|
|
Post by brightside on Dec 6, 2013 20:10:15 GMT
I have to say something, and I'm really sorry for the useless and off-topic post, but... Brightside, anytime I see your pseudonym, I can't help myself to have one music automatically started in my head : Everytime. >.< I hope you're satisfied, AH ! I am, totally!!!  In fact, my pseudonym came from this song! I was reading this thread and I saw some Monty Phyton gifs (page 11), so that started playing into my mind (aaaand I started singing it) . So when registering I thought "name, name...well why not brightside?". Almost all the discussions here and in the buttzone were about "Kat is gay? What?!" I don't frequent the buttzone, but here, the "Kat is Gay? What?!" -discussion is instigated by a very marginal minority that has all the time been in complete denial that there could be homosexuality in a top quality comic. It counts just about 5 or 6 people of whom most only registered in order to tell their shock about this. These are people, who argued that because Paz said that she's "not like that", there was a word of Tom that she is not gay. Please. They're a bit like you, who are basically saying that because Kat didn't have explicit girl crushes as a pre-teen child, her turning out having a homosexual relation at age of 14 or 15 is absolutely unbelievable - all despite the more-than-friendship vibe in her relation to Annie, that has been sensed by other comic characters for ages now. Even without that, it would not be so strange. For comparison, if that counts as unbelievable, then I expect you guys to come here start shock threads screaming "what, Annie can't be straight because she hasn't had boyfriend as a kid", if Annie one day develops a heterosexual relationship in this comic. If you would actually read the posts of other users you would realize that a large majority did not share the shock that these few people experienced with this turn of events, and the people responding these "it's so unbelievable that Kat and Paz are gay!!" posts have had no problem in reading this in line with the general thread of the comic. That Annie and Kat would develop a love relationship in time has been a possibility wished for or feared by the forumers for the longest time. etc: that's just because to register just to start a discussion someone needs a good motivation: being interested for a "morality"-prejudices things (the ones that doesn't like gay people and/or gay characters) or being very stubborn about making people know when they are wrong (me, as I am the plot-version of a grammar nazi). Everyone else sees that as "too much work" and just comments with a MEH!. In the buttzone you don't need to register, so you are more motivated to give your opinion (there are also much more trolls, but well it's still an imageboard). Edit: also if everything was so clear, the homophobes-and-such would have predicted it and dropped the comic a lot of time ago . "you, who are basically saying that because Kat didn't have explicit girl crushes as a pre-teen child, her turning out having a homosexual relation at age of 14 or 15 is absolutely unbelievable": no that's not what I said, read my posts again. "all despite the more-than-friendship vibe in her relation to Annie, that has been sensed by other comic characters for ages now" Are you talking about Renard-the-sometimes-pervert's joke? That was, exactly, a joke from that kind of character? In a mistery story, you have to give hints. Clear, very subtle or nearly invisible hints, but hints that after you read the "end" should make you say "gosh golly how could I have not understood it, it's OBVIOUS now!"[...] Again: if you are creating a sub-plot in a mistery-like writing style you can not make everything end with something that it could have been impossible to deduct or even simply guess. Hints can be nice, but they're not always necessary. This is not a mystery story, and perhaps Tom did not want to overplay the "mystery" of Kat's sexuality. I think that might have overemphasized it, and in a way that's not all that original. There's more than one way to effectively tell a story. Well, different ideas of writing. What did you expected her to say if she for sure liked boys? Why she should have done any kind of comment like that with someone like Annie that doen't care at all if she was not interested at all? I mean, if Annie never did any comment, why Kat did it then? She didn't need to prove anything! Maybe because she was insecure, or thought it would be a funny or cute thing to say. Ok, but your analogy could have been a argument to my position or an argument to yours, that's why I asked. Also, Kat being so surprised it's a sign of something totally unespected. Something so big, even if in a subconscious level, I think it would have created a different effect. Maybe not though. Insecure? In front of Annie? About cute/funny: if she makes that kind of "jokes" very often it becomes an hint. "Maybe not though.": if she were thinking (even in a subconscious level) about that so do you think she would have been shocked? What about all the "angel of the robots" part of the plot? Or the fact that, inside the court, almost all the time that something great happens they are together? Even in the covers they are "the two parts of the same medal"! www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1165 and like I said, the majority of the chapters are focused on Annie. Way more of the story is focused on Annie than Kat. I mean, you can bring all of that stuff up but it does not really trump the fact that Annie is the main character, sorry. Annie having more space doesn't mean she is not a co-protagonist. There are many ways to give importance to a character in a story. "When the work contains subplots, these may have different protagonists from the main plot. In some novels, the protagonists may be impossible to identify, because multiple plots in the novel do not permit clear identification of one as the main plot, such as in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The First Circle, depicting a variety of characters imprisoned and living in a gulag camp, or in Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, depicting 15 major characters involved in or affected by a war."
