|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 18:49:15 GMT
So, in this story, are the court and its associates, the 'bad guys'?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 18:51:00 GMT
Throwing people into Gitmo (e.g) without evidence may be unjustified, evil, cruel, inhuman, and all sorts of things, but it's not a "bitch" move. Or atleast I've not heard many people use "bitch move" as their first description of their moral outrage regarding Gitmo.
But when *women* characters are concerned, some people find the word "bitch" immediately leaping to the lips, don't they?
In this case whether the act was justified or not, whether it was good or evil, the words "bitch move" serve to trivialize the incident which ultimately led to the death of more than one sentient creatures and the captivity of another for many long years.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:05:23 GMT
Throwing people into Gitmo (e.g) without evidence may be unjustified, evil, cruel, inhuman, and all sorts of things, but it's not a "bitch" move. Or atleast I've not heard many people use "bitch move" as their first description of their moral outrage regarding Gitmo. But when *women* characters are concerned, some people find the word "bitch" immediately leaping to the lips, don't they? In this case whether the act was justified or not, whether it was good or evil, the words "bitch move" serve to trivialize the incident which ultimately led to the death of more than one sentient creatures and the captivity of another for many long years. well said
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 19:10:04 GMT
Because the only aggression we've seen from the forest has been in response to a child smacking their god. Considering the amount of narrative space that has been devoted to the conflict, you'd think something else might have come up by now. In fairness I feel that I should point out that it was said god that initiated that exchange by sexually assaulting the child, and more importantly, it was committed with the premeditated intent to start a ruckus as a ruse to surreptitiously engage in subterfuge/sabotage by dropping the Seeds of Unknown Mayhem. So you may want to fact-check a little more before claiming the Forest is innocent.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:15:03 GMT
Because the only aggression we've seen from the forest has been in response to a child smacking their god. Considering the amount of narrative space that has been devoted to the conflict, you'd think something else might have come up by now. In fairness I feel that I should point out that it was said god that initiated that exchange by sexually assaulting the child, and more importantly, it was committed with the premeditated intent to start a ruckus as a ruse to surreptitiously engage in subterfuge/sabotage by dropping the Seeds of Unknown Mayhem. So you may want to fact-check a little more before claiming the Forest is innocent. isn't this the first act of aggression?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 19:20:49 GMT
Referring to panel 2 Jayne? I would agree that that's another act of aggression on the Forest's part. I would also go back to Ties and say the dogwood invaders were an act of aggression. In fact I'm trying to think of any time that the Court has acted in a manner towards the Forest that wasn't defensive.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 19:21:15 GMT
Throwing people into Gitmo (e.g) without evidence may be unjustified, evil, cruel, inhuman, and all sorts of things, but it's not a "bitch" move. Or atleast I've not heard many people use "bitch move" as their first description of their moral outrage regarding Gitmo. But when *women* characters are concerned, some people find the word "bitch" immediately leaping to the lips, don't they? In this case whether the act was justified or not, whether it was good or evil, the words "bitch move" serve to trivialize the incident which ultimately led to the death of more than one sentient creatures and the captivity of another for many long years. Actually, my mind's voice said 'dick move,' as I'd never used or heard the other phrase myself before this thread. It was, however, intentionally trivializing the situation: If it plays out that she intentionally deceived Rey, I find that to be a mean thing that was not remotely the worst she could have done. You're right. The two situations are completely different, and that's why the phrase isn't used in relation to the former. Foremost amongst these differences is that one happened in real life, and the other is a story on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:24:52 GMT
Throwing people into Gitmo (e.g) without evidence may be unjustified, evil, cruel, inhuman, and all sorts of things, but it's not a "bitch" move. Or atleast I've not heard many people use "bitch move" as their first description of their moral outrage regarding Gitmo. But when *women* characters are concerned, some people find the word "bitch" immediately leaping to the lips, don't they? In this case whether the act was justified or not, whether it was good or evil, the words "bitch move" serve to trivialize the incident which ultimately led to the death of more than one sentient creatures and the captivity of another for many long years. Actually, my mind's voice said 'dick move,' as I'd never used or heard the other phrase myself before this thread. It was, however, intentionally trivializing the situation: If it plays out that she intentionally deceived Rey, I find that to be a mean thing that was not remotely the worst she could have done. You're right. The two situations are completely different, and that's why the phrase isn't used in relation to the former. Foremost amongst these differences is that one happened in real life, and the other is a story on the internet. So, why isn't waiting until we get more information before we judge Surma's action as a bitch/dick move an option?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:27:06 GMT
How about this: "If Surma tricked Rey because she was ordered to, then its a.. ahem. BAD move?"
