Websnark

Comment from: Brendan posted at November 17, 2005 8:47 AM

I've got to say, I really have to question the connexion between sex and Fooker and Sharon's breakup...especially since they got back together in the end, but didn't stop having sex. It's almost like saying that the early days of Ki make her and Nick waiting until marriage impossible to criticize.

(And of course, there's Und and Mille, but they're villians...)

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 8:50 AM

While I can understand the characterizations of Trudy and Ki via their sexual roles in the context of someone coming at the characters from that direction, I can't see it with Sharon -- not a bit. Sharon and Fooker's problems stemmed from Fooker and Fooker alone. Attributing them as a result from their sexual activity simply because of TIMING seems like shoehorning.

From my point of view, the timing was more along the lines of "hey, look how good things are for Fooker! Let's see him go completely insane and totally screw things up!" Which was pretty much underscored by Warren's pointed questions at the Linux support meeting and Fookers ultimate reaction.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 9:56 AM

The part about Sharon is, admittedly, awkward. I'm in agreement with Mr. Wright on this one - those problems were all on Fooker's head. It didn't seem like he was being punished for having sex but instead punished because he let his own prejudices interfere with his emotions.

However, you probably would have a solid argument that it was issues of sexuality and the unspoken moral code that resulted in the breakup of Sharon and Dexter. No reason in-story (unless I'm missing something by not subscribing to Premium) has ever been given for that split, so we're left to draw our own conclusions. And it's just as easy to say it was the bar on sexuality as it is to say it was because Dexter was (at the time) creepy.

I think the problem is that Darlington is too intent to mix archetypes (Nick & Ki, Trudy and the Indian doctor) with characters (Fooker, Sharon, Fred). The former are stripped of their human failings (when was the last time Nick failed in general, even for comedy's sake?). And the latter are square pegs living in a world of round holes.

Comment from: John posted at November 17, 2005 10:06 AM

Sorry, Weds, but I think your essay is a bit unfair.

Any comic is going to assume a universe of value that is itself beyond justification. In superhero comics, the bad guys have to be fought because, well, they're the bad guys. That the framework isn't explained isn't itself a failing; every artist needs to start with a four-sided canvas to work on.

Moreover, these stereotypes you seem to resent are found in countless other comics, and countless works in other media. The long-suffering girl next door? The self-absorbed maneater? Um, Betty and Veronica? Mary Ann and Ginger? You no doubt have more experience with Darlington's work, but this post kind of comes off like you're miffed at him for being "conservative." That's surprising, given how even-handed you've been in evaluating the work of Jack Chick at the much farther end of the spectrum.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 10:14 AM

Well, it's easier to be clinical the further removed you are from the... clinic... or something...

Comment from: vilious posted at November 17, 2005 10:22 AM

There is a problem with this critique. I don't read the strip, so, for the purposes of discussion, I will accept everthing said about its presentation of sexuality. This comes to two assertions:

1. Darlington has a particular Christian attitude toward sex.

2. This attitude is presented stripped of its religious context.

What is being missed here is that this is probably just how sex looks to Darlington. Sexual attitudes, even if tied to ideology, rapidly become instinctive attractions and repulsions, operating below consciousness. So, what is being said here is just that Darlington has a particular kind of sexuality and that it shows in his work.

Now, if the essay were about whether or not Darlington is a nice man, this would be enough. In a critique of his art, it is not enough. William Burroughs put heartfelt sex fantasies about hanging people in his novels. Gide seems to have been sexually aroused by evil. Jane Austen does not seem to have been able to conceive of sex separate from elaborate social and economic bondage rituals. Their art did not suffer from this.

Artists express how it feels to be a particular kind of person and show how the world looks to that kind of person. You seem to be complaining that Darlington is showing how the world looks and feels to a bad kind of person. No doubt this is true, but it is irrelevant. The question is whether he is giving as honest and complete an account as can be given in four panels and a joke.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 10:34 AM

What is being missed here is that this is probably just how sex looks to Darlington. Sexual attitudes, even if tied to ideology, rapidly become instinctive attractions and repulsions, operating below consciousness. So, what is being said here is just that Darlington has a particular kind of sexuality and that it shows in his work.

That is exactly what criticism -- in the academic sense -- is supposed to do.

"Here is what is happening, and here's the pattern and framework that emerges."

Hi there. Welcome to the exciting world of critical discourse. ;)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 10:36 AM

One thing folks need to have reinforced, I think, is the keyword in the title. "Introduction."

This is a very, very long piece of criticial work (by Websnark standards). And it's going to be controversial, almost without a doubt. But one shouldn't expect the introduction to contain the convincing supporting evidence.

Stay tuned. ;)

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 10:49 AM

Now, now, isn't that just like Jeff saying "keep reading, it'll all come together eventually?"

I thought you were opposed to that kind of stuff.

;P

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 11:00 AM

Heh.

No, it's saying that it's an introduction. We're discussing apples and toasters. ;)

Comment from: Scarybug posted at November 17, 2005 11:00 AM

I first read the sentence as:

...a remarkably telling piece of backstory about Ki's narrow escape from rape at the hands of her ex-fianc», Jeff Darlington, Now a devout Christian.

THAT would have been interesting.

I've only read a bit of early GPF, so Darlington's name registered as familiar, but not as the author.

Also, typekey is extremely frelled up. It now only lets me post if I tell it I *don't* want to share my email address. It provides the comment box along with the "you can't comment here unless you share your email address" error message!

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 11:18 AM

Christopher -- as for Sharon/Fooker... that one stems back from when I was reading. Check http://www.gpf-comics.com/d/20010326.html and the strips that follow.

It was shocking (shocking, I say) to Ki and Nick that Sharon and Fooker were already having sex, and led immediately to Nick's explaining to Ki that because he respected her, he didn't want to have sex before marriage. And then the immediate next storyline broke Fooker and Sharon up. It wasn't the overt reasoning, but there was a strong subtext going on there. Nick respected Ki too much to sleep with her. Fooker did sleep with Sharon, and in the next storyline had no respect for her choice of OS platforms.

Yeah, the humor was directed at Fooker's expense, but there was a pretty straightforward correspondence. The committed waiting couple were stable. The headlong-rushing-couple were unstable and broke up.

(Which isn't to steal Weds's thunder for the Sharon chapter of the essay. ;) )

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 11:25 AM

Um... yes, it was shocking that Fooker was having sex.

Think about that for a minute. Seriously. Fooker.

Ki's reaction is understated to say the least. :D

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 11:33 AM

Point. ;)

(Though their comments were on the "well, they sure didn't waste any time" variety, which was less "dude, Fooker's having sex! Run for the hills!" and more "yeesh. It's been what, ten minutes?" ;) )

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 11:48 AM

While there might be an argument for that, Eric, it really feels like you and Wednesday are stretching the images and actions to suit the argument, rather than tailoring the argument to suit the facts presented.