why are you still assuming that for me Kat is just a stereotype? Or do you think that "Queer people that challenge gender stereotypes" are just all walking stereotypes for me? No, they are people like everyone else. "Queer people that challenge gender stereotypes" in fiction are stereotypes, because majority of queer people was (and still is, even if less) depicted like that. And characters that are "Queer people that challenge gender stereotypes" can be stereotyped charactes from that point of view, but of course they could have still their qualities and their differences. Okay, my point is that it's not stereotypical writing if it's done well and truthfully, and the problem you have with it strikes me as a bit meaningless. Stereotypical writing is different to having stereotyped characters. But I think you have to admit it's something that happens very very rarely (even for queer people), so from a storywriting point of view it would still seem kind of lazy. I don't. Sexuality can be extremely complicated for some. It's not all black and white for everyone. There isn't a ton of representation of the intricacies of it, so people have a hard time figuring it out by themselves. A lot of my queer friends have had a hard time sorting out their identities, and a lot of what helped for us was having one another around to talk to about it and learn from. More portrayals of sexuality confusion in stories might have been helpful to me as a youngster, so I don't see it as lazy storytelling. I'm not really all that weird. There are other people on this very forum who have said their concepts of their own sexualities have changed as they got older. Changing their concepts is different to having their sexuality change in that way. Yes, the "boys-are-hot-hormones appearing and then disappearing when the girls-are-hot ones arrive" it's not usual at all. I often saw in TV lesbian people very stereotyped (now it's changing, but still they are). If she was a single one, she was the butch type. If it was a couple, butch+girly. In comics it's different, yes, but there are not a lot of straight tomboys too ( on wikipedia only Peppermint Patty and Valerie Smith outside manga, and even in manga come on Akane Tendo?). Maybe it's more of a "no tomboys-here" thing (for the same reason). moving on; stereotypes are everywhere and not all of them are bad. a character can't not fall into some category or another. tom's writing is thoughtful and original enough that i'm willing to trust he knows how to handle a potential stereotype or cliche gracefully. Patty is not straight? Really? I've never read/heard anything about that! "he knows how to handle a potential stereotype or cliche gracefully": well, I hope so! "not all of them are bad": I know, it's just that this one is a big one. Hints after chapter 34 could be interpreted in another way They could be...but whoever interpreted it in another way interpreted it wrong (I'm not cocky, I didn't even see any hints before rereading) Maybe you are right, but that sub-plot it's still going on so it's still not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Dec 6, 2013 20:38:40 GMT
"not all of them are bad": I know, it's just that this one is a big one. It's not a big one, tomboy lesbians do exist, why can't Kat be one ? Besides, she is not very masculine so it's really a shoddy example of a tomboy |
|
|
|
Post by brightside on Dec 6, 2013 20:55:35 GMT
"not all of them are bad": I know, it's just that this one is a big one. It's not a big one, tomboy lesbians do exist, why can't Kat be one ? Besides, she is not very masculine so it's really a shoddy example of a tomboy It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Kat still clearly is a tomboy, of course she is not excessively emphasized as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Dec 6, 2013 21:19:45 GMT
It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Other fiction have no relevance with the plot of GKC. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 6, 2013 21:24:13 GMT
It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Kat still clearly is a tomboy, of course she is not excessively emphasized as that. I consider this whole debate pretty inane; there should be no need to compare GCK with other stories or consciously avoid stereotyping on every possible subject just for the sake of doing so. Avoiding a stereotype simply because a stereotype exists is just as bad as following it. Kat is a well-rounded character in her own right and shouldn't need to be built around narrative conventions of her sexual orientation to convey some specific moral or lesson. She is Kat -- that should be enough for everybody. But I also question your claim. As far as I've noticed, lipstick lesbians are far more common in fiction than tomboys, since they provide more male-centric fanservice potential. |
