|
Post by descoladavirus on Aug 27, 2011 1:10:04 GMT
Do we have "word of god" that Kat isn't gay? Cuz she totally reads that way, and has for a while now. How does she read that way? Aside from the tomboyish style of dress and (perhaps) her short, spiky haircut, she doesn’t strike me very stereotypically “gay” at all. To my knowledge she’s never indicated in-comic that she might be attracted to anything besides the opposite gender. That said … just because she hasn’t yet demonstrated same-sex attraction doesn’t mean she’s not gay. When my sister was just a bit younger than Kat et al. — around 12 or so — she had a friend who was crushing on me pretty fiercely. Years later it turns out that not only is she predominantly into females but she’s female-to-male transgendered (and last I heard living as a man). So who knows. In any event I expect that the point of this exchange is to demonstrate how awkward Paz’s interactions are this evening and not, likely, to spark discussion about sexual preference in fictional tween characters. Edit: Apropos of nothing, I’m amused to recall that this girl would’ve looked rather like a real-life Kat. If Kat had a Kentucky accent. And were somewhat obviously dim. My sister, on the other hand, was so tomboyish that she slobbered over BB guns, wore army fatigues, and carried her own hatchet around the neighborhood; she’s now married (to a man, and a rather attractive one at that) with whom she has a kid. Oh god there's a Kentucky accent? I need to get out of here before I pick it up! That said I've known some surprising lesbians in my day, and some surprising straight people. From appearances to actions you'd never know.
|
|
|
Post by Amethyst on Aug 27, 2011 3:17:06 GMT
In chapter 31, Annie overreacted to news of the reality of her metaphysical/psychic relationship with her mother. In chapter 32, Kat overreacted to Annie's absence over the summer. In chapter 33, Paz overreacts to Kat's attempt to cheer her up. Ahhh, teenagers. Umm... do you really think Annie overreacted to discovering that she was partially responsible for her mother's death?
|
|
|
Post by rainofsteel on Aug 27, 2011 13:35:57 GMT
Edit: I think she didn't like Muut initially over the whole thing with the blinker stone or possibly them not able or unwilling to take Surma to the other side. Kat was flustered first and then upset second. Umm... do you really think Annie overreacted to discovering that she was partially responsible for her mother's death? Yes. Running away, deliberately into territory known to be forbidden, and firing a death-shot flame-wave at Eglamore, is definitely an overreaction when looked at as a whole. We can expect teenagers to make questionable decisions and to otherwise fly off the handle, certainly, but let's call it what it is.
|
|
|
Post by eightyfour on Aug 27, 2011 15:21:55 GMT
While I’m reminiscing about my all-too-faraway youth, this reminds me of a bit they’d do on this sketch comedy show when I was a kid — someone would go to the doctor complaining of (say) a headache. So he’d pound them in the hand with a hammer to distract from the headache. (I think it worked.) I know that one with a toothache and a firm stomp on the foot. The concept is a classic. Dull one pain by introducing another, more intense one. And yes, it does work. Only for a moment though. ;D
|
|
spats
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by spats on Aug 27, 2011 18:20:25 GMT
Do we have "word of god" that Kat isn't gay? Cuz she totally reads that way, and has for a while now. She's had a (intense) crush one at least one guy, been quite flustered at the sight of another guy shirtless, and had crushes on zero girls so far. Touche - I had completely forgotten. Her reaction to Annie also really seems like a crush/jealousy sometimes, though, but that could just be from strong friendship and slight lack of social skills.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 27, 2011 23:52:07 GMT
"Lesbians think friendship is another word for foreplay.” -Alice (the L word)
also, about the "word of god" issue; what we have here is "word of kat" which is not as accurate as "word of god" or "word of tom"
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 28, 2011 0:19:06 GMT
also, about the "word of god" issue; what we have here is "word of kat" which is not as accurate as "word of god" or "word of tom" On the contrary, Kat's emphatic declaration (which is part of the work) can be regarded as much stronger than something Tom might choose to say on the matter (which is not part of the work).
