occasionally say something to each other, which one of us might miss if we had been in the middle of reading something.

We don't know enough context. Did they make plans to hang out that day? Did Hanners interrupt her day that Marigold had planned to recharge in order to tell her all about the drama of people she isn't that close with?

If its the first one, then yeah, Marigold is being kind of a dick. If its the second one, Marigold is trying to accommodate a friend who showed up, but has her own needs as well, and that is conflicting.

Marigold is being kind of a dick in either case.

If a person shows up unexpected that person is rude up until the point the point you let them in. An invitation extended at the very last instance is still an invitation.

If you did not let them in, they are trespassing and possibly committing assault. Otherwise, they are your guest and you are responsible. The only out is if they are someone else's guest.

While it's possible to invoke some convoluted explanation to make this Momo's fault, I think that's extreme even for this forum.

Occam would be highly disappointed in you lot.

[explicit]

While it's possible to invoke some convoluted explanation to make this Momo's fault, I think that's extreme even for this forum.

It's my fault, sorry guys. I'll try not to let it happen again (it will though).

[ReindeerFlotilla]

While it's possible to invoke some convoluted explanation to make this Momo's fault, I think that's extreme even for this forum.

It's my fault, sorry guys. I'll try not to let it happen again (it will though).

Do or do  not. There is no try.

[cesium133]

I was thinking the same thing. We might be seeing a new era of QC, in which half a dozen relationships that were cultivated over nearly 3,000 strips will be at-best estranged for awhile. I'm all for it. And I bet #3,000 will be a god damn doozy.

So you're thinking the endgame is "everyone breaks up, then Jeph retires"?

So then what's the opposite of a Hannelore realdoll? Because apparently that's what Jeph would get when he retires...

[explicit]

I do not respect Yoda's advice, he was bad at strategery.

(YEAH I SAID IT)

[Aziraphale]

I am beginning to find the conversations around the comics rather disheartening. Either we have a bunch of strips where people are being cute and squee-worthy and many people complain that it's to much, the characters are to flat and there is no dramatic tension. Or there is some sort of drama going on, and everyone wants to rip all the characters involved to shreds, psychoanalyzing every comment and declaring that the characters are the Worst People Ever. I guess it's a good thing I don't write a web comic. I probably would have just thrown up my hands by now.

I'm starting to get to this point myself.

I always find myself defending characters, because it seems like every character has a hateclub ready to jump on them the moment they do anything even remotely not perfect.

I swear, if some of the people in the forum were as strict with the behavior of real life people as they are with QC characters, there is no way they actually still have friends.

Depends on the character. Faye can be abrasive as hell, but she's also been a good friend to several in the cast when push came to shove. Dora's been tone-deaf in how she's handled her friends and family, but also gave both Sven and Faye several shots at getting it right before she ditched them. Marten's a nice guy who just happens to be a bit too chill and happens to put his foot halfway down his throat from time to time.

See a pattern yet? You can acknowledge that someone has their good points and acknowledge their flaws. Neither one makes the other impossible. But if you mention that Dora's made some boneheaded moves recently, for instance, without first laying out a litany of disclaimers as to her (non-existent) saintliness, everybody gets their noses out of joint.

And that's further complicated by Marigold, who's taken far more from nearly everyone she's encountered than she's given (the exception being Momo). Nobody's saying she's evil. She's just a lot more immature, selfish and self-centered than anybody over the age of twelve has any right to be, and to some of us, that joke isn't funny anymore... She's not the "worst person ever." God knows, I've known far worse. But her behavior is grating for the same reason that people like that in real life -- who won't do the bare minimum to maintain a friendship, and who only value what they can take from others -- are the kind of people that most of us wouldn't like, and would keep at arm's length if we had the chance.

[eschaton]

And that's further complicated by Marigold, who's taken far more from nearly everyone she's encountered than she's given (the exception being Momo). Nobody's saying she's evil. She's just a lot more immature, selfish and self-centered than anybody over the age of twelve has any right to be, and to some of us, that joke isn't funny anymore... She's not the "worst person ever." God knows, I've known far worse. But her behavior is grating for the same reason that people like that in real life -- who won't do the bare minimum to maintain a friendship, and who only value what they can take from others -- are the kind of people that most of us wouldn't like, and would keep at arm's length if we had the chance.