There's enough material in GPF to build an essay on sexuality without leaning on a flimsy example that requires a reading most people dismiss.

Comment from: Rothul posted at November 17, 2005 12:04 PM

Let's not forget that one of the earlier stories of GPF was Ki saving Nick from an evil team of supermodels... Just throwin' it out there.

Comment from: dreamshade posted at November 17, 2005 12:09 PM

Now if we could just get you to read through and comment on the actual content of Megatokyo, the webcomics macroverse would implode.

Comment from: Sundre posted at November 17, 2005 1:03 PM

Thanks, Weds. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of this critique. Because yes, this has been one of the problems with GPF.

In particular, the uterus-twinge was downright painful to read. I don't know who Darlington's been talking to, but the usual response to that kind of pain is liberal application of ibuprofen and heating pads, not an irresistable urge to procreate.

Comment from: Arthur Shipkowski posted at November 17, 2005 1:05 PM

Note: I have not read GPF in any depth.

Based on Wednesday's discussion about sexuality as a damaging factor, I can't help but find myself comparing Ki to the title character of Tess of the d'Urbervilles. I wonder, if Ki had not managed to avoid rape...would Nick reject her?

Comment from: Prodigal posted at November 17, 2005 1:15 PM

. . .

Arthur, you just broke my brain. Amazingly good point.

Comment from: thok posted at November 17, 2005 1:17 PM

It was shocking (shocking, I say) to Ki and Nick that Sharon and Fooker were already having sex, and led immediately to Nick's explaining to Ki that because he respected her, he didn't want to have sex before marriage. And then the immediate next storyline broke Fooker and Sharon up. It wasn't the overt reasoning, but there was a strong subtext going on there. Nick respected Ki too much to sleep with her. Fooker did sleep with Sharon, and in the next storyline had no respect for her choice of OS platforms.

I wonder if you are confusing subtext and poor pacing here. It's clear from later storylines that Fooker has respect for Sharon even though they are still "living in sin" (he's willing to clean up his apartment to deal with her allergies in the most recent storyline, for example). Perhaps Darlington simply didn't notice the message suggested by the immediate connection between the two storylines. How can you distinguish between negligence and deliberate intent?

Besides, anybody who's willing to have guest strips from Dan Shive and specifically encourage people to go read EGS has to be willing to let people make up their own mind about sexuality.

Comment from: Duff the Tragic Wagon posted at November 17, 2005 1:21 PM

I wonder, if Ki had not managed to avoid rape...would Nick reject her?

I doubt it. No matter what your moral stance on sex before marriage, that would be a pretty sleazy thing to do, and Nick is perfect, nowadays. Like 32_footsteps said, it's been a long time since he failed even for comedic purposes.

It would have been an interesting twist, though, and would have made that story have some sort of purpose (beyond rendering a previously one-dimensional character slightly more human. Slightly).

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 1:37 PM

While there might be an argument for that, Eric, it really feels like you and Wednesday are stretching the images and actions to suit the argument, rather than tailoring the argument to suit the facts presented.

While it's true that you are responding to Eric giving in to his desire to launch into the argument/evidence prematurely (not judging! Very understandable on both sides), I think it's entirely impossible for you or I or anyone who hasn't read the "evidence/arguments" portion to be evaluating whether ther argument is well or ill-founded with respect to evidence. As you yourself say, "there might be an argument for that." I look forward to finding out! Then we can more properly evaluate, don't you think?

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 1:45 PM

Siwangmu, you're ignoring the fact that the sequence where they discuss sex followed by Sharon breaking off her first relationship with Fooker *is* being offered as evidence in this essay. I'm sure other evidence will roll down the pike which will fit the thesis just fine. Just that one piece (used signifcantly in this essay) has already been presented and there's several good arguments as to why it shouldn't be used.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 1:46 PM

With that said, this is my vote-less vote for Hurry up and post everything as soon as you can, pleasepleaseplease (I know you can't just decide to be done like that, but, please, leave me my petulance). I think I'm not the only one bursting at the seams wanting to read and get into this stuff, and, we're, uh, the websnark commenters. If you give us two sentences, we will debate them!

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 1:47 PM

While it may be impossible to evaluate the substance of the argument, it's also unavoidable -- the thesis has been presented. It's out there. It's unreasonable to assume that people aren't going to respond to it for 24 hours (or however long till the next bit).

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 1:50 PM

Since when have we needed entire sentences?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 2:01 PM

Wow, it didn't even show your intervening post when I was making my second one. 32, I think everything you're saying makes sense (except I'm not a GPF reader so I can't evaluate the evidence as you can), but for the sake of clarity I'm gonna lay out my thought process... Intro essay goes up, revolving around, in part, Point X, which you think based on your experience/reading of the comic seems shaky. So far, so fine, but Eric comments that this is actually just the Intro, and he thinks we'd be better served to wait for the fleshing out of the arguments, so I say, sure, that makes sense--the essays I write do often tend to have Introductory paragraphs which are just links put out there and un-contextualized statements about background, and I then go into those assertions and that background, but if someone was deciding whether I'd proved my thesis with the intro paragraph, well, they'd think I was an idiot. The metaphor's getting overextended, I know you're not calling anyone an idiot, but hopefully I'm making some kind of sense. I also see that after Eric saying "wait for the evidence," he does get into the argument a bit, so, uh, you know, no one's perfect.

Also, my view and Wright's are highly similar--except that while he was saying "it may be impossible to judge it fairly yet, but it's unavoidable," I was saying "While it may be unavoidable, it's impossible." So, you know, I'm definitely not talking in circles here.

Also, 32, your most recent post (unless another shows up while I'm typing):
Heh!

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 2:08 PM

32 -- I didn't offer it as evidence for the essay -- this isn't my essay. ;)

I offered it as evidence of something I immediately thought of when I read this introduction.

In other words, I read the above and thought "huh. Yeah. I remember how quickly we went from sex to "sex before marriage is bad" to a breakup."

(And Chris -- I'm not trying to stifle discussion. Far from. I'm enjoying the discussion. I was just reminding that this was the introduction, as opposed to the complete essay.)

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 2:23 PM

I never said you offered it, Eric. But in your comment, you did use it. So unless you play the Devil's Advocate card (and given your most recent post, a bit late for that), you did help promote the idea.

Also, Siwangmu, I understand that this is an introduction. However, it has already tried to advance and support an argument with evidence, and one in which it seems fairly obvious the evidence does not support the argument.

Moreover, when you begin with a flawed premise and establish that flawed premise with evidence that does not support the thesis, you end up with a weaker piece overall. You might argue for a wait-and-see approach, but there's already stuff to see. And it's a mixed bag, so far.