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 28, 2011 0:35:35 GMT
not at all. people lie. they to themselves and others; especially about issues as sticky as this.
people tell the truth too, i'm not necessarily saying kat's lying (to herself or others), i'm just saying kat's pretty entrenched in the situation and doesn't have the omnipotent objective view of herself that Tom does.
edit; it would be this topic to drag me back to the forums...
edit edit: to illustrate my point, Tom knew annie was a fire elemental long before annie discovered that fact.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 28, 2011 5:17:30 GMT
I know that one with a toothache and a firm stomp on the foot. The concept is a classic. Dull one pain by introducing another, more intense one. And yes, it does work. Only for a moment though. ;D More sophisticated applications might provide better results. It does appear to be possible to provide intense but very localized stimuli to the nervous system that can't really be felt but which will "distract" it from a much more intense pain for a while. Last I heard the jury was still out on whether competition for pain reflex could provide lasting and worthwhile pain relief, however. It may be the reason why acupuncture appears to provide some benefit. I've tried it and it does appear to work in the short run (2-3hrs) but the cost/benefit ratio isn't promising for people who can take prescription painkillers instead. Why have a $US60-150 hour treatment when you can pop a $3.50 pill instead? On the other hand, there are fewer side effects then pills.
|
|
|
Post by Ashley Y on Aug 28, 2011 6:58:07 GMT
Kat/Ali was real. If you're looking for lesbians, try Gamma.
|
|
|
Post by cam94509 on Aug 28, 2011 8:02:55 GMT
Kat/Ali was real. If you're looking for lesbians, try Gamma. I'm gonna play devil's advocate here (I'm pretty sure Kat is straight, too). All this proves is that Kat isn't a lesbian. It doesn't prove she isn't bi. As for Gamma? I'm totally not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 28, 2011 9:41:54 GMT
Authors also lie, jest, get things mixed up, or change their minds. That's not what sets the two cases apart. "Omnipotent objective view" is a longer way of saying "intention", which shapes the work, but is not the work. Let's say that in a comment for a page in a very early chapter, Tom had dropped the line: "Oh and by the way, Annie is a fire elemental." Would this have made it a fact in the comic that Annie is a fire elemental? (Even if it had never been followed up on?) Let's say that in the comment for Monday's comment Tom drops the line: "Oh and by the way, Paz is a were-boxbot." Does this make it a fact in the comic that Paz is a were-boxbot? (Even if the multitudes of boxbot lovers seize on it and declare it canon?)
|
|
|
Post by legion on Aug 28, 2011 10:09:23 GMT
The problem with those examples, Per, is that we know Tom's comments on the bottom of each page are very often tongue-in-cheek or downright nonsensical; that would be another matter say, if he had revealed Annie's nature in his formspring.
I don't believe in the "author's death" postmodernist nonsense anyway. If Jack London said "Martin Eden" was a stance against individualism, then that's what it was, even if most people perceived it the opposite way.
|
|
|
Post by hargharg on Aug 28, 2011 13:20:12 GMT
The problem with those examples, Per, is that we know Tom's comments on the bottom of each page are very often tongue-in-cheek or downright nonsensical; that would be another matter say, if he had revealed Annie's nature in his formspring. I don't believe in the "author's death" postmodernist nonsense anyway. If Jack London said "Martin Eden" was a stance against individualism, then that's what it was, even if most people perceived it the opposite way. Exactly. Word of god is fact, everything else is up to discussion. About Tom's comments on the bottom: how would you guys define them, what are those exactly?
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Aug 28, 2011 16:01:30 GMT
This whole argument is silly. Kat could be lying here, but we have no reason to think so. And really, is is there any way to 'prove' that Kat is straight, short of Tom's own word? Conversely, is there any indication in comic that she is anything other than straight? The answer to both questions is no. You could make as much of a case for Paz or Jack being bi.
The only thing that the last two pages have shown us is that Kat and Annie's classmates have some weird ideas about why they hang with each other almost exclusively.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 28, 2011 16:03:14 GMT
The problem with those examples, Per, is that we know Tom's comments on the bottom of each page are very often tongue-in-cheek or downright nonsensical; that would be another matter say, if he had revealed Annie's nature in his formspring. But then you're assuming we can say (or arbitrarily decide) what is or isn't "word of god" when we see it. If on Formspring someone asked "Does Margo have any brothers or sisters?" and Tom answered "No", then I (and I assume you and most others) would take this for a fairly peripheral fact (at least until Tom introduces Margo's brother, Hugo). However, if someone instead asked "Jones is a boxbot in disguise, right?" and Tom answered "OK", then I (and I assume you and most others) would think he was being sarcastic and not revealing a fact about the comic world (at least until he reveals that Jones is in fact a boxbot). But if the audience identifies word of god based on their assumptions about what word of god would look like, and can pick and choose between different types of statements made in different types of channels, then I consider my position justified. I don't believe in the "author's death" postmodernist nonsense anyway. Postmodernism is a large umbrella term; the somewhat unfortunately labelled "death of the author" is not something on the loony side of the spectrum. It's not really something you can choose to believe or not believe in, but an approach to examining works of fiction that makes a great deal of sense and doesn't require you to submit to any weird fluffy theories.