|
|
|
Post by brightside on Dec 6, 2013 21:25:22 GMT
It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Other fiction have no relevance with the plot of GKC. "Not all stereotypes are bad" "Yes, but this is problematic because it'a big one" (non Kat being a big stereotype, the stereotype being big in itself) When the plot enters in that discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by brightside on Dec 6, 2013 21:33:19 GMT
It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Kat still clearly is a tomboy, of course she is not excessively emphasized as that. I consider this whole debate pretty inane; there should be no need to compare GCK with other stories or consciously avoid stereotyping on every possible subject just for the sake of doing so. Avoiding a stereotype simply because a stereotype exists is just as bad as following it. Kat is a well-rounded character in her own right and shouldn't need to be built around narrative conventions of her sexual orientation to convey some specific moral or lesson. She is Kat -- that should be enough for everybody. But I also question your claim. As far as I've noticed, lipstick lesbians are far more common in fiction than tomboys, since they provide more male-centric fanservice potential. If you just read my previous posts I said this exact same thing. It was just a "personal feeling" thing. Also, about the types of lesbian characters: in comics, yes. In fiction in general, no. At least, for what I saw. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 6, 2013 21:50:04 GMT
If you just read my previous posts I said this exact same thing. It was just a "personal feeling" thing. Also, about the types of lesbian characters: in comics, yes. In fiction in general, no. At least, for what I saw. The problem of writing massive walls of text is that your main point very quickly gets lost in the stream of arguments; I know that from experience. As far as personal feelings go, there's no point in debating about those. Everybody has their own, but no work of fiction is made to conform to your specific feelings unless you're the one who wrote it. If some piece of characterisation or plot development isn't fully satisfying to you that's too bad, but you can't expect everything to work out like you feel it should. The stereotype of tomboy lesbians seems to be far more prevalent in real life than in fiction, incidentally. People are always inclined to mix different types of individuals who challenge gender conventions together, be they homosexual, transsexual, metrosexual or just plain effeminate or tomboys together. Certain people are inclined to assume that a long-haired guy like me has to be gay, for example, although that particular assumption has become a rather rural belief nowadays. Commercial fiction on the other hand typically aims to satisfy the lowest common denominator, and a masculine-looking women aren't often in that demographic. |
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Dec 6, 2013 21:53:22 GMT
It's a big one when it's almost everytime like that, in fiction. Kat still clearly is a tomboy, of course she is not excessively emphasized as that. I consider this whole debate pretty inane; there should be no need to compare GCK with other stories or consciously avoid stereotyping on every possible subject just for the sake of doing so. Avoiding a stereotype simply because a stereotype exists is just as bad as following it. Kat is a well-rounded character in her own right and shouldn't need to be built around narrative conventions of her sexual orientation to convey some specific moral or lesson. She is Kat -- that should be enough for everybody. But I also question your claim. As far as I've noticed, lipstick lesbians are far more common in fiction than tomboys, since they provide more male-centric fanservice potential. ^^^^^^This, this, so much what Lightice said! Regardless of whether Kat exemplifies some stereotypical traits or not,(and I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that... the point is moot,) she is a brilliantly complex and well rounded character. Distilling her down to simply her sexuality (which falls somewhere above a 1 on the Kinsey scale but beyond that is still being discovered) and/or her gender presentation (which most likely has more to do with dressing in a way that is practical for the activities she enjoys than anything else) is a pointless exercise in failing to see the forest for the trees. (Specifically focusing in on one particular tree that displeases you and hammering at it railing that it should be chopped down because it doesn't suit your fancy because... bullshit reason to complain about queerness in literature du jour! |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Dec 6, 2013 22:31:27 GMT