Keep in mind that I'm someone (as you could probably figure out from previous comments) that's inclined to agree with the overall thesis. How will others react to it if someone who agrees with the premise takes issue with the contents?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 2:24 PM

For the record--everything makes even more sense to me now, and 32 can disagree with Eric's reaction to Weds' essay as much as he likes. Sometimes I misunderstand things!

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 17, 2005 2:25 PM

I wrote:

But I knew it. I said, just before it started, right here at Websnark:

In fact, in light of Monday's installment [10/17] I have some commentary and speculation that may inspire me to discover whether non-LJers can post in the Snarkoleptic community...

I knew that when [NIXONED] wouldn't [DEANED] that [POSTPONED TILL NOVEMBER].

I knew that when Ki wouldn't go through with sex with Sam that the only other story left in that flashback was that Sam couldn't take "no" for an answer. There were only those two ways the story could go: One - Ki slept with Sam in the flashback and now she and Nick have to deal with it, or two - Ki didn't sleep with Sam and it turned into a rape or attempted rape scenario. I think the other way would've been a better story, myself.

Went a long way to explaining Ki's father's behavior last year, though. 'Course the other story would have done that too, in spades.

(I signed up at LJ last weekend.)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 2:29 PM

32 -- I helped promote the idea because I agree with the idea. ;)

I'm just saying I didn't do that to support the essay, but because it's what the essay suggested to me.

Which is way too meta for this conversation.

What I want to know is, the day after Ki and Nick finally have sex, will Nick's feet deflate down to normal size?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 2:30 PM

Oh, and as for the subject: Like I said, I haven't read the strip. I do know, though, that the "these events are immediately sequential and that has a very strong tendency to mean something in art/literature" argument is one that can sometimes prove very telling and I think should be considered valid (I am soo not speaking out of the shellshocked experience of living on a Willow/Tara board in late Season Six of Buffy). In real life, the sequence could well be random, but nothing is random in art (sorry, repeating lines from my drama teachers now). It may come down to a "did it give this impression on purpose or by accident?" thing, which is complicated and very annoying to try and settle/unravel/come to a conclusion as a result of, but especially when the overall idea relates to unconscious biases creeping into things? I think it should be considered fair game for argument.

And at this point I'm going to try and distract myself from posting 18 more times, so if I don't respond for a while, that's why.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 2:39 PM

I SWEAR TO GOD I'M STOPPING SOON.
"There were only those two ways the story could go: One - Ki slept with Sam in the flashback and now she and Nick have to deal with it, or two - Ki didn't sleep with Sam and it turned into a rape or attempted rape scenario."

How incredibly sad is it that her expressions of shame and my dirty little secret leading up to the revelation (I have read this story, at least) made it pretty much a toss-up which one? Not that I'm saying assault victims don't often have shame and that sort of feeling! Not at all! But man if that's what it's supposed to be do I ever not like the way the psychology was handled/presented/not so much challenged.

Comment from: chalcara posted at November 17, 2005 2:48 PM

What I want to know is, the day after Ki and Nick finally have sex, will Nick's feet deflate down to normal size?

Bad Mr. Burns.
I now snorted cappuchino all over my keyboard.

Comment from: quiller posted at November 17, 2005 2:56 PM

I am so far unconvinced by much of the argument. Certainly Nick and Ki are the primary couple of the series and they are saving sex until after marriage. That is certainly not news, and at least they aren't the only couple in the strip. (It would be more interesting if they showed a higher level of sexual frustration at this point, however. There is a downside to waiting for marriage, too.)

Now if Nick and Ki both believe on waiting until marriage, it seems perfectly rational for them to be surprised at Fooker and Sharon having sex early in the relationship.

If the women in GPF are highly endowed, it does help distinguish them from the men in Jeff's art style. Yes there is an association between women trying to use their sex appeal to influence others and evilness. Or at least those trying to do it in a business environment, since several of the "good" girls have dressed in quite a sexy fashion for dates. I don't recall older Trudy dressing that provocatively, however, since she doesn't rely on sex appeal anymore.

One can say that bad things happen when women try to initiate sexual encounters, however, their isn't much material in a successful seduction (that can be shown, anyways) and perhaps the more salient point is why is it always the women who initiate rather than the men? One can say it is woman as temptress, but you can also say male geeks are shy, or Jeff is trying to show that his women are modern women who are willing to be the aggressor.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 2:56 PM

Eric - embrace the meta. Love the meta. Meta loves you, and is cuddly like a kitten.

All that aside, I do like running with meta. See, to me, it's the absurdity that makes thinks rational, and I thrive on paradox like that. That, and I'll be honest, everything in my life is absurd enough that I barely notice the difference.

Also, not to tempt you more Siwangmu, but keep in mind that it's possible to overuse any argument - you need to look at context to see if it fits.

Finally, on whether or not art and meanings therein can be accidental - didn't we already have a 100+ comment thread on that subject, complete with Scott Kurtz?

Comment from: bartles69 posted at November 17, 2005 3:00 PM

I wonder if you are confusing subtext and poor pacing here. It's clear from later storylines that Fooker has respect for Sharon even though they are still "living in sin" (he's willing to clean up his apartment to deal with her allergies in the most recent storyline, for example). Perhaps Darlington simply didn't notice the message suggested by the immediate connection between the two storylines. How can you distinguish between negligence and deliberate intent?

I think we're dealing with the difference between cause and effect. While the author's intent may have been different, the immediate result is that the sequence is: couple 1 is having premarital sex, couple 2 isn't, couple 1 is unstable, couple 2 isn't. Even if Darlington didn't consciously realize the connection, the evidence stands.

Moreover, when you begin with a flawed premise and establish that flawed premise with evidence that does not support the thesis, you end up with a weaker piece overall.

True, but that assumes a flawed premise and faulty evidence. If you disagree with the thesis, that's another issue. But the (admittedly incomplete) evidence presented so far does not yet contradict the thesis. The jury is still out, pending a complete presentation of the evidence.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 3:11 PM

I think we're dealing with the difference between cause and effect. While the author's intent may have been different, the immediate result is that the sequence is: couple 1 is having premarital sex, couple 2 isn't, couple 1 is unstable, couple 2 isn't. Even if Darlington didn't consciously realize the connection, the evidence stands.

Poppycock. This connection exists only if you take a few strips out of context and show them on their own.

An important component of the story, up to that point, was that nobody believed Fooker had a girlfriend -- and that he didn't quite believe it himself. Nick and Ki hadn't even known Sharon existied until that point.

From that perspective, the observation that it was going fast carries a different amount of weight.

And it should also be noted that the Sharon/Fooker breakup was a Linux vs. Mac joke fer cryin' out loud. Confusing OS zealotry with sexual morality is just... well... creepy.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 3:14 PM

No, it doesn't assume either a faulty thesis or faulty evidence. It assumes that the evidence was interpreted in a faulty manner. There's more than one way to err when writing an essay.