|
|
|
Post by hargharg on Aug 28, 2011 17:01:19 GMT
... Conversely, is there any indication in comic that she is anything other than straight? ... I agree with you, except for this^. Many people think there is indication in-comic, be it ever so little. I am just saying, noone should take anything that Tom didn't state as fact for fact - especially if he says its ambigous intentionally - and Per seems to be doing it. Of course everyone is free to have her/his own opinion, but please don't say that it's the one and only truth. Unless it's 42.
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Aug 28, 2011 18:54:56 GMT
What we should really be focusing on is how wonderfully true-to-life Kat and Paz's dialogue/expression is. These two are reacting exactly like two preteens would. Awkwardly, and yet not unrealistically so. A lot of less talented writers would have Kat reacting to this situation with a cheap throwaway joke. (or would cut out the scene entirely, which would rob us of an awesome insight into how Annie and Kat are viewed by the others.)
For the record, authors DO lie, get things mixed up, and twist their words. That said, Tom is not JK Rowling. He doesn't use his Word of God lightly, and he has never proved an inconsistent narrator. Don't compare him to the rest. (comments at the bottom don't count as word of god. They are the snark of god)
|
|
|
Post by KMar on Aug 28, 2011 18:59:34 GMT
I don't think that Kat is bi or lesbian. I actually think that the better guess would be Paz, with a bit of self-loathing to go with. Her knee-jerk reaction seemed a bit off (why would it be the first thing that came to mind? I guess we'll find out in that story), and I doubt that Tom would present a stereotypical lesbian. This. Kat may be lesbian/bi, but I'd consider it unlikely. The evidence in existence would hint otherwise. (Alistair of course, also: Eglamore.) Paz? Not enough basis to say whether she is or is not. Pages [925] and [926] could be just a plot device to introduce the "someone's gay" theme. Or possibly not.
|
|
|
Post by hargharg on Aug 28, 2011 19:30:03 GMT
... (comments at the bottom don't count as word of god. They are the snark of god) I knew they weren't word of god, but didn't know what they were. Snark it is then, thank you! : ) /offtopic ED: while so, I urge everyone - who isn't already doing it - to reread the comic. Just because it's good!
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Aug 29, 2011 3:14:43 GMT
I like the phrase "snark of God".
It is a good phrase.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 29, 2011 4:28:39 GMT
i second that. can we somehow make "snark of god" an official name/phrase/thing?
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Aug 29, 2011 5:37:15 GMT
Or how about 'Snarcasm of God'?
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 29, 2011 18:11:24 GMT
I am just saying, noone should take anything that Tom didn't state as fact for fact - especially if he says its ambigous intentionally - and Per seems to be doing it. I can't very well be guilty of pushing postmodernism and unduly taking things as fact (especially since I don't know which fact that would be, so it's probably the former of those two, if any). He doesn't use his Word of God lightly That would be entirely conditional on how his Word of God is defined, and whether Tom happens to share this view of what "using your Word of God" means. If you mean just Formspring, then I could cede this (though I haven't checked through all his replies for flippancy or ambiguities). (comments at the bottom don't count as word of god. They are the snark of god) Well, this sort of illustrates what I'm saying. You're arbitrarily deciding that whatever Tom puts in the comments does not establish facts about the work, even though they are statements related to the work and they come from the author. The leap from there to saying that nothing outside of the work can establish capital-F Facts about the work is very small.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 29, 2011 20:09:38 GMT
i guess my original point was that kat, as the person accused of being gay, has more reason to deny it (IF it were true) than tom, who i assume is the only other person who knows the answer to that question. so i'm not going to make conclusions based on kat's one statement unless it's backed up by tom's word or more conclusive evidence (which is nearly impossible to agree on in this matter).
