|
|
Post by kukapetal on Oct 27, 2017 3:48:59 GMT
Surma does not look afraid at all and no I don't think this entire discussion is relevant to the story. But some readers have that stance (to not break up in private), and when a woman tells you she would only break up in public, that has probably roots in her personal experience with men rather than an "extreme view of men". When something bad happens to you or someone close to you, that danger becomes more real and you take more active steps to avoid it. And boyfriends who freak out at break-up are not the majority but also really not that rare. It's both. It's an extreme view of men, and in many cases it has been brought on by nasty personal experiences. I'm not disputing that. My point was that people who hold that viewpoint (for whatever reason) are not in the majority, therefore, we need some sort of evidence that Surma either believes that about men or that she has had personal experience with James himself being abusive. It can't just be taken as a given, which is what the person who originally brought it up seemed to be implying. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 27, 2017 4:26:30 GMT
Uh, that takes place after Surma broke up with Eggs. And while emotional unavailability can be bad for a relationship, it's not in the same league as cheating. Not even close. Without a good depiction of James's normal interactions with Jones and Surma, it can be hard to tell how justified Surma is in breaking things off. Suppose James takes all his problems to Jones, and refuses to let Surma help him deal with them. Surma sees him get worried, depressed, angry, etc, but he tells her he's fine. Instead, he goes to Jones, and she comforts and advises him. James canonically is making all these sacrifices and training trips for Surma's sake, but he doesn't listen to what she actually wants from him. So Surma ends up emotionally shut out from his life, and her own desires are being ignored. This is all possible, but not confirmed. What is confirmed is Surma cheated. It would be one thing if James kept his problems to himself, and didn't seek outside aid. But because he goes to Jones, that is in fact, emotional infidelity. This is kind of bullshit. It suggests that no matter what's bothering you, you have to go to your boyfriend or girlfriend about it, and that's ridiculous. Friends and family are there for you to talk about stuff you can't talk to your significant other about. And Jones is someone James has known since he was kid. Whatever their relationship is in his adulthood, she's important to him. And again, emotional infidelity is still not in the same league as physically cheating. That's not an argument. There's also isn't anything to suggest James can't turn into a frog when no one's looking, but it's a pretty safe bet he can't. We need proof for our claims and suppositions. How many men have yelled/assaulted women when they get dumped? How many men turn into frogs? You can't just compare something you don't think will happen to something that definitely won't happen and say "both are ridiculously" as if that's a real point. Men have attacked women when dumped. Men never turned into frogs. Look, I get that this is a problem in real life, but in a story? In this story? If this is the kind of person James is, we should've learned something about that long before now. Because it opens up a lot of questions if this is what he's like: did Donny and Anja know? If so, why were they still friends with him? If Surma thought he was like that why did she stay with him? Was it because she was afraid of him? Did they never tell anyone and that's why he's still allowed to work at the court, or did the court not care? Why was Surma worried about James when she was confident enough to seduce a fox god? You want to make a claim in this story, you need back up, because it turns a lot of shit on its head if James is violent or potentially violent towards women. Besides which, if Surma was really worried about that, she'd have to set it up so that she told him when they weren't alone, but she didn't have to tell him before he even put his bags down. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Oct 27, 2017 4:36:57 GMT
ok, two thoughts i had catching up on this thread; first, someone mentioned breaking up in public with friends/neutral parties there to "deescalate the situation", and that could apply even if physical violence isn't a danger. having friends there to mediate might prevent it from becoming the kind of argument where both sides are angry and defensive and say intentionally hurtful things that could damage the relationship beyond even "polite aquaintance" salvagability. do i think surma was thinking that? i don't know, as was mentioned, we don't know how this setup came about, it could have been a complete accident. but it might not be a bad thing that two known hotheads like surma and james have friends there to pull them to their respective corners to cool off if the situation gets emotionally heated second, re: but you have people in general (some on the forum may or possibly may not be in this category) who tend to operate with the notion that there's no such thing as a good person (i.e. a person who strives to do right by others, but not perfect of course). [...] I'm fine with how the story is going since yeah the two in question as well as the main cast has screwed up, I'm just question