In a way I applaud Jeph for how he wrote Marigold.  The cliche thing to do is to appeal to introverted nerds by making the introverted nerd character someone with hidden depths which are waiting to burst out - a leavening of personality features (wit, empathy, intelligence, etc) which are not immediately visible because of how awkward they are with people they don't know.  Jeph inverted this expectation, by making Marigold, under her rough, defensive, unlikable exterior pretty unlikable on the inside as well. 

[Isyrion]

Damn Marigold you are playing with fire right now.  If Hanners was giving me that look I swear I would shit myself.  Marigold you might want to start listening.

[Mr. Black Licorice]

I am beginning to find the conversations around the comics rather disheartening. Either we have a bunch of strips where people are being cute and squee-worthy and many people complain that it's to much, the characters are to flat and there is no dramatic tension. Or there is some sort of drama going on, and everyone wants to rip all the characters involved to shreds, psychoanalyzing every comment and declaring that the characters are the Worst People Ever. I guess it's a good thing I don't write a web comic. I probably would have just thrown up my hands by now.

I'm starting to get to this point myself.

I always find myself defending characters, because it seems like every character has a hateclub ready to jump on them the moment they do anything even remotely not perfect.
I swear, if some of the people in the forum were as strict with the behavior of real life people as they are with QC characters, there is no way they actually still have friends.

I'm with you. I find all of the characters in QC likeable in one way or another, even with all their foibles. It's a lot like real life, in that way - real life isn't full of bad guys and good guys, just flawed people trying to do their best... succeeding sometimes and failing sometimes.

[Aziraphale]

And that's further complicated by Marigold, who's taken far more from nearly everyone she's encountered than she's given (the exception being Momo). Nobody's saying she's evil. She's just a lot more immature, selfish and self-centered than anybody over the age of twelve has any right to be, and to some of us, that joke isn't funny anymore... She's not the "worst person ever." God knows, I've known far worse. But her behavior is grating for the same reason that people like that in real life -- who won't do the bare minimum to maintain a friendship, and who only value what they can take from others -- are the kind of people that most of us wouldn't like, and would keep at arm's length if we had the chance.

In a way I applaud Jeph for how he wrote Marigold.  The cliche thing to do is to appeal to introverted nerds by making the introverted nerd character someone with hidden depths which are waiting to burst out - a leavening of personality features (wit, empathy, intelligence, etc) which are not immediately visible because of how awkward they are with people they don't know.  Jeph inverted this expectation, by making Marigold, under her rough, defensive, unlikable exterior pretty unlikable on the inside as well.

Well, she's smart (i.e., book smart). But practically no common sense, empathy, or emotional intelligence. If it's pointed out to her that she's screwed up, she sometimes gets it. But this is far from the first time that Hanners has reached out to her looking for the same friendship or support that she's given, only to be met with a "What was the middle thing?"

[ReindeerFlotilla]

I'm doing this for illustrative purposes. My apologies for any confusion that may result, but using the quote tags would get tedious as hell:

"Depends on the character."
Man, you're wish washy. Pick a position already.

"Faye can be abrasive as hell,"
This is you projecting. Hell is probably very smooth.

"but she's also been a good friend to several in the cast when push came to shove."
But who was doing most of the pushing and shoving and punching and kicking...

"Dora's been tone-deaf in how she's handled her friends and family,"
What do you have against tone deaf people? I swear, the able-ism is thick...

"but also gave both Sven and Faye several shots at getting it right before she ditched them."
Pass

"Marten's a nice guy who just happens to be a bit too chill and happens to put his foot halfway down his throat from time to time."
Okay, seriously. People don't bend that way. It's not humanly possible without dislocation or hyper extension. And what does "halfway down his throat" even mean? Where is the throat's halfway point?

"See a pattern yet?"
Do you?