Moreover, I never said it contradicted the thesis - it weakened it, because when you use evidence in the wrong way, it looks like you had to make up things to prove your point, which casts into doubt the point you were trying to make.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 3:14 PM

Edited to clarify the above -- they actual introduction of Sharon to Fooker and Ki was the lunch thing, which occurred a few strips before the dinner double-date thing.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 3:16 PM

"Confusing OS zealotry with sexual morality is just... well... creepy."

Man, that's a joke about User Friendly waiting to happen.

Comment from: sun tzu posted at November 17, 2005 3:34 PM

Consider a relatively recent storyline ("I Dream of Fookie", I think). It had Fooker explaining to Sharon that he didn't want to get married - ever. With anyone. That IF he ever got married, he'd want it to be with her - but he'd rather not go for that institution (due to the way his parents' marriage ended, if I recall correctly...). And. They. Are. Fine. So I don't really see GPF condemning pre-marital hanky-panky (been a while since I used that term...Ah, memories of older Joyce and Walky moments...). Not as long as Fooker and Sharon are represented as an okay couple.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 4:13 PM

I have to consider any artistic discourse that has the word "Poppycock!" in it to be a success. Just for the record.

Comment from: quiller posted at November 17, 2005 4:39 PM

Is it premarital hanky-panky if you aren't planning on getting married?

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 17, 2005 4:48 PM

I have to consider any artistic discourse that has the word "Poppycock!" in it to be a success. Just for the record.

I have some Bob the Angry Flower slashfic for you, then.

Comment from: DocN posted at November 17, 2005 5:50 PM

I haven't read GPF in a long while- has Darlington put up a PayPal "pupil donation" button yet? Maybe the Premium members can pitch in and buy him that Disney "How to Draw Mouths" stylebook...

Doc.

Comment from: gwalla posted at November 17, 2005 5:56 PM

Ray Radlein, you are a bad bad man.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 17, 2005 5:58 PM

They already have pupils. Dwayne bought them all pupils for Christmas.

Comment from: jrleek posted at November 17, 2005 6:20 PM

I agree that Nick's contextless morality is a weakness of the strip. Furthermore, I was very surprised to learn of Ki's aversion to pre-marital sex since, as I recall (I haven't checked in the archives), she pretty much propositioned Nick earlier.

My question is, will the next critique be on David Willis' subtext that NOT having premaritial sex is harmful and my drive you insane?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 6:49 PM

For that to happen, I think (a) such a subtext would need to actually exist and (b) it would probably need to fit, from Weds' perspective, a description like, "I submit that [Willis] is threading a peculiarly familiar set of sexual mores throughout the comic's characterization and events, some of them quite fallacious, a few of them outright destructive." Not saying it needs to meet some cutoff to merit the critique, just that that sentence is probably key to why one threading might get someone more piqued than another (in the interest and/or anger senses, can't really say yet).

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 6:50 PM

Also, come on, we all know not getting any makes you insane :-p.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 7:14 PM

Before Willis and lack of sex causing insanity, wouldn't we have to do Megatokyo and underaged girls as romantic interests?

(Yeah, the hate mail starts in five... four... three....)

Comment from: jrleek posted at November 17, 2005 7:25 PM

siwangmu: Oh, such a subtext certainly exists. Read through the old "Roomies!" "It's Walky" achives. It's actually so blatant that I'm loathe to call it a subtext, but not being an English major, I couldn't come up with a better word.:)

Eric: The age of consent is lower in Japan! Errrr... maybe she was held back in school and she's actually 18? Umm... I think I'm gonna drop this one.

Comment from: bartles69 posted at November 17, 2005 7:44 PM

Poppycock.

Heh. Christopher, I stand duly chastised. :)

This connection exists only if you take a few strips out of context and show them on their own.

As with anything, context is king. Any point-in-time analysis will show a more limited context than a broader examination. My point, which I clearly failed to make, was that when discussing the difference "between negligence and deliberate intent" on the part of the author, the proximity of the actions lent itself to a particular conclusion, regarless of his direct intent. My conclusion, which you apparently take exception to, was based on the immediate context rather than any longer story arc. (I was still reading GPF back when Fooker & Sharon got together and broke up. As I am no longer up-do-date on GPF's current antics, I wasn't aware of the later reconciliation. If Fooker & Sharon's relationship has since stabilized, bully for them.) I also wasn't trying to imply that sex was the direct cause of the breakup, but rather that it was an indicator of an unstable relationship. In GPF at that time: sex(or_"sex_too_soon")=not_stable ; no_sex(or_"sex_after_marriage")=stable. That this instability manifested itself in an unrelated argument doesn't preclude the presence of that instability in the emerging morality play.
To a contemporary audience, most relationships will include some level of physical intimacy. Sharon's implication that she and Fooker had moved beyond holding hands was not as surprising as Nick & Ki's reaction, who were shocked (Shocked, I say!) to discover their level of physical intimacy was greater than zero. This led to the revelation that their long-term relationship was not at all physical. The following story arc was Fooker & Sharon's breakup (yes, initiated by Fooker) over what amounted to religious differences. [Mac vs PC is as deep an argument as any I've seen, with plenty of zealots on both sides. In those days it made me want to advocate the return of the abacus.]
The cause (author's negligence versus deliberate intent) was not in my view as important as the effect (the pattern between sexuality and relationship stability).

There's more than one way to err when writing an essay.

32, see above for an example of my own errrrs. I still don't feel the premise was flawed or that the evidence was faulty (just incomplete, as this is an introduction). Wednesday's jury is still out. Mine found me guilty by reason of bad arguments.

Comment from: ItsWalky posted at November 17, 2005 7:56 PM

I have to admit, looking 8 years back, that some of the ideas Roomies! put forth ARE fallacious and destructive.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 8:00 PM

Given that Piro barely realizes Yuki exists, and instead is actually reciprocating (reeeeally slowly) with Kimiko, it's really difficult to call her an underage romantic interest. Teenage crush, maybe. But not interest. For Largo, given that he's actively revulsed by Miho, romantic tension shouldn't even come into play.

Though admittedly, there's a great argument for MegaTokyo being a case study of sexual expression being perverted in the modern geek. You end up rooting for Piro and Largo with their respective would-be loves mostly to show a triumph of rationality over geek stereotypes.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 17, 2005 8:04 PM

In superhero comics, the bad guys have to be fought because, well, they're the bad guys.

Most of a genre being starkly polarised exercises in wish-fulfilment fantasy doesn't invalidate the few with more depth.

Jane Austen does not seem to have been able to conceive of sex separate from elaborate social and economic bondage rituals. [Her] art did not suffer from this.

Maybe we've been reading different novels...