Without a reason to qualify it...what good is the judgment?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 19:33:41 GMT
How about this: "If Surma tricked Rey because she was ordered to, then its a.. ahem. BAD move?" Without a reason to qualify it...what good is the judgment? Jayne, forgive me, but either I was unclear or you didn't follow. My whole involvement today has been in response this: What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. I didn't feel the need to qualify my statements any more than the natural flow of the conversation would suggest. I don't believe I ever said that Surma is/was a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 19:41:00 GMT
Referring to panel 2 Jayne? I would agree that that's another act of aggression on the Forest's part. I would also go back to Ties and say the dogwood invaders were an act of aggression. In fact I'm trying to think of any time that the Court has acted in a manner towards the Forest that wasn't defensive. Killing Greenie McElfdude was for a defensive purpose, but not a defensive act. ...unless you meant the modern court. Then, I see it a lot fuzzier. Neither side is being particularly overt, which makes it hard to judge. I have some deeper theories which I don't think really fit the mood of this thread. I will say that the possessed Robot never could have pushed Annie off the bridge if she hadn't sent it to the forest in the first place. It was technology, sent over uninvited, and the Forest didn't know its purpose. I don't see that so differently as the hounds from Ties.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:42:00 GMT
What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. So this is what actually happened or this is what we are meant to believe happened through Tom's misdirection. If there is no justifying reason behind it, we just have to accept that Surma is willing to do this. And Anja is supportive of this. And Eglamore is also... Is everyone in this story a bad guy?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 19:44:11 GMT
I'm actually running off the theory that this is a story about people doing the best they can, making hard decisions, and sometimes choosing wrongly. Crazy, I know.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 19:56:36 GMT
I'm actually running off the theory that this is a story about people doing the best they can, making hard decisions, and sometimes choosing wrongly. Crazy, I know. I agree with this but that doesn't seem to fit "What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit."
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 20:00:18 GMT
I'm actually running off the theory that this is a story about people doing the best they can, making hard decisions, and sometimes choosing wrongly. Crazy, I know. I agree with this but that doesn't seem to fit "What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit." I agree. But then, I never said that (you have me misquoted). Aris said that as if it was a justification, and I responded (paraphrasing) that I didn't see that as a justification. And then we got all on about who shot first and bad words.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:02:43 GMT
Doh, sorry about the misquote! I'll blame the interface but I probably just screwed up!
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 20:03:03 GMT
What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. So this is what actually happened or this is what we are meant to believe happened through Tom's misdirection. If there is no justifying reason behind it, we just have to accept that Surma is willing to do this. And Anja is supportive of this. And Eglamore is also... Is everyone in this story a bad guy? You know what, it sure seems like it. Or maybe these are complex characters who do bad things without being 1-dimensional cardboard-cutout villains. You know, like you would expect from a good story. I mean come on, you keep trying to say that these people must really have had good reasons for doing what they did, or that maybe they didn't actually do these things and it's all misdirection, or otherwise trying to justify it, but in reality sometimes people just make bad decisions and do shitty things because of it.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:07:14 GMT
I don't know much about Surma, Eglamore, Jones...well the list is long. Donald and Anja I know! I'm a hippy/computer programmer. I have things that I've justified that make me make the same face that Anja wore telling Annie about her mother... She's not happy about it but she does feel it was justified. Whatever that justification is, I'm willing to wait to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:10:11 GMT
So this is what actually happened or this is what we are meant to believe happened through Tom's misdirection. If there is no justifying reason behind it, we just have to accept that Surma is willing to do this. And Anja is supportive of this. And Eglamore is also... Is everyone in this story a bad guy? You know what, it sure seems like it. Or maybe these are complex characters who do bad things without being 1-dimensional cardboard-cutout villains. You know, like you would expect from a good story. I mean come on, you keep trying to say that these people must really have had good reasons for doing what they did, or that maybe they didn't actually do these things and it's all misdirection, or otherwise trying to justify it, but in reality sometimes people just make bad decisions and do shitty things because of it. I didn't say they must have a good reason, just that they may have a good reason. And as always, I may be absolutely wrong but maybe I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 20:10:57 GMT
Since I don't divide people into "good guys" and "bad guys", that question is both meaningless and unanswerable for me.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 20:20:32 GMT
I don't know much about Surma, Eglamore, Jones...well the list is long. Donald and Anja I know! I'm a hippy/computer programmer. I have things that I've justified that make me make the same face that Anja wore telling Annie about her mother... She's not happy about it but she does feel it was justified. Whatever that justification is, I'm willing to wait to hear it. #include <stdio.h>
int main() { printf("%s \n", "These people aren't you and you aren't them, and someone making a face might mean something totally different from what you're thinking."); return 0; }
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:20:56 GMT
Since I don't divide people into "good guys" and "bad guys", that question is both meaningless and unanswerable for me. What is the correct literary term for a character in a story who is willing to do evil?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:21:42 GMT
I don't know much about Surma, Eglamore, Jones...well the list is long. Donald and Anja I know! I'm a hippy/computer programmer. I have things that I've justified that make me make the same face that Anja wore telling Annie about her mother... She's not happy about it but she does feel it was justified. Whatever that justification is, I'm willing to wait to hear it. #include <stdio.h>
int main { printf("%s \n", "These people aren't you and you aren't them, and someone making a face might mean something totally different from what you're thinking."); return 0; }
OH I get it now!