If it isn't clear, the issues aren't that there is no valid reason to criticize. It that people latch on to the the tiniest things and use them to expound upon their pet theories as to why character X is horrible, and it's actually quite annoying.

Marigold was not paying attention (why, we don't know), and she reacted by trying to do a thing most humans do when they feel guilty about not paying attention. This is primarily a set up for meaning salad joke.

I really do understand that 18 to 26 hours is a long time to wait for more data, and that speculation about what will happen next is what the forum is for. But it's a long way from "Marigold does her typical Marigold thing" to "Marigold is a horrible friend," to "This is the end of Hanners's relationship with Marigold," to "OMG, Jeph's burning all the bridges!"

Given the comic's lower information density, the level of analysis being thrown at at each strip is overwhelming, especially given that it tends to revolve around matters of taste rather than the question of what something means to the story, if anything.

We had a day full of people attempting to rip Marten a new one for not calling 911 when he found Faye passed out in her own vomit. But the next day we saw Marten treating the issue exactly the way any person in their mid 20's (and any person who has become desensitized to a hard drinker) would. "Dude. Wake up. You gotta get in the shower. Hey, are you in there? Hey, are you okay? Oh shit!" And Jeph conveyed that in one wordless panel.

Then the discussion of Marten's alleged failure as a human went poof. Yesterday's detailed analysis of Tai and Dora's failures was like that, and today's coal raking of Marigold is like that (although, given the shallow look we've had into the romance of Tai and Dora, yesterday was excusable). It's not that there aren't valid things, it the Rule 34-ish nature of the thing: If there's a possible interpretation of the strip that makes a character look bad, someone WILL use it to go off on the character they dislike.

I will complain. I even catch myself hitting the same note over an over. So it's not "hey, stop doing that." It's "hey, if someone is saying there's a whole lot of X happening, maybe stop and consider if they have a point."

[aphanisis81]

Reindeer, I'll concede on the point that people flail and grasp to defend their personal hatred of certain characters.

But otherwise, basically you're saying that we're reading too deeply into the text by making predictions such as "it looks like we're in for a downturn in various QC interpersonal relationships."

But there's no such thing as reading too deeply into anything if the interpretive conclusions are reached through actual reading: noticing patterns, recognizing typical character traits, plugging in conventional narrative tropes , making predictions, &c. We might be wrong sometimes, or even often, but - assuming that the reading points to evidence and precedent in the comic - the "reading too deeply" accusation is a blithe and frankly boring line of accusation.

[ReindeerFlotilla]

But otherwise, basically you're saying that we're reading too deeply into the text by making predictions such as "it looks like we're in for a downturn in various QC interpersonal relationships."

No. If I were saying that, I would say that.

I said that reading the last two strips as "Jeph is burning all the bridges" is a reach, because it is. There's no narrative justification for that. The closest thing there is to a justification is the argument that Jeph is responding to the fan reactions of "not enough drama." That's rather self important of the fans.

Beyond that, all I am saying is that reaching for any and every detail as justification to dump on the character you dislike is rather tedious and "literary analysis" is not a justification for it. So maybe it's worthwhile to listen to and consider the voices who are saying, "this is tedious" rather than waving the "literary analysis" flag every single time.

After all, if it were really literary analysis, it would hint at something we don't already know (which is why yesterday's excoriation of Dora and Tai is excusable, but the Marten incident and today's Marigold really aren't under this frame work).

[Mr. Black Licorice]

If it isn't clear, the issues aren't that there is no valid reason to criticize. It that people latch on to the the tiniest things and use them to expound upon their pet theories as to why character X is horrible, and it's actually quite annoying.

Eh - it is annoying. However, it's how some of our fellow patrons find enjoyment in the comic. And who are we to tell them they are having wrong-fun?

Given the comic's lower information density, the level of analysis being thrown at at each strip is overwhelming, especially given that it tends to revolve around matters of taste rather than the question of what something means to the story, if anything.