(We haven't, you just happen to be presenting subjective judgement as fact.)

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 17, 2005 8:06 PM

I have to admit, looking 8 years back, that some of the ideas Roomies! put forth ARE fallacious and destructive.

On the plus side, I don't think very many people would read them as anything but OTT stereotypes, whatever your thoughts as you were writing 'em.

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at November 17, 2005 8:36 PM

Most of a genre being starkly polarised exercises in wish-fulfilment fantasy doesn't invalidate the few with more depth.

We haven't, you just happen to be presenting subjective judgement as fact.

Denyer, may we assume that you're aware of the irony that this particular juxtaposition poses?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 17, 2005 8:57 PM

I have to admit, looking 8 years back, that some of the ideas Roomies! put forth ARE fallacious and destructive.

I swear to God, I can't get William Daniels from 1776 out of my head now.

"I'm Fallacious and Destructive/Did you know that?" "I hadn't heard."

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 17, 2005 10:03 PM

In that case, fallacious/destructive idea away! I thought it was possible that jrleek meant the potentially-a-jab-at-this-issue-in-GPF Shortpacked, which just goes to show I spend so much time here I assume everything in the world must relate to some argument we've had. Which makes me silly!

Comment from: kirabug posted at November 17, 2005 10:35 PM

Eric wrote:

I swear to God, I can't get William Daniels from 1776 out of my head now.

"I'm Fallacious and Destructive/Did you know that?" "I hadn't heard."

Well, it fits. Only too well, I might add.

"...and I can romp through Cupid's grove with great agility,
but life is more than sexual combustibility."

Comment from: Archon Divinus posted at November 17, 2005 10:51 PM

The thing with Megatokyo, is that there has never really been any underage romantic intrests. There have been underage girls with crushes on the adult characters, but never the other way around (barring Piros school uniform fettish, which doesn't really count).

Comment from: sqbr posted at November 17, 2005 11:03 PM

(I know, I'm sorry, but noone else has said it and I think it's an important point)

Duff the Tragic Wagon:
I haven't read GPF, but the way these things work in certain kinds of fiction(*) is that if a women has sex with someone who isn't her husband (before or after marriage) then regardless of the extenuating circumstances, she's DOOMED. For example, my fiance was watching 24 and mentioned to me that the wife was raped. "Oh, she's going to die then" says I. "Don't be silly" says he- and she did. Tragically, of course, and her husband would never have rejected her becuase of it...but at the same time having her live and deal with the consequences was too messy. Same way repentent female sinners always(**) die in Dickens.
Similarly, in GPF Nick would never reject Ki becuase of the rape, but Circumstances would Interfere(***) so that they could Never Be Together. Tragic, of course, but....

(*) ie pretty much anything written before about 1960
(**)Before someone gets narky: yes, I'm sure there's many counterexamples :P
(***) In theory. Not saying this is the way things would have gone since as I said I haven't read the comic. But this is what might have happened.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 17, 2005 11:07 PM

Well, if we're going to open that can of worms, Archon, there's the argument that the school uniform fetish is a de facto sexual interest in underage women (analagous to Catholic school uniforms in the United States). Of course, there's also the argument that it represents simplicity, purity, and innocence, and the sexual attraction to that is either a desire to return to that (a desire to regress to previous, presumably happier times) or a desire to corrupt it (a desire to destroy that implied innocence).

Of course, there's also the "variety is the spice of life" folks. You know, the ones who like trying out different stuff for a thrill. Sometimes, school uniforms take a turn there.

Comment from: kirabug posted at November 17, 2005 11:14 PM

And then there's just the "it's a uniform" factor added into the "ooh, fresh meat" factor. 'Cause, I mean, when I'm at the mall and the Valley Forge Military Academy guys go walking by, damn. Young, athletic, uniformed, damn.

I have to imagine the reaction in males when looking at young, perky, uniformed ladies can't be that different.

Comment from: Chris "Slarti" Pinard posted at November 17, 2005 11:17 PM

sqbr: A more modern example would be many episodes of "CSI", in which sex in nearly anything other than a sanctioned, committed, monogamous, vanilla relationship is a 99% guaranteed ticket to being either a murderer or a murder victim.

(I'm being only slightly hyperbolic here. I mean, seriously, looking over the entirety of the series, and especially the last couple of seasons? Goddamn.)

Comment from: Prodigal posted at November 17, 2005 11:52 PM

Which is way too meta for this conversation.

#1. The first rule of Meta Club is, you do not talk about Meta Club. #2. The second rule of Meta Club is, you DO NOT talk about Meta Club. #3. If someone declares that You Had Me, And You Lost Me, or invokes Godwin, the meta discussion is over. #4. Two people with posting rights. #5. One post at a time. #6. No personal attacks, no shoes. #7. Meta discussions will go on as long as they have to. #8. If this is your first visit to the comments pages, you have to comment.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at November 17, 2005 11:55 PM

Well, hell. The formatting got screwed up. Here are the rules again:

#1. The first rule of Meta Club is, you do not talk about Meta Club.

#2. The second rule of Meta Club is, you DO NOT talk about Meta Club.

#3. If someone declares that You Had Me, And You Lost Me, or invokes Godwin, the meta discussion is over.

#4. Two people with posting rights.

#5. One post at a time.

#6. No personal attacks, no shoes.

#7. Meta discussions will go on as long as they have to.

#8. If this is your first visit to the comments pages, you have to comment.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at November 17, 2005 11:56 PM

As for the school uniform thing? The skirts tend to show off lots of leg.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 18, 2005 1:32 AM

may we assume that you're aware of the irony that this particular juxtaposition poses?

Implication of superhero comics being the genre referenced, not statement. Or "how to weasel out of things by habitual use of indefinite articles 101." ;-)

Let's go for summat we might be able to make stick empirically, then...

"In superhero comics, [it's typically the case that] the bad guys have to be fought because, well, they're the bad guys."

There are plenty of superhero comics in which bad guys have motivation beyond wickedness or immorality. Praise be to Moore.

(Suggested next move: quibble with definition of 'superhero genre' or the validity of genre as a construct. Pawn to F4.)

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 18, 2005 1:35 AM

Is it premarital hanky-panky if you aren't planning on getting married?

Post-theistic love? :-)

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 18, 2005 8:18 AM

Maybe, Kira. I just never have been one for uniforms, so that particular fetish is foreign to me. Not to say that I'm a man without his quirks when it comes to attraction. Just that while I can explain some sexual fantasies, I've never been able to figure out what's so inherently sexy about a uniform.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 18, 2005 8:53 AM

sqbr: A more modern example would be many episodes of "CSI", in which sex in nearly anything other than a sanctioned, committed, monogamous, vanilla relationship is a 99% guaranteed ticket to being either a murderer or a murder victim.