"Not all stereotypes are bad" "Yes, but this is problematic because it'a big one" (non Kat being a big stereotype, the stereotype being big in itself) When the plot enters in that discussion? Plot, trope use, writting...the point is, if we're talking about how it's done in GKC, then how it's done in another_media_#545255259 is irrelevant. You can use it as examples of how to handle or not handle it, but it doesn't interfere with the quality of GKC. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 6, 2013 23:11:39 GMT
"not all of them are bad": I know, it's just that this one is a big one. It's not a big one, tomboy lesbians do exist, why can't Kat be one ? Wouldn't that require that she be a tomboy? IMHO she's less tomboy-ish than Annie (who likes running through the woods and climbing trees barefoot, for example). She is, however, quite solidly geekgirl. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Dec 7, 2013 2:27:21 GMT
(don't say it, just walk away...) Patty is not straight? Really? I've never read/heard anything about that! there is no evidence that peppermint patty is a lesbian or bi, but that doesn't stop people from jokingly speculating about her and Marcie. (and lesbians tend to adopt fictional characters with potential even if there's no canon evidence to support it) |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Dec 7, 2013 2:35:06 GMT
It's not a big one, tomboy lesbians do exist, why can't Kat be one ? Wouldn't that require that she be a tomboy? IMHO she's less tomboy-ish than Annie (who likes running through the woods and climbing trees barefoot, for example). She is, however, quite solidly geekgirl. I suppose it depends if your talking about style of dress or mannerisms. I think female gender roles have shifted such that 'tomboy' is hard to pin down anymore. (i mean, it used to be any girl who wore pants was a tomboy) |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Dec 7, 2013 3:05:43 GMT
Also Parley is a tomboy, and straight?
Gamma and Paz are into girls, and girly?
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 7, 2013 3:15:06 GMT
Also Parley is a tomboy, and straight? Gamma and Paz are into girls, and girly? I know Gamma and Zimmy's relationship is a very long distance from what one would call "normal", but I think it's a bit premature to assume that it's something more than platonic. I'm sure from their perspective, Annie and Kat seemed like a couple, when in reality they were both the same, two people hanging out with their best and only friend in the world. (From that perspective, the chapter title "Two Strange Girls" seems to make sense. It could be referring to Annie and Kat or Gamma and Zimmy.) Then Faraway Morning rolls around and things are changing- now they both have friends besides each other by this point, and separate romantic interests (Paz and Kamlen). |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Dec 7, 2013 3:24:26 GMT
Also Parley is a tomboy, and straight? Gamma and Paz are into girls, and girly? I know Gamma and Zimmy's relationship is a very long distance from what one would call "normal", but I think it's a bit premature to assume that it's something more than platonic. I'm sure from their perspective, Annie and Kat seemed like a couple, when in reality they were both the same, two people hanging out with their best and only friend in the world. (From that perspective, the chapter title "Two Strange Girls" seems to make sense. It could be referring to Annie and Kat or Gamma and Zimmy.) Then Faraway Morning rolls around and things are changing- now they both have friends besides each other by this point, and separate romantic interests (Paz and Kamlen). Word of Tom confirms they are a couple. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 7, 2013 3:28:23 GMT
Word of Tom confirms they are a couple. Really? Huh. Never knew that. I ought to read through more of his answers. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Dec 7, 2013 4:03:32 GMT
Word of Tom confirms they are a couple. Really? Huh. Never knew that. I ought to read through more of his answers. Here's one: new.spring.me/#!/gunnerkrigg/q/234071578155951334 And the search engine: chrysoprax.org/gunnerkrigg/results?term=zimmy+gammaI guess the nature of Z & G's relationship (romantic or otherwise) isn't quite as important to the comic storyline as their obsessively codependent relationship, though I *personally* thought/knew that it was a thing at the time of Faraway Morning onwards due to Annie & Jack's conversation. What I do *not* get however is why anyone would assume Red & Blue to be a couple. Clearly, they are just friends? |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 7, 2013 4:16:33 GMT
I'd say they're just friends, but I don't know if it's so clear, they have a pretty obsessive relationship too.
But then again Tom's fairies seem like they're permanently coked out exuberant.