True. It's sort of like dissecting road kill - but if that's your thing... I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy the opposite. Someone says one lump of carrion is a liver, and I point out that it looks exactly like the other lump several inches to the left. They argue that it's where the liver is supposed to be. I argue that OF COURSE that's where it's supposed to be, but if things weren't moved around drastically when the beastie got mowed down, it would still be alive, now, wouldn't it?

In the end, we're both standing in the middle of the road poking at a dead animal. That's sorta like reading a daily comic, isn't it?

[jwhouk]

So you're thinking the endgame is "everyone breaks up, then Jeph retires"?

Anyone happen to notice that it's already been 5 years since that comic was up?

(Hides before AprilArcus says something about continuity... )

[Satan]

Who knows what'll happen with Clinton and Emily

ovipositor

[aphanisis81]

But otherwise, basically you're saying that we're reading too deeply into the text by making predictions such as "it looks like we're in for a downturn in various QC interpersonal relationships."

No. If I were saying that, I would say that.

I said that reading the last two strips as "Jeph is burning all the bridges" is a reach, because it is. There's no narrative justification for that. The closest thing there is to a justification is the argument that Jeph is responding to the fan reactions of "not enough drama." That's rather self important of the fans.

Beyond that, all I am saying is that reaching for any and every detail as justification to dump on the character you dislike is rather tedious and "literary analysis" is not a justification for it. So maybe it's worthwhile to listen to and consider the voices who are saying, "this is tedious" rather than waving the "literary analysis" flag every single time.

After all, if it were really literary analysis, it would hint at something we don't already know (which is why yesterday's excoriation of Dora and Tai is excusable, but the Marten incident and today's Marigold really aren't under this frame work).

There's a medium-to-strong possibility that I misinterpreted your post to which I was responding. I stand by my arguments about reading into things, but I also see now that it's near-irrelevant to what you were saying.

Mea culpa. (Especially for calling you boring. I'm a dick sometimes. And nothing is more ridiculous than a pedantic dick who's wrong, to paraphrase David Foster Wallace.)

[cesariojpn]

r. I guess it's a good thing I don't write a web comic. I probably would have just thrown up my hands by now.

To be fair,having a lot of people overanalyzing your comic is a sign that your comic is very successful. Most web comics don't get any comments at all.

Not in Jeph's case apparently.

I kind of see the last few strips as a "communication is important for relationships!" PSA. Marten and Claire have healthy communication, and all is unicorns and rainbows.

The Clariten example is not a good example of healthy communication. You can tell from the strip outside of the building after coitus that Marten is completely tapdancing around Claire's question and Claire readily accepts it without hesitation or even questioning it. It appears that Marten was manipulating the commentary for whatever reason; you can even tell in the body language.

   

[cesium133]

Well, there is a difference between comments and Reddit. Pretty much all of Reddit is a turd in a burning paper bag.

[cesariojpn]

Well, there is a difference between comments and Reddit. Pretty much all of Reddit is a turd in a burning paper bag.

Still, if an artist creator can't learn to accept that they will be hated, then they have no business creating. Ya have to take the bad with the good.

[questionablydiscontent]

Jeph could have stepped up the rhymes by saying "Mar-bear ain't give a care."
But instead it says "Mar-bear ain't give a [SWEAR]"

[cesium133]

Mar-bear ain't give a care.
Hanners give a stare.
Danger will be there.

[Is it cold in here?]

It's possible to acknowledge everything Marigold is doing wrong and still feel compassion. There is a defense mechanism that could be put in words as "You can't reject me, I drove you away!". Anyone who needs to deploy that one is in a lot of pain.

[explicit]

There's also a medical (psychology?) term for that, I forget what it's called. Tried finding it; could not.

[aphanisis81]

There's also a medical (psychology?) term for that, I forget what it's called. Tried finding it; could not.

Very common in Borderline Personality Disorder.

[explicit]

That one, you got it, you get a star.

That said, there is a difference between Marigold and people who have diagnosed with BPD. I wasn't trying to say she has it, just that are people who cannot control the driving away thing.

[ReindeerFlotilla]

Eh - it is annoying. However, it's how some of our fellow patrons find enjoyment in the comic. And who are we to tell them they are having wrong-fun?

