|
Post by strangebloke on Sept 1, 2011 1:28:37 GMT
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. Psh. I don't consider his "bottom-of-the-page" comments to be canon because virtually none of them say anything in particular about the comic. Usually they anticipate our reaction to a page and play with it. ("a little different" "Mystery solved!") Sometimes he references someone's character, like when Kat is "super concerned that everyone know that this is not a big deal.", but most of the time it doesn't even go that far. And really, its pretty clear when Tom is being sarcastic. when tom says: "yes, Brinny is Brunhilde, valkyrie and daughter of Odin." He isn't kidding. When he says "ZIMMYxJACK???" and follows up with a harsh put-down, he is being sarcastic. Really, its pretty easy to detect sarcasm, and if you really can't tell the difference, you must have a lot of trouble relating to sarcastic people. It is harder online, but doable if you know the speaker well enough. And as to the notion that we can never take Tom's word as absolute authority, the answer should be obvious. We can, or at least, we won't go far wrong by doing so. This comic is HIS. No outside influences, no publishers. heck, he really even doesn't listen to us, it seems. If he says something, the only thing that can make him take it back is himself, and he doesn't seem to like doing that. Sorry for the rant, but you are taking a very superior tone here that is rather aggravating. You aren't the only one who reads this comic nor are you the only one entitled to an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Sept 7, 2011 23:14:19 GMT
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) I don't actually think it makes much difference in principle if any. What exists (is known) of the work at any given time is what it is, episodic or not; any work may or may not be "officially" continued or expanded. (This in itself can be endlessly challenged, of course. Is it not possible to see the original Star Wars trilogy as an isolated set of three movies with a definable body of information that explicitly excludes the prequel trilogy and/or the expanded universe? I think we can if we so choose; we have powerful brains that George Lucas cannot control.) An author's intent at any given point in time could be the direct cause of both a statement about the work and some specific continuation of the work that corresponds to that statement, but there's no direct causal relationship between these two things. Note again that this is not to say that intent is not important for the creation of the comic, because obviously it is, just that it's not a given that we should try to view the comic through the filter of what we think we know about that intent. No need, I'm not on a fool's crusade to get the internet to stop using the term, I just think these things are interesting to muse on. I've also been known to tell people in video game fandom that their (multiform) concepts of video game canon are more nebulous than common usage would imply. I agree his word holds more weight for all practical purposes, but I don't think the publication delay itself is the reason. Imagine a completely trustworthy person other than Tom who reads episodes ahead of time - would any statements from that person about those episodes be considered to establish facts about the comic, Word of God-style? Why/why not? Well, my "can we trust anything?" was kind of a philosophical tangent to your "can we trust Kat?", but if no one thinks we're spamming up the forum... you must have a lot of trouble relating to sarcastic people. the answer should be obvious. you are taking a very superior tone here the only one entitled to an opinion. Oops?
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 8, 2011 1:08:58 GMT
I don't actually think it makes much difference in principle if any. What exists (is known) of the work at any given time is what it is, episodic or not; any work may or may not be "officially" continued or expanded. (This in itself can be endlessly challenged, of course. Yep. For one, a punchline may or may not follow. And here's a question what exactly belongs to the work and to which degree. This includes more than comments. E.g. for Gunnerkrigg Court the status of bonus pages is still uncertain. I, for one, assume that they aren't necessarily established parts of the main continuity, but used to illustrate it. Is it not possible to see the original Star Wars trilogy as an isolated set of three movies with a definable body of information that explicitly excludes the prequel trilogy and/or the expanded universe? I think we can if we so choose; we have powerful brains that George Lucas cannot control.) Step to the left, step to the right is an escape attempt, the escort fires without warnings. "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom"(c) An author's intent at any given point in time could be the direct cause of both a statement about the work and some specific continuation of the work that corresponds to that statement, but there's no direct causal relationship between these two things. Note again that this is not to say that intent is not important for the creation of the comic, because obviously it is, just that it's not a given that we should try to view the comic through the filter of what we think we know about that intent. Yes, but that's where we immediately meet the question about other filters. And how much any statements based on them are related to the original story at all. Well, my "can we trust anything?" was kind of a philosophical tangent to your "can we trust Kat?", but if no one thinks we're spamming up the forum... IMO common philosophical issues are inescapable, though obviously they would be better off in a thread not dedicated to any specific page. [...] the answer should be obvious. [...] Oops? You can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don't get away from Poe's Law!
|
|