(I'm being only slightly hyperbolic here. I mean, seriously, looking over the entirety of the series, and especially the last couple of seasons? Goddamn.)

Well, there's a couple of things at work here, the most obvious of which is that simply being a character on CSI gives you a 90% chance of being involved, on one end or the other, in a sordid murder, 'cause that's what they show.

On the other hand, the most absolutely sensible and level-headed character to ever appear on the show was Melinda Clarke's "Lady Heather," the owner and hands-on operator of a large BDSM club. During the two different cases CSI worked which involved her clob, she was never seen to be anything other than calm and reasonable (she was also able to pick up on Gil's deteriorating hearing long before anyone he worked with noticed, and recognized just as quickly that Katherine had been in the Trade herself). Heck, she is, as far as I can recall, the only woman on the show to have ever tumbled Gill (although that lady anthropologist from the first couple of years may have managed it as well).

If anything, I've always been impressed by how non-judgemental the show and its characters usually are about some of the more outre practices they come across.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 18, 2005 9:19 AM

Wait, if you're not supposed to talk about Meta Club, how can you give rules for Meta Club? Also, with only two people going at a given meta, how do you expect to get to the secondary or tertiary metas with ease?

Of course, this proves one of the unspoken truisms of Meta Club - if you question the rules of Meta Club, you're already in it.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 18, 2005 10:47 AM

Yes, CSI seems to reserve all its scorn for fatherhood: any show where a father is among the people being investigated, he's either responsible for the crime, attempting to cover up the crime, or is a complete and total bastard irrespective of whether he's guilty or not. I can only think of one or two instances where this wasn't the case.

Which, interestingly enough, I can tie back to GPF. Heh.

See, CSI isn't taking the position, in my opinion, that "Father's are bad!" -- rather, those cases give us a chance to see Jorja Fox's character struggle with her issues, of which she has many, many of which seem to involve father figures or lack thereofs. You could make the case that CSI hates fatherhood, and I'm sure some right-wing "concerned parents group" has, but when you compare the two ideas -- CSI hates father vs. CSI gives Jorja's character more grist for the mill -- which makes more sense in terms of telling the story?

In the case of GPF, a case is being made that it has a certain moral stance regarding sexuality. Specifically:

I submit that Darlington's threading a peculiarly familiar set of sexual mores throughout the comic's characterization and events, some of them quite fallacious, a few of them outright destructive.

Whereas *I* submit in turn that many of these things can *also* be seen as devices used to provide "grist for the mill" for characters, and should be viewed primarily in that light more than anything else.

But I won't know until I read the other parts of Wednesday's thesis, which for the record I'm looking forward to, because the introduction was pretty darn thought provoking.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 18, 2005 10:51 AM

"if you question the rules of Meta Club, you're already in it."

So hilarious, so true.

Comment from: John posted at November 18, 2005 12:32 PM

Most of a genre being starkly polarised exercises in wish-fulfilment fantasy doesn't invalidate the few with more depth.

You may be misunderstanding my argument. Whether or not GPF has more depth than a superhero comic (and some of them have a lot of depth, mind), all I'm saying is that every work of fiction assumes some values. Even if the value is "no valule" -- i.e. nihilism.

Sin City assumes an amoral universe. Batman assumes a moral but corrupt universe that needs a serious infusion of justice. Archie assumes a universe in which sex simply doesn't happen. GPF assumes a universe in which sex happens but needs to be handled very carefully.

How is it a strike against any of these comics that these fundamental value systems aren't explained, nor is any justification offered for them?

Comment from: ItsWalky posted at November 18, 2005 1:12 PM

John, I'd say it IS a strike against those comics. I mean, Batman won't kill right? That's his moral code. Yet this means that he actually goes out of his way to save murderous villains so they can be locked up in a place where they've been able to escape again and again. And kill more people.

Why doesn't Batman just drop the Joker off a cliff? Well, he has principles, you see. He doesn't want to go over the line.

Which means, frankly, he values his own principles over the lives of other people. That's pretty evil itself. And is, yes, a failing of the narrative to explain how exactly he justifies this.

I don't see how GPF should be any different. If it's saying something that Weds finds wrong and destructive, I think it's within her bounds to write about it.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 18, 2005 1:23 PM

I don't think anyone has said (so far, anyway)that Weds has exceeded her bounds in her article... I sure hope for my part I haven't given that impression. It's just that when you make a strong statement, like she has, people are going to test, challenge, fold, spindle, mutiliate, and other wise attempt to bang on it repeatedly to see if it cracks.

Comment from: prosfilaes posted at November 18, 2005 2:53 PM

I find the concept that Batman is rather evil for not killin' those he thinks needs killin' rather disturbing. If the people of Gotham want executions or better jails, it is their responsibility to call for those things. It is for no man to be judge, jury and executioner.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 18, 2005 5:01 PM

I find the concept that Batman is rather evil for not killin' those he thinks needs killin' rather disturbing.

I think this might be more sustainable if the inhabitants of Gothan weren't so reliably inept. It's pretty much guaranteed that Arkham inmates will escape, or the guy given charge of the place will turn out to be a psychopath, or...

Realistically, villains wouldn't survive to return again with anywhere near the frequency they do. Of course, neither would Batman. One well-placed explosive device and the career of two years doesn't become a career of fifty with retcons for why the character was born in several different decades.

Bats isn't just a concerned citizen, either. He's a vigilante, proactively going out and finding situations in which crime and violence will be involved. Yet the character is rarely portrayed with a zeal for getting as much done before he inevitably snuffs it -- firstly because he isn't going to die, second because the publishing house don't want the cycle to end. The Joker is entertainment gold, the citizens of Gotham are just Trek red-shirts. Which is a bit sick and disturbing on the part of editors, in a way.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 18, 2005 5:08 PM

All fiction requires a certain willingness to suspend your level of disbelief. There are stories that don't work for me because they require too much. Batman isn't one of them, I guess because the basic premise has been around for so long that, well, that's just the way it is, you know? Batman doesn't kill, the Joker always escapes, Gotham is a screwy place to live.

Batman should also, by all rights, be pushing 100 by now...

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 18, 2005 5:57 PM

They even talk about this in Batman Begins. The whole "killing bad!" bit, that is. And more, but of course, no spoilers, dude. Go see, if you've been in a cave (snort) and didn't see it before now.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 18, 2005 5:58 PM

hmph. I tried to make my name a link, and have failed. failed failed failed. pouting must commence now!

Comment from: Glaser posted at November 18, 2005 6:15 PM

I don't accept not only the concept that Batman is evil for not killing the bad guys but the concept that anyone is evil for holding principle over people.

To my mind, the valuing of people over any other principle is a principle in and of itself - is it a principle with value? I don't think so. Apparently many of you do. Whatever.