Indeed. And I didn't say they were having wrong fun. I implied that was my opinion, but I said "be open to the feedback from others rather than reaching for the easy 'but it's analysis' justification."

Let me give you an example: I don't really like Pintsize or Winslow. They don't serve any real purpose other than to fill a role that was common in the webcomic framework when QC started. QC doesn't really need them. (I don't see them as mistakes, however. If Jeph hadn't felt compelled to fill that role, we would not have Momo, who is an interesting character.)

However, and this is the kicker, I don't take every appearance of these characters as an opportunity to wax rhapsodic about how they are terrible characters. Because it doesn't add anything to the conversation. I could. I could go on about how it would be nice to see Pintsize's antics as signs that he's growing as a character. That would even be justified under the framework I'm arguing from. But why? Just to share my opinion?

Okay. But when people start saying that opinion is getting tired, like a top 40 song, it is worth listening to those people. A noted President once said, "Let us define progress to mean that simply because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must do that thing." I'm not saying that a thing *IS* "wrong fun." Just that simply because you can have fun knowing that it is at the expense of the enjoyment of others, it does not follow that you must have fun in that manner. It's a community. So, maybe consider the other people in the community when they are giving you feedback.

True. It's sort of like dissecting road kill - but if that's your thing... I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy the opposite. Someone says one lump of carrion is a liver, and I point out that it looks exactly like the other lump several inches to the left. They argue that it's where the liver is supposed to be. I argue that OF COURSE that's where it's supposed to be, but if things weren't moved around drastically when the beastie got mowed down, it would still be alive, now, wouldn't it?

In the end, we're both standing in the middle of the road poking at a dead animal. That's sorta like reading a daily comic, isn't it?

I suppose, but it is why we are all here. Which is why I'm suggesting that perhaps we pause in our argument long enough to be aware of oncoming traffic, and maybe move over to the shoulder.

There's a medium-to-strong possibility that I misinterpreted your post to which I was responding. I stand by my arguments about reading into things, but I also see now that it's near-irrelevant to what you were saying.

Mea culpa. (Especially for calling you boring. I'm a dick sometimes. And nothing is more ridiculous than a pedantic dick who's wrong, to paraphrase David Foster Wallace.)

It is unquestionable that I take a rather dim view of being told what I think, or what I said. This may have something to with fact that it was common thing for my abusers to do. That said, I wasn't upset to any real degree and I did not take your comment as a personal attack. There's nothing to apologize for, but I am grateful that you made the effort.

[neurocase]

I will verify my previous post (in which I referred to Marigold as, among other things, a petulant woman-child) by saying that I am not only an introvert myself, but I have Aspergers. Not some flimsy self-diagnosis of it either; I've done the official nine yards.

So to reiterate? I'm an introvert on the autism spectrum and even I think Marigold is being a douche right now. She's socially stunted, sure, but even she couldn't possibly be so socially stunted as to not realize that she should at least be making an effort to appear interested in what her closest and most dependable (human) friend is saying to her. The last panel with her mentioning "getting the bear part right" says to me that she wasn't just absorbed in her book and forgetting to listen; she was consciously trying to tune Hannelore out. Even if she doesn't care about Marten and Co's predicaments and drama, that's a shitty thing to do. It's obvious from art alone that Hanners is probably stressed as hell in this moment, and is visibly upset that Marigold isn't listening.

Hannelore's closest friends aside from Marigold are Faye, Marten, and Dora. She's already spoken with Dora, and given the situation, Faye and Marten aren't in a position to really comfort her after the emotional strain that she's been through as well. Hannelore is reaching out for someone by venting -someone, I might add, to whom she has impacted greatly in a very positive way for hundreds of strips- and she's being met with a resounding "meh". Stunted or not, Marigold's shown some capacity for understanding the most basic of social protocols, and she damn well knows enough by now to not be doing this by accident. She's just self-centered.

tl;dr: Marigold isn't being socially ill-equipped, she's just being a shitty person.

[Mr. Black Licorice]

Eh - it is annoying. However, it's how some of our fellow patrons find enjoyment in the comic. And who are we to tell them they are having wrong-fun?