the idea that real people don't make sensible/good/smart choices at all. i'm probably one of those people you're referring to who thinks "there's no such thing as a good person", although i tend to think of it more as 'there's no such thing as a "bad" person'. i think good and bad are a matter of perspective and opinion. say you have a lion who kills a gazelle, is the lion good or bad? if you're an orphaned baby gazelle the lion is bad. if you're a healthy fed baby lion the lion is good. people are similar, only more complicated cause we're so very social and our well being is so tied up with the well being of other humans, so we generally help each other to help ourselves and that's socially encouraged. (social systems of mutual support, selfless or selfish? you decide.) but then you run into all the different views and opinions on what's more helpful versus hurtful and everything gets very messy... i personally think that people are generally well intentioned but can't really know what is 'good' for another person; so we look out for ourselves first and make our best guesses on how to interact with others in a way that's helpful not harmful (and coincidentally doesn't cause them to retaliate and harm us). so, you're right, i don't think people are good. i also don't think they're bad. i think people are people, and some of them are more helpful to us and we say that's good and some are more harmful to us and we say that's bad, but in the end it's a matter of perspective ((and the great thing about narratives is they give us windows into different perspectives, sometimes even different perspectives on the same issue)) (((i had a lot of feelings about this...))) |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Oct 27, 2017 4:43:48 GMT
My point was that people who hold that viewpoint (for whatever reason) are not in the majority source? is there any actual polling data either way? cause i suspect the people arguing 'caution around men is just good practice' also think their opinion is the majority... |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 27, 2017 6:01:06 GMT
Do you have to share every problem with whoever you are dating? No. But not letting them help or even know about it, that is a sign of immaturity and a lack of trust. Showing weaknesses is an important part of building relationships.
I will admit it's not confirmed that this is the case, but some of it can be inferred from what little we know.
I think it's somewhat facetious to try and say that it would be okay for Surma to kiss Tony if James was committing emotional infidelity, even assuming the "transgressions" were of equal weight.
However, I can understand Surma feeling ignored and kept at a distance, and growing dissatisfied with her relationship with James.
Out of curiosity, suppose she did not give Tony any physical affection, but still fell in love with him due to their interactions. Would she still be cheating? What should she have done in such a situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 27, 2017 6:18:32 GMT
Look, I get that this is a problem in real life, but in a story? In this story? As I have said, I don't think James would/is going to go nuts. Nor does the fire mage have anything physical to worry about. But would he call Surma a slut or Tony asshole? Why not, James has shown emotional outbrusts to Surma and as readers we know he has no problem talking shit and holding a grudge about Tony. Or maybe he would just call them freaks, or do something else tacky. Having other freinds around is a good way to prevent that from happening. Is it the most polite thing to do? No, but I'd argue politeness isn't a high priority when ending a relationship. Trying to keep things from escalating more then they need to is what I focus on. I get this is mostly a happy fantasy comic, but it has plenty of realistic behavior, so Surma being cautious towards a muscle man who might or might not handle being dumped well seems pretty standard to me. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 27, 2017 6:55:22 GMT
Most people don't take such an extreme view of men Disagree. Seems like confirmation bias to me, but we don't know each other well enough to judge. I'd take that bet and blow my winnings on lotto tickets. While I would use "capable of making bad judgement calls or having a temper" instead of "violent psychos just waiting to snap", I disagree with you again. But, I think "most people" where you're from have had different experiences then "most people" where I'm from. Seems like life experience has led us to have different views on humanity. I do respect that, I sometimes wish I didn't have such a pessimistic view of people. I just don't agree. It is not being terrified of all men at all times. Women can feel comfortable with a man the entire relationship, then not feel confident about how the other party will deal with it ending. It's being awake to the danger that even good people can respond to bad news poorly. As for evidence that James might handle it badly try this on; if someone hits someone for pissing them off, they might hit someone else for pissing them off. James has shown violent reactions to things he doesn't like, just because it was aimed towards a bully doesn't mean it wasn't violence, or that he will only be violent to those who deserve it. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Oct 27, 2017 8:47:45 GMT
And now James goes nuts.