some authors may, but tom seems to take his work(/art) very seriously so i don't think he'd "get things mixed up" or "change his mind" about something so integral to a character (especially since he writes so far ahead). as for trustworthiness; even in tom's Snark of God, has he ever said something untrue about the comics? he says it in a joking or snarky manner but has it ever actually been misleading or contradictory to in-comic canon? i mean, when tom stated that matt had "just put the whole Dire Straits discography on [his ipod]" before the mysterious moon girl (Chang'e) took it, did anyone disbelieve it? i count that as word of god
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 30, 2011 0:14:52 GMT
Edit: Apropos of nothing, I’m amused to recall that this girl would’ve looked rather like a real-life Kat. If Kat had a Kentucky accent. And were somewhat obviously dim. My sister, on the other hand, was so tomboyish that she slobbered over BB guns, wore army fatigues, and carried her own hatchet around the neighborhood; A few years ago that was almost a description of half the high school girls in the town my granddaughter lives in. I say 'almost' because of the BB guns; these girls were more into rifles and shotguns, and probably owned at least one of each. Most of them had gun racks in their pickups. (Now, things have changed: army fatigues are no longer in-style in high school.)
|
|
|
Post by todd on Aug 30, 2011 1:11:08 GMT
some authors may, but tom seems to take his work(/art) very seriously so i don't think he'd "get things mixed up" or "change his mind" about something so integral to a character (especially since he writes so far ahead). as for trustworthiness; even in tom's Snark of God, has he ever said something untrue about the comics? he says it in a joking or snarky manner but has it ever actually been misleading or contradictory to in-comic canon? I don't know if the infamous "electric guitars and monster trucks" prediction for Chapter Fourteen (which Tom wound up regretting once he saw how many readers took him seriously, and seemed more concerned over their absence from the chapter than over all the big things that were going on there) counts. There's also the "They are there to destroy him" comment near the end of Chapter Twenty-one when the monsters confront Mort - and then it turns out on the next page that they aren't.
|
|
|
Post by scientivore on Aug 30, 2011 9:06:37 GMT
I don't think that Kat is bi or lesbian. I actually think that the better guess would be Paz, with a bit of self-loathing to go with. Her knee-jerk reaction seemed a bit off (why would it be the first thing that came to mind? I guess we'll find out in that story), and I doubt that Tom would present a stereotypical lesbian. I'm with you on Kat being totally straight, because her body language showed that she was ambushed, flummoxed and flabbergasted by Paz's implication. Also floored. I can read Paz in two ways. If interested in Kat, then I see cautious optimism: feeling things out with a bit of reverse psychology, and then checking to see if she'd gone too far in seeming unreceptive. Otherwise, it's just normal adolescent cluelessness leading to incautious pessimism about Kat's motives. The latter seems more likely to me, due to the circumstances (het and clueless) that led to Paz being there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 30, 2011 21:56:41 GMT
some authors may, but tom seems to take his work(/art) very seriously so i don't think he'd "get things mixed up" or "change his mind" about something so integral to a character (especially since he writes so far ahead). as for trustworthiness; even in tom's Snark of God, has he ever said something untrue about the comics? he says it in a joking or snarky manner but has it ever actually been misleading or contradictory to in-comic canon? i mean, when tom stated that matt had "just put the whole Dire Straits discography on [his ipod]" before the mysterious moon girl (Chang'e) took it, did anyone disbelieve it? i count that as word of god I don't want to belabour my points if everyone's already fed up with the subject, especially after a) part of the discussion went into PMs and b) it was tangential from the start, but I'll drop a couple of brief notes: 1. The idea behind "death of the author" is not that "authors are jerks, so let's not listen to them" - how much clarity, credibility or goodwill any particular author has is simply not a factor. As they say, anyone with access to a worldwide network of information can find out more about this if they're interested. 2. I think "Word of God" is also a rather unfortunate label, since the term strongly implies absoluteness, while in practice it has different interpretations and applications, few if any of which are very absolute.
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Aug 31, 2011 0:25:34 GMT
1. i never referenced death of the author. but since you brought it up i went and did some reading. i generally agree with the sentiment, but would argue that it doesn't apply to this situation because gunnerkrigg is not a finished work, so the authors intent is still highly relevant. (i would also say it doesn't apply to works with living authors because they could still write sequels, prequels or addendums)
2. fine, you don't like word of god, i'll stop using the phrase. can we at least agree that Tom has the foreknowledge of having read several chapters ahead in the story, since they're written just not posted for the likes of us yet, and therefore his word holds more weight than our idle speculation?
3. a) i didn't participate in any PMs, so am not yet fed up with the subject. b) was it tangential? i wasn't aware of a particular topic for this thread...
todd; oh, i had forgotten about the monster trucks and electric guitars fiasco. i guess some of the snark of god could be misleading.
|
|