Indeed. And I didn't say they were having wrong fun. I implied that was my opinion, but I said "be open to the feedback from others rather than reaching for the easy 'but it's analysis' justification."

Let me give you an example: I don't really like Pintsize or Winslow. They don't serve any real purpose other than to fill a role that was common in the webcomic framework when QC started. QC doesn't really need them. (I don't see them as mistakes, however. If Jeph hadn't felt compelled to fill that role, we would not have Momo, who is an interesting character.)

However, and this is the kicker, I don't take every appearance of these characters as an opportunity to wax rhapsodic about how they are terrible characters. Because it doesn't add anything to the conversation. I could. I could go on about how it would be nice to see Pintsize's antics as signs that he's growing as a character. That would even be justified under the framework I'm arguing from. But why? Just to share my opinion?

Okay. But when people start saying that opinion is getting tired, like a top 40 song, it is worth listening to those people. A noted President once said, "Let us define progress to mean that simply because we can do a thing, it does not follow that we must do that thing." I'm not saying that a thing *IS* "wrong fun." Just that simply because you can have fun knowing that it is at the expense of the enjoyment of others, it does not follow that you must have fun in that manner. It's a community. So, maybe consider the other people in the community when they are giving you feedback.

Makes sense...

True. It's sort of like dissecting road kill - but if that's your thing... I, on the other hand, kinda enjoy the opposite. Someone says one lump of carrion is a liver, and I point out that it looks exactly like the other lump several inches to the left. They argue that it's where the liver is supposed to be. I argue that OF COURSE that's where it's supposed to be, but if things weren't moved around drastically when the beastie got mowed down, it would still be alive, now, wouldn't it?

In the end, we're both standing in the middle of the road poking at a dead animal. That's sorta like reading a daily comic, isn't it?

I suppose, but it is why we are all here. Which is why I'm suggesting that perhaps we pause in our argument long enough to be aware of oncoming traffic, and maybe move over to the shoulder.

You've managed to stretch an already thin metaphor even thinner... you have my respect, good sir.

[aphanisis81]

That one, you got it, you get a star.

That said, there is a difference between Marigold and people who have diagnosed with BPD. I wasn't trying to say she has it, just that are people who cannot control the driving away thing.

I actually thought you were talking about Dora.

[Emperor Norton]

Yes, because no one here has EVER been distracted by something and missed part of a conversation. 

I'm glad to know that because I identify with the situation, in that I don't always pay 100% rapt attention and sometimes my mind wanders that I'm a self-centered immature person.

Or maybe no one connects that when someone on the forums identifies with a characters reaction (though I don't always identify with Marigold, I have a lot different issues), and talks about how they could see themselves doing the same thing depending on the surrounding circumstances (which we do not know all of), that if you start calling it childish, immature, selfish, etc, you are also calling the real person who identifies with it those things as well?

Do I try to be a good friend? Of course. But I have a separate set of needs that are mine, and my friends needs don't automatically override them unless I know its an emergency. If they show up at my house on a day I need to recharge from people, they may have to deal with the fact that I'm not in a talky mood. And seriously, I'm responsible because I let them come in? What the fuck am I supposed to do, tell them to leave when they show up? Seriously? Yeah, sorry you came all this way, but go home.

[Y]

I suppose Hanners should have started with the more serious news, instead of starting with the regular gossip of who is dating who.

[rfrank dodelijk]

has marigold ever given Hannelore bread and salt? i'm sure visitors only become guests after you've seasoned them.

[pwhodges]

Still, if an artist creator can't learn to accept that they will be hated, then they have no business creating. Ya have to take the bad with the good.

That's a form of victim blaming, of course.  Pragmatically, right now, it may make some sense, but is it the way you think society should be, or be content to remain?

[Aziraphale]

Yes, because no one here has EVER been distracted by something and missed part of a conversation. 

I'm glad to know that because I identify with the situation, in that I don't always pay 100% rapt attention and sometimes my mind wanders that I'm a self-centered immature person.