*slow clap*
|
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 27, 2017 13:32:31 GMT
Hmm. While I do get that cheating isn't the worst thing possible and is overblown, I still think it's appropriate to consider that it's possible that it's underblown if that makes sense. I mean, I think the point most of us on the "this is pretty human" train are trying to make isn't "Surma made an ethical decision when she made out with Tony," just "this is an unfortunate but realistic thing that happens in the real world, and otherwise good people sometimes do it too." I will say that I'm a lot kinder towards cheaters who fess up and break things off as soon as possible (as Surma did), because they at least aren't trying to deceive their partner. It's not an extended, secret affair so much as a regular ol' fuck up; still cheating, but more misdemeanor than felony. [ETA because I saw it after replying: That kind of strikes me as suggesting that all person in the dating field are incapable of avoiding that particular mistake. I'm fine with how the story is going since yeah the two in question as well as the main cast has screwed up, I'm just question the idea that real people don't make sensible/good/smart choices at all. See above! I'm not trying to imply that *all* people cheat or anything like that (I've never cheated), just that everyone I've ever known screws up occasionally (even the good people), and sometimes it looks like this. I think most people try to be consistently good, but that doesn't mean it always works, ya know?] |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 27, 2017 22:08:24 GMT
Look, I get that this is a problem in real life, but in a story? In this story? As I have said, I don't think James would/is going to go nuts. Nor does the fire mage have anything physical to worry about. But would he call Surma a slut or Tony asshole? Why not, James has shown emotional outbrusts to Surma and as readers we know he has no problem talking shit and holding a grudge about Tony. Or maybe he would just call them freaks, or do something else tacky. Having other freinds around is a good way to prevent that from happening. Is it the most polite thing to do? No, but I'd argue politeness isn't a high priority when ending a relationship. Trying to keep things from escalating more then they need to is what I focus on. I get this is mostly a happy fantasy comic, but it has plenty of realistic behavior, so Surma being cautious towards a muscle man who might or might not handle being dumped well seems pretty standard to me. Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 27, 2017 22:15:56 GMT
i'm probably one of those people you're referring to who thinks "there's no such thing as a good person", although i tend to think of it more as 'there's no such thing as a "bad" person'. i think good and bad are a matter of perspective and opinion. say you have a lion who kills a gazelle, is the lion good or bad? if you're an orphaned baby gazelle the lion is bad. if you're a healthy fed baby lion the lion is good. people are similar, only more complicated cause we're so very social and our well being is so tied up with the well being of other humans, so we generally help each other to help ourselves and that's socially encouraged. (social systems of mutual support, selfless or selfish? you decide.) but then you run into all the different views and opinions on what's more helpful versus hurtful and everything gets very messy... i personally think that people are generally well intentioned but can't really know what is 'good' for another person; so we look out for ourselves first and make our best guesses on how to interact with others in a way that's helpful not harmful (and coincidentally doesn't cause them to retaliate and harm us). so, you're right, i don't think people are good. i also don't think they're bad. i think people are people, and some of them are more helpful to us and we say that's good and some are more harmful to us and we say that's bad, but in the end it's a matter of perspective ((and the great thing about narratives is they give us windows into different perspectives, sometimes even different perspectives on the same issue)) (((i had a lot of feelings about this...))) I suppose, though I don't think being a good person entails being perfect, but I guess doing more good than bad (but even then there's the severity of either side to take into account). And even when one messes up I feel what prevents them from necessarily falling into bad person category is being remorseful (especially even when they do not get caught in the act), admitting your mistake and working to improve yourself to lessen/prevent said mistake, as well as trying to make right when possible. To take two of the characters as an example, I'm not ready to consider Tony a bad person yet, but the reason I myself give Annie more slack for her imperfections is that she will not only recognize her screw ups but also trying to be a better person. But I will view Tony as a better and possibly good person when he recognizes that he needs to be loving and attentive whether Annie still loves him or resents him. I'll give it to him in that he recognizes that he screwed her up, but there's still arguably some selfishness in his decision in that he avoids her because it's easier than facing her. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 0:21:36 GMT