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 20:32:56 GMT
#include <stdio.h>
int main { printf("%s \n", "These people aren't you and you aren't them, and someone making a face might mean something totally different from what you're thinking."); return 0; }
OH I get it now! ;D coders of the world unite! This is a derail in a thread that's already kinda prone to them, but what kinda code do you write? Mostly I've just been tinkering with open-source code, but I haven't really written anything myself with more than a few thousand lines long.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 20:33:47 GMT
Since I don't divide people into "good guys" and "bad guys", that question is both meaningless and unanswerable for me. What is the correct literary term for a character in a story who is willing to do evil? I suppose it depends on: - if they're doing evil for the pleasure of it (in which case the term is "sadists") - if they're uncaring about whether they are doing evil (in which case the term is "amoralists") - if they're unhappily doing evil only because they believe it'll avert future greater evil (in which case the term is probably "pragmatist" or "extremist") - if they're doing evil because they're afraid for their own lives (in which case the term is probably "anti-hero").
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 20:36:24 GMT
Or maybe these are complex characters who do bad things without being 1-dimensional cardboard-cutout villains. You know, like you would expect from a good story. I don't get it though... all that Jayne and I (with a little input from others) have been trying to say from the outset was that the characterization of Surma as being a "HUGE BITCH bluh bluh" and to call her actions "a bitch move" or "a dick move" or whatever else, that characterization -IS- looking at the story with a one-dimensional point of view. We've been trying to give examples of some other possible explanations for things, and all we seem to have been met with is people saying that no those interpretations ARE NOT POSSIBLE because they see X, Y, and Z as meaning A, B, and C, and by God any other interpretation is wrong/naive/twisting the truth/etc. Even the originator of the "HUGE BITCH bluh bluh" quote (basser) conceded (apparently... it could have just been sarcasm) that complex motivations may have been at play. So I don't understand the continued condescension and dismissal of mine and Jayne's stance. If we all agree that situations are rarely simple, cut and dry in this comic (a point that I pointed out early on, as did someone else i.r.t. Diego) then why is anyone rejecting the possibility that my interpretation or Jayne's interpretation may be right?
|
|
|
Post by fjodor on Nov 3, 2010 20:37:41 GMT
Is everyone in this story a bad guy? I think the fact that it is unclear at this point whether there is a good side and a bad side in this story at all, is exactly what makes this comic so good, and what sets it apart from other comics. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:38:52 GMT
Is everyone in this story a bad guy? I think the fact that it is unclear at this point whether there is a good side and a bad side in this story at all, is exactly what makes this comic so good, and what sets it apart from other comics. Just saying. I have to agree!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:40:50 GMT
What is the correct literary term for a character in a story who is willing to do evil? I suppose it depends on: - if they're doing evil for the pleasure of it (in which case the term is "sadists") - if they're uncaring about whether they are doing evil (in which case the term is "amoralists") - if they're unhappily doing evil only because they believe it'll avert future greater evil (in which case the term is probably "pragmatist" or "extremist") - if they're doing evil because they're afraid for their own lives (in which case the term is probably "anti-hero"). All those terms (and others) can be wrapped in a generic label: "Bad guys" since we don't have enough information to further categorize them.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 20:43:01 GMT
That label takes all the nuance out of the discussion and turns the characters into either Dudley Doright or Dr. Evil.
|
|