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Dec 7, 2013 4:18:17 GMT
I'd say they're just friends, but I don't know if it's so clear, they have a pretty obsessive relationship too. I always just assumed fairies had hierarchies based on weird things like their hair, names, ability to make up fake creatures in the ether, etc? I could be wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Dec 7, 2013 4:31:57 GMT
Word of Tom confirms they are a couple. Oh wow, okay then. Wait, how do we know that Tom didn't mean "a couple... of people"? |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 7, 2013 4:44:06 GMT
Word of Tom confirms they are a couple. Oh wow, okay then. Wait, how do we know that Tom didn't mean "a couple... of people"? Perhaps it was too verbose. I think if you calculated the average number of words in Tom's replies to plot questions it would hover at around 5-7. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Dec 7, 2013 4:49:03 GMT
I'd say they're just friends, but I don't know if it's so clear, they have a pretty obsessive relationship too. I'm not quite so sure   |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 5:03:58 GMT
I'd say they're just friends, but I don't know if it's so clear, they have a pretty obsessive relationship too. I'm not quite so sure Blue just looks sleepy to me, and they both did say it was cold. However I do agree they have a seriously messed up relationship whatever it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Dec 7, 2013 5:10:50 GMT
Blue just looks sleepy to me, and they both did say it was cold. However I do agree they have a seriously messed up relationship whatever it is. I don't think I'd say messed up, but whatever they are, they're close. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Dec 7, 2013 5:19:30 GMT
Blue just looks sleepy to me, and they both did say it was cold. However I do agree they have a seriously messed up relationship whatever it is. I don't think I'd say messed up, but whatever they are, they're close. I'm sorry, that totally didn't come out the way I meant it. I know they are close but they seem to have a toxic relationship where Red is always pushing Blue around and is generally rude to her. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Dec 7, 2013 5:24:41 GMT
I don't think I'd say messed up, but whatever they are, they're close. I'm sorry, that totally didn't come out the way I meant it. I know they are close but they seem to have a toxic relationship where Red is always pushing Blue around and is generally rude to her. Oh no, of course. But whatever keeps Blue hanging around, Red apparently has a lot of it. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Dec 7, 2013 7:47:15 GMT
I'm sorry, that totally didn't come out the way I meant it. I know they are close but they seem to have a toxic relationship where Red is always pushing Blue around and is generally rude to her. Oh no, of course. But whatever keeps Blue hanging around, Red apparently has a lot of it. Hair that sticks up duh |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Dec 7, 2013 9:54:43 GMT
Also Parley is a tomboy, and straight? Gamma and Paz are into girls, and girly? To be fair, I can't think of many female characters in this comic who AREN'T at least a little bit tomboy. Whatever that word means anymore (let's not even mention the implied sexism in the term anyway, that girls like girl things and boys like boy things). To be fair we are at an unusual school, so everyone is odd in some ways. But Anja and Kat are both very geeky and into computers and robots, one is straight the other is bi/gay. Annie is more girly with her make up and stuff, but still beats up multiple creatures and enjoys lockpicking and climbing trees etc. Parley enjoys beating up lots of things with swords. Red and Blue, erm, are just weird. Jones isn't really female I'd say. So the closest we have to a girly girl in he entire comic is Annie, I don't think picking on anyone as being a tomboy is fair, either in this comic (because most of the girls are) or in general (because it is relatively sexist). |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 7, 2013 11:40:48 GMT
Patty is not straight? Really? I've never read/heard anything about that! there is no evidence that peppermint patty is a lesbian or bi, but that doesn't stop people from jokingly speculating about her and Marcie. (and lesbians tend to adopt fictional characters with potential even if there's no canon evidence to support it) Apparently some of the speculation and jokes originate from the fact that she was in some part based on Billie Jean King, who is very much gay. Also Parley is a tomboy, and straight? Gamma and Paz are into girls, and girly? I know Gamma and Zimmy's relationship is a very long distance from what one would call "normal", but I think it's a bit premature to assume that it's something more than platonic. Based on everything shown in the comic and everything that Tom has said about them, those two seem to be more closely and deeply connected than any normal romantic couple. The reason why I'd balk at simply calling them a couple is because it wouldn't be nearly enough to convey what they mean to each other. Though since they played a fairly important part in getting Kat to deal with her orientation, I'd assume that they've had some experience with similar feelings. |
|