As I have said, I don't think James would/is going to go nuts. Nor does the fire mage have anything physical to worry about. But would he call Surma a slut or Tony asshole? Why not, James has shown emotional outbrusts to Surma and as readers we know he has no problem talking shit and holding a grudge about Tony. Or maybe he would just call them freaks, or do something else tacky. Having other freinds around is a good way to prevent that from happening. Is it the most polite thing to do? No, but I'd argue politeness isn't a high priority when ending a relationship. Trying to keep things from escalating more then they need to is what I focus on. I get this is mostly a happy fantasy comic, but it has plenty of realistic behavior, so Surma being cautious towards a muscle man who might or might not handle being dumped well seems pretty standard to me. Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. I disagree. This was the smartest, most up front and honest way to handle this. I also don't see how waiting makes it more comfortable or kinder. It will play out just the same as this moment, but with an akward attempt at a hug or a kiss first. You rip band aides off quick for a reason, dragging it out is much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by rinabean on Oct 29, 2017 12:33:16 GMT
As I have said, I don't think James would/is going to go nuts. Nor does the fire mage have anything physical to worry about. But would he call Surma a slut or Tony asshole? Why not, James has shown emotional outbrusts to Surma and as readers we know he has no problem talking shit and holding a grudge about Tony. Or maybe he would just call them freaks, or do something else tacky. Having other freinds around is a good way to prevent that from happening. Is it the most polite thing to do? No, but I'd argue politeness isn't a high priority when ending a relationship. Trying to keep things from escalating more then they need to is what I focus on. I get this is mostly a happy fantasy comic, but it has plenty of realistic behavior, so Surma being cautious towards a muscle man who might or might not handle being dumped well seems pretty standard to me. Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. sets his bag down, and rushes to kiss her. just as we saw with parley and smitty. No, she obviously can't wait for that! Tom actually showed us the ordinary / nothing's up version of 'giant muscle person returns from the wilderness after several months and meets their boyfriend/girlfriend' thing already. This isn't any kind of speculation on my part, he literally showed us this. Surma has to reject his kiss, which only delays breaking up by like 30 seconds and also will make Eglamore feel even worse - or force herself to accept his kiss, which is extremely unfair to her and unfair to him to - or do what she has done. There isn't another option, if he's walking towards her just having returned |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 29, 2017 16:49:39 GMT
Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. sets his bag down, and rushes to kiss her. just as we saw with parley and smitty. No, she obviously can't wait for that! Tom actually showed us the ordinary / nothing's up version of 'giant muscle person returns from the wilderness after several months and meets their boyfriend/girlfriend' thing already. This isn't any kind of speculation on my part, he literally showed us this. Surma has to reject his kiss, which only delays breaking up by like 30 seconds and also will make Eglamore feel even worse - or force herself to accept his kiss, which is extremely unfair to her and unfair to him to - or do what she has done. There isn't another option, if he's walking towards her just having returned Oh bull crap. Smitty and Parley are not Surma and James, and unless I see that happening, there's no way to know that's how it absolutely would've gone down. If Tom wanted us to know that's how it was, he could've shown us a flashback of the two meeting after a trip when they were still together. But he didn't. Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. I disagree. This was the smartest, most up front and honest way to handle this. I also don't see how waiting makes it more comfortable or kinder. It will play out just the same as this moment, but with an akward attempt at a hug or a kiss first. You rip band aides off quick for a reason, dragging it out is much worse. Well I disagree. I mean, it's not like we're looking at actual people here. Tom drew the scene the way he did for a reason. The fact the he draws James with his bag still in hand as opposed to on the floor is, I believe, purposeful. And its purpose is not to say anything particularly flattering about Surma. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 29, 2017 17:44:17 GMT
Well I disagree. I mean, it's not like we're looking at actual people here. Tom drew the scene the way he did for a reason. The fact the he draws James with his bag still in hand as opposed to on the floor is, I believe, purposeful. And its purpose is not to say anything particularly flattering about Surma. Not actually people? That's your argument now? I guess we can say anything they do or say means anything we want, since they aren't actually people. Guess they shouldn't treat each other or there relationships realistically then. That's a really bad point. Yeah, Tom did draw it with a reason. To make it more realistic. It shows that Surma is handling this as soon as possible, which is the right thing to do. But hey, if we don't have to assign actual motives since there not actually people, I guess the bag handling can be a reflection of whomever. It's just silly to me, the bag being there just seems like an obvious and straight forward way to say "he just got back". |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Oct 30, 2017 0:00:49 GMT