Each different principle judges good and evil as being in accordance with that principle or in violation of it. Take these examples:

If a man steals fifty cents, is that inherently good or evil? Evil. But if he uses the fifty cents to call an ambulance for someone who is dying, that's plainly a good action.

It gets complicated when you ask if he's using the fifty cents to call the police and tell them about a crime his best friend just committed(or to tell his friend the cops are coming) - but that's when principles come into conflict.

Batman's principle in this situation is: "Never take a human life, under any circumstances." Staying in accordance with that principle makes him good. Being in violation of it - killing the Joker - makes him evil. By your principle of "never holding principles above people", which really links to the greater Spock principle - "Needs of many > needs of few/one", Batman is evil.

So is batman evil? Up for debate; but the debate shouldn't be about whether or not batman killed someone - it should be about the validity of his principle versus the principles you have suggested.

Linking back to GPF and sexuality:
Clearly the characters Nick and Ki have certain rather conservative principles. Clearly Fooker and Sharon have different ones. By Nick and Ki's principles, Fooker and Sharon are acting in an evil way - but because the principle is a minor one, the evil is a minor one, and forgivable, especially by the principle Nick and Ki obviously also hold to: "Don't force your principles on others." Shunning Fooker and Sharon because of the nature of their relationship would be in violation of that principle, and so would make Nick and Ki act in a way they would perceive as evil - so, being the paragons of good that they are, they won't do it.

(Interestingly, by the principles of Fooker and Sharon don't regard Nick and Ki as evil, just not especially better, but that's neither here nor there.)

The discussion of whether Mr. Darlington's portrayal of Nick and Ki's sex life versus that of Fooker and Sharon is especially good or evil need only focus on two things: one, does Darlington believe one is better than the other, and two, does he allow that belief to show in the GPF.

Wow. That was a lot longer than I thought it would be.

Incidentally, I do believe in an absolute good and an absolute evil. But that's because I believe my principles are the superior principles in every situation. Call me a conservative or whatever if you want(even though it'll be wrong); see if I care.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at November 18, 2005 11:06 PM

Wait, if you're not supposed to talk about Meta Club, how can you give rules for Meta Club? Also, with only two people going at a given meta, how do you expect to get to the secondary or tertiary metas with ease?

That would be telling.

Comment from: John posted at November 18, 2005 11:56 PM

Hey, I'm talking with David Willis! About... Batman!

I guess I think it depends on what we expect from our comics. A literary critic might point out that Batman's reluctance to have done with his quarries once and for all is arbitrary and naive. But for me, it's just a basic ingredient thrown into the mix, and provides a fertile soil for all sorts of moral and dramatic dilemmas.

To bring it a little closer to home... why is there a guardian of the space-time fabric who looks a little too much like a block of Emmentaler? We don't really need to know; it's just one inviolable border of the webcomic canvas.

Comment from: Sundre posted at November 18, 2005 11:58 PM

::pets meta and gives it a chew toy::

Comment from: Eric the .5b posted at November 19, 2005 12:40 AM

Batman's principle in this situation is: "Never take a human life, under any circumstances." Staying in accordance with that principle makes him good. Being in violation of it - killing the Joker - makes him evil.

This is one of the reasons I really like The Dark Knight Returns. The confrontation with Two-Face's men and the final fight with the Joker really give a fascinating look at Batman's morality.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 19, 2005 3:46 AM

Another obvious reason why Batman might not want to drop the Joker off a cliff is because if he drops the Joker off a cliff, next month he may find himself dropping Bane off a cliff, and then Scarecrow, and The Penguin, and The Riddler, and... and maybe he can be 100% certain that dropping the Joker off a cliff is the right thing to do; but just what number of expected future casualties should he count on before he decides to go ahead and drop someone? Is one escape from Arkham and a supporting role in a Major Crossover Event enough to justify it? Two escapes and one messy hostage situation during someone else's Prison Riot? All things considered, it's probably best for him not to arrogate such decisions to himself.

Besides, what happens when he accidentally mistakes Matthew Lesko for the Riddler and offs him?

<joke>A Presidential Medal of Freedom, of course</joke>

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 19, 2005 4:10 AM

Batman's principle in this situation is: "Never take a human life, under any circumstances."

Roughly equivalent to: "sure, it fails to prevent deaths, but at least I made a token effort -- that's got to count for something, eh?"

I think summing the character up as a guy who, given events in his past, doesn't want any more people to die is truer to much of the source material than "never kill". When stories emphasise that angle, it's easier to swallow.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 19, 2005 9:39 AM

Batman's principle in this situation is: "Never take a human life, under any circumstances."

Roughly equivalent to: "sure, it fails to prevent deaths, but at least I made a token effort -- that's got to count for something, eh?"

I believe most of the world's major religions, philosophies, and legal systems advance from the thesis that one is responsible for one's own actions. I'm not aware of any which advance from the thesis that one is responsible for others' actions.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 19, 2005 11:50 AM

I'm not aware of any which advance from the thesis that one is responsible for others' actions.

"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Standing by whilst people get tortured in creative ways by a psychotic madman with bleached white skin isn't exactly friendly, anyway.

Most religions also sanction war or violence on moral grounds... the commandment "thou shalt not kill" being a case in point. In the original language, the sense is "thou shalt not murder" -- dealing with enemies of God or threats to communities is positively encouraged elsewhere.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 19, 2005 11:54 AM

In fact, hang on... Cain and Abel: "am I my brother's keeper?" and all that jazz. Hereditary sin.

Christianity is still a major world religion, right? Nobody decided to give me an early solstice gift by wiping it out overnight?

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 19, 2005 1:38 PM

Well, it's not like Batman sits around and "does nothing". He actively attempts to thwart and catch these guys, he just doesn't kill them. And well, if he caught them BEFORE they could start their nasty plans, it wouldn't be much of a comic book story.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 19, 2005 2:32 PM

I'm not aware of any which advance from the thesis that one is responsible for others' actions.

Standing by whilst people get tortured in creative ways by a psychotic madman with bleached white skin isn't exactly friendly, anyway.

To say that, you've taken my comment out of context and seem to have inferred I said something I didn't say, because we're discussing the Batman's behavior and the Batman doesn't do that. What the Batman doesn't do is kill people against the possibility, even the probability, of their committing future crimes. The reason for that is because the Batman doesn't (things become cliches because they're true) stoop to their level.

Morality is making choices that don't unacceptably limit other people's choices (for a given society's value of acceptable). Murder denies the victim any future choice in his own fate. The Batman is about preserving people's choices and disallowing others from unduly limiting them; he's not about unduly limiting others' choices. Interfering in torture is preserving the victim's choices from unacceptable limitation. Declining to murder a murderer is preserving the murderer's choices from unacceptable limitation.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 19, 2005 8:44 PM

The Batman is about preserving people's choices

Morality is making choices that don't unacceptably limit other people's choices

Two interesting personal definitions.