Or maybe no one connects that when someone on the forums identifies with a characters reaction (though I don't always identify with Marigold, I have a lot different issues), and talks about how they could see themselves doing the same thing depending on the surrounding circumstances (which we do not know all of), that if you start calling it childish, immature, selfish, etc, you are also calling the real person who identifies with it those things as well?

No, if I want to call a person immature, childish, or selfish, I'll let them know directly. I identify with aspects of most of the characters; with that said, I'm aware that I'm reading a work of fiction; it literally is not about me. If someone calls out Marten's habitual indecision, I don't take offense by it, even though I happen to identify with that aspect of him; it's not the same as someone saying that I am indecisive (though if they did say that, under circumstances that warranted it, I'd probably have to pause and consider what they were saying, and what that, in turn, said about me). As I said before, Marigold's character (in both senses of the word) is established from very early on, and hasn't varied much from when we were first introduced to her. That's an observation about her, not you.

If you happen to find any of the observations made about her to be more broadly applicable to you, then it's up to you to unpack those things and mull over what they mean to you (unless, again, someone directly attributes those things to you, in which case it makes sense to ask what they mean by that). But bear in mind that at this point, the only one calling you immature or self-centered is you. You really do owe it to yourself to be nicer to yourself than that.

[cesariojpn]

Still, if an artist creator can't learn to accept that they will be hated, then they have no business creating. Ya have to take the bad with the good.

That's a form of victim blaming, of course.  Pragmatically, right now, it may make some sense, but is it the way you think society should be, or be content to remain?

Right, cause telling an artist he draws like a 10 year old manchild is equivalent to saying a rape victim deserved to be raped cause she was wearing a sexy schoolgirl uniform in public. 

[TheCaffeinatedPanda]

But your honour, the skirt was above her knees!

Woah, there, let's not go this way. Down this pathway lies many a barbed word...

[aphanisis81]

Yes, because no one here has EVER been distracted by something and missed part of a conversation. 

I'm glad to know that because I identify with the situation, in that I don't always pay 100% rapt attention and sometimes my mind wanders that I'm a self-centered immature person.

Or maybe no one connects that when someone on the forums identifies with a characters reaction (though I don't always identify with Marigold, I have a lot different issues), and talks about how they could see themselves doing the same thing depending on the surrounding circumstances (which we do not know all of), that if you start calling it childish, immature, selfish, etc, you are also calling the real person who identifies with it those things as well?

Do I try to be a good friend? Of course. But I have a separate set of needs that are mine, and my friends needs don't automatically override them unless I know its an emergency. If they show up at my house on a day I need to recharge from people, they may have to deal with the fact that I'm not in a talky mood. And seriously, I'm responsible because I let them come in? What the fuck am I supposed to do, tell them to leave when they show up? Seriously? Yeah, sorry you came all this way, but go home.

I think your criticism and defensiveness concerning this would be much more warranted if narrative fiction worked just like the real world: If the characters in QC were living out there lives 24/7 and what we get to see is what they happen to be up to when Jeph decides to check in on them for a few seconds at a time. You know, the Lynn Johnston "My Characters Are Real People Who Tell Me How To Write The Story" romanticist horseshit view of comic-writing.

But it's obviously not the case. Marigold has been shown - over and over again - to be oblivious to social norms, to be stupefyingly self-involved, and to take her friendship with Hanners for granted. The author has repeatedly decided that that's a side of her character he wants to foreground, and so it becomes a defining trait and one of the key behaviors by which we evaluate her.

[ReindeerFlotilla]

But it's obviously not the case. Marigold has been shown - over and over again - to be oblivious to social norms, to be stupefyingly self-involved, and to take her friendship with Hanners for granted. The author has repeatedly decided that that's a side of her character he wants to foreground, and so it becomes a defining trait and one of the key behaviors by which we evaluate her.

Indeed. So, here we come to what I think is the crux of my issue with the meta-thread of these discussions--whether they relate to the current subject, or Dora, or Faye, or Claire ad nauseum. The general approach switches from, "there are issues with this character," to, "this person is a waste of human material."