sets his bag down, and rushes to kiss her. just as we saw with parley and smitty. No, she obviously can't wait for that! Tom actually showed us the ordinary / nothing's up version of 'giant muscle person returns from the wilderness after several months and meets their boyfriend/girlfriend' thing already. This isn't any kind of speculation on my part, he literally showed us this. Surma has to reject his kiss, which only delays breaking up by like 30 seconds and also will make Eglamore feel even worse - or force herself to accept his kiss, which is extremely unfair to her and unfair to him to - or do what she has done. There isn't another option, if he's walking towards her just having returned Oh bull crap. Smitty and Parley are not Surma and James, and unless I see that happening, there's no way to know that's how it absolutely would've gone down. If Tom wanted us to know that's how it was, he could've shown us a flashback of the two meeting after a trip when they were still together. But he didn't. ok, can someone who subscribes to the theory "surma shouldn't have told james right away/in front of people", like, storyboard out an alternate way she might have done it that would have been better? because i'm honestly having trouble imagining a way she could greet him without prompting that talk right then and there. is there some social/conversational maneuver i'm missing that would allow it? |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Oct 30, 2017 4:07:01 GMT
Oh bull crap. Smitty and Parley are not Surma and James, and unless I see that happening, there's no way to know that's how it absolutely would've gone down. If Tom wanted us to know that's how it was, he could've shown us a flashback of the two meeting after a trip when they were still together. But he didn't. ok, can someone who subscribes to the theory "surma shouldn't have told james right away/in front of people", like, storyboard out an alternate way she might have done it that would have been better? because i'm honestly having trouble imagining a way she could greet him without prompting that talk right then and there. is there some social/conversational maneuver i'm missing that would allow it? It would be as simple as asking James to please step over there for a moment, or into an empty room, where Surma can privately explain what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Oct 30, 2017 5:21:11 GMT
ok, can someone who subscribes to the theory "surma shouldn't have told james right away/in front of people", like, storyboard out an alternate way she might have done it that would have been better? because i'm honestly having trouble imagining a way she could greet him without prompting that talk right then and there. is there some social/conversational maneuver i'm missing that would allow it? It would be as simple as asking James to please step over there for a moment, or into an empty room, where Surma can privately explain what's going on. so basically greet him with "we need to talk"? i don't see how that's really different enough to matter. i'm not trying to be obtuse, i really don't get it. this was always going to suck and i don't think there's any way to sugar coat it |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Oct 30, 2017 7:09:30 GMT
Giving someone just returning from a trip time to put their bags down and sit down and have a cup of tea or coffee or something would be pretty normal human decency.
Like imagine if this was Surma telling James his mom died. You wouldn't just throw that news in someone's face the second they got back from the airport, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Oct 30, 2017 7:10:55 GMT
If Surma was worried about James attacking her, nonwithstanding her own powers, that's a pretty serious relationship issue in its own right that should have been brought up or addressed in any way in the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by rinabean on Oct 30, 2017 13:15:01 GMT
Giving someone just returning from a trip time to put their bags down and sit down and have a cup of tea or coffee or something would be pretty normal human decency. Like imagine if this was Surma telling James his mom died. You wouldn't just throw that news in someone's face the second they got back from the airport, right? you're changing it too much. She can hug and kiss him and then break the news. She can't hug and kiss him and then break the news that she isn't in a relationship with him any more because the hugging and kissing is related to that. it's not related to something like his mum's dead she either has to be weirdly cold to him in public to get him in private, which is going to shame and anger him the same way, or just tell him right there, which still shames and angers him in public, but is honest and fast like I'm feeling that you and others saying this stuff never met your lover you were separated from. You don't offer them a cuppa you run into their arms! But not if you've decided to break up. That's Surma's problem here. and as I said upthread we saw this with Parley and Smitty. Didn't she just lob her bag off in a random direction and run to him or something?? anyway they went straight to each other, she even had to be told not to hurt him with her new strength, embracing him was the very first thing she did, and the first thing Eglamore would have done if Surma had let him |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 31, 2017 2:14:19 GMT
Giving someone just returning from a trip time to put their bags down and sit down and have a cup of tea or coffee or something would be pretty normal human decency. Perhaps, if you expect that this is what they'll do. What if you expect, instead, that they will toss their bag into their room and then come looking for YOU? Or possibly look for you first? Surma would not expect James to do something incompatible with the information that his mom died. Surma WOULD expect James to expect and attempt a hug, which is incompatible with them breaking up. |
|