I'll be the first to admit that human language, as communicated by humans, is imprecise. So some of that is to be expected. But the general flavor of the criticisms are calling out Marigold as a bad person, rather than saying there is an issue with the presentation of the character. If someone identifies with the idea of Marigold the person, then your sweeping criticism of her as a person is going to seem personal. And that is your responsibility.

I don't mean you should be put against the wall and shot, but it was your statement and your choice to treat the character as person, if only for a moment.

You want to criticize the character of Marigold? I'm on board. She's not even one dimensional, at this point. The idea that Jeph is doing something clever by showing that under the first layer in the Marigold onion is another layer of the same material... That is indistinguishable from not giving the character any depth.

One can argue that the character had depth before. Okay, but what has Jeph done for me lately? (Not really about me, but 80's reference.) As crappy as that sounds, that's Jeph's job. To entertain. He's done it well, so that earns slack, but not infinite slack. If Marigold is worth my time as a reader, Jeph has to demonstrate that at some point. Over and over.

So, on that level it totally is valid to criticize. "I think Marigold is (has become) one note and shallower than a conservative think tank." "Dora's become a caricature of her self, just harshness and angst. What has Jeph done with her playful side?" Cool beans. "Marigold is a terrible friend." "Dora is a bitch." Not cool. See how the former treats them as concepts and later as people?

Believe me, were everyone confining their criticisms to the characters, I'd not see it as a problem. But it's mostly directed at the people, which seems pretty glass houses to me. A bit of well rounded storytelling seeks a balance between the notes a character hits. Jeph has shown he's capable of that, so I'm sympathetic to complaints like "I miss this aspect of Claire." I wonder if it's fair, but I don't see it as an issue.

The author has decided to show us one side of Marigold, time and again. Possibly the author, like the cylons, has a plan. But isn't that an issue of the author, and not the character? Or if the issue can be packed into the character, why express it as a judgement of a person? It feels to me as if people want to have it both ways. A dig at a fictional person, until that upsets someone, then it's just a character. Person to thing based on what's most convenient.

[Dust]

Geez people, just let Marigold and Dora read in peace! Looking at you, Hanners; the "..." tells me your run-on sentence was going on for a while. No wonder she got the information garbled. If the psychiatrist needed a string chart to follow, what hope do the outlying characters have?

"So 'Socially awkard girl who the group's helping out of her shell #3' is dating someone... something about a bear." Seems in-character for her, to me. Have we seen Marigold and Claire in the same strip?

[Rghfrgl]

Have we seen Marigold and Claire in the same strip?

Claire spoke briefly with her to inform her of her brothers masturbation habits and give The People's Eyebrow.

[Is it cold in here?]

The game we play with a fiction author is to make believe the characters are real people for a while.

If they were real people, there are several I would not want as friends.

[DSL]

As someone whose business it was to put words and pictures in front of a not-always-appreciative public for a quarter-century and more, I can't go along with the characterization of an artist needing to anticipate the fact of criticism as "victim-blaming."
It cheapens the concept of being unfairly blamed for another's attack on you.
Critical* feedback is and should be part of the artistic exchange in exactly the same way that assault should NOT be part of walking down the street.

*Critical defined here as analytical and supported discussion, positive or negative in nature, NOT "I don't like this so it sucks and you're horrible."

[ReindeerFlotilla]

If they were real, I would not want any of them as friends. They're all children, and they act like it. But that has less to do with a personality assessment and more to do with a lack of common interests.

As an honest evaluation, I'd certainly take someone with Marigold's traits as a friend. Sure she acts in a self interested manner, but she also does genuinely care, doesn't turn her fails into drama bombs often and makes efforts to make up for them in a prompt manner. Nobody said friendship was supposed to be easy, and having someone who will actually consider and act on your feelings is pretty rare, in my experience.

[Dust]

Have we seen Marigold and Claire in the same strip?

Claire spoke briefly with her to inform her of her brothers masturbation habits and give The People's Eyebrow.

Thanks... I thought so, but my archive-diving skill (or memory) isn't what it used to be.