First off, Batman has killed across a spectrum of widely-distributed media; the original character, Elseworlds (Batman Beyond, Crimson Mist, etc), the movies, and (something people tend to miss) mainstream DC continuity: Ten Nights of the Beast, concluding in #420 with a Soviet supersoldier being imprisoned to slowly starve or suffocate. Many people cite Miller's Dark Knight Returns both as a personal favourite and one of several defining tales about the character.

There's certainly a tendency for such stories to be shunted off into alternate continuities where they can be enjoyed more vicariously, or retconned when a book changes authors (by Marv Wolfman, in the example given above.) DC are particularly heavy on continuity resets; it's a bit like Coca-Cola insisting their leading soft drink product never contained opiates. Indeed, DC want their cake and to eat it, as demonstrated with the recent All-Star series.

Murder denies the victim any future choice in his own fate.

Murder is unsanctioned premeditated killing. In a situation where Batman has a 100% effective, "natural 20" guarantee of pulling off an escape for himself and anyone else caught up in events, there would be a question of murder. For everything else, there's a self-defence clause.

Batman with a few of the same limitations as us is interesting. Batman without them is an unstoppable archetype rather than a character; he doesn't get the uncertainty or self-recrimination when a henchman turns out to have a weak heart, or Harvey Dent gets punched in the head just a little too hard. That's what I find so fascinating about the character portrayal in Batman Begins... the mental compartmentalising that allows him to leave Ra's to his fate is a deft hint to the psychopathy and obsession that make the character more than just a sketched-in set of ideals.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 19, 2005 9:55 PM

In a situation where Batman has a 100% effective, "natural 20" guarantee of pulling off an escape for himself and anyone else caught up in events, there would be a question of murder.

In the eyes of the law. (And it could be said that Batman does indeed have such a clause most of the time.)

Batman, on the other hand -- in mainstream traditional "don't talk to me about Infinite Crisis" DC -- has a code versus killing that deeply exceeds the state's definition of murder. Self defense wouldn't be an acceptable defense in his own eyes.

Finally... the Willis thesis is now shown once more. Batman makes premarital sex funny.

"I'm not sure...."

"I'm Batman."

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 19, 2005 10:13 PM

Ah, but does the Willis thesis work with chastity until marriage?

"I... I can't go through with this. I don't want it to be tawdry, I want it to have meaning. You know why?"

"I'm Batman."

I'll leave it to everyone to decide.

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 20, 2005 1:49 AM

"don't talk to me about Infinite Crisis"

:D

a code versus killing that deeply exceeds the state's definition of murder. Self defense wouldn't be an acceptable defense in his own eyes.

In many cases. And it would be straining credibility and the source material to have the guy wading thigh-deep through corpses. Bats is more than willing to risk himself in any situation to avoid killing someone who happens to be trying to kill him.

Where others are involved, he's generally let off the hook by writers who don't want to pass on the hard decisions to the character. And there's that lack of people landing awkwardly (and fatally) that fails to deliver what could be very interesting reactions on his part -- a less mechanical, more human side.

In defining the character, a great deal of emphasis tends to be given to a rigid code of ethics rather than those reactions, which is why I like Ellis' Planetary crossover so much:

"You can give them safety. You can show them they're not alone. That's how you make the world make sense. And if you can do that -- you can stop the world from making more people like us."

Still, I can't see him having made it this far without more deaths than the two pivotal ones in the origin story.

Comment from: Sean Duggan posted at November 20, 2005 1:02 PM

Quiller wrote:

Is it premarital hanky-panky if you aren't planning on getting married?

Oddly enough, one of my co-workers was recently commenting on that. He was raised Catholic but pulled away from the faith (he's actually actively hostile against any form of religion now, to the point of verbally attacking anyone who dares present themself as a believer) and at one point he told his mother she'd never have to worry about him having pre-martial sex because he was never going to get married. *wry grin* He failed that one... fell for a girl about 5 years ago, now been divorced a year. Anyhow, case of someone using that excuse.

Comment from: Sean Duggan posted at November 20, 2005 1:43 PM

Regarding Batman's code against killing, even in self-defense, I think a lot of it is rooted in ego. Years of training, mentally, physically, and spiritually has left him with a bit of a Demigod Syndrome. He is stronger, faster, and smarter than his opponents. He comes better prepared (sometimes abusrdly so... although the comic book falls short of Bat Shark Repellant) and therefore he holds himself to a higher morality. Because he's so strong and because he's so skilled, any killing would be murder in his eyes because he knows he can do better. Personally, I think a lot of it can be traced back to the martial arts. While this is more a symptom of modern schools, martial arts students are taught that what they're learning is something which makes them stronger, faster, deadlier and therefore they bear a greater responsibility to use power in a moral and justified manner. The average schmo on the street doesn't worry about pulling his punch in a barfight but the black-belt will try to only apply whatever force was necessary. Heck, there's been a number of legal cases where martial artists were charged with manslaughter or the like because they're presumed to be able to control themselves better. Batman takes this all to a higher level and even when he's battling multiple armed opponents, he feels that killing them would be an act of bullying on his part. *shrug* Or so I feel.

Anyhow, on the subject of GPF and sexuality, the article was definitely an interesting read. I'd caught a lot of the underlying morality going on, but I hadn't really stopped and thought about it. But when I read the article and did, I found that I agreed with Darlington. *shrug* I grew up Catholic and was raised to wait until marriage. I plan to. As for consequences of extramartial hanky-panky, my understanding has always been that it's pretty well documented. Statistically speaking, people in monogamous relationships have better sex and are happier. People who wait until marriage are statistically more likely to stay together. Now one can argue interpretation of results or outside factors (the more religious people are more likely to hold to no sex until marriage and also don't believe in casual sex, people who are willing to wait are more likely to be more patient and forgiving in their marriage, etc) but statistically speaking, it works out. And if it works out in real life like that, why is it so anomolous in a comic strip?

What really bothers me, and I didn't notice it until this article which seems to indicate it wasn't all that bothersome until now, is the lack of portrayal of the pre-marriage life of Nick and Ki. As one of the posters above said, holding off until marriage is hard and it's frustrating. Too, you have to work harder to keep the romance in there. Sex is a very binding thing when done right (which seems to be the problem when it's done casually... it's like supergluing your fingers together when you know you're going to have to rip the bond apart) and it's something we as humans are naturally built for. I don't think there's been enough portayal of this. *shrug* But that's just my opinion.

Lastly, on the subject of Megatokyo and underage women, I think there are several interesting issues here. For one, age of consent is a somewhat arbitrary guideline set by politics. A body is physically ready for sex fairly on. Is it really so wrong to be attracted to the fully developed body of a 15 year old? The general argument is that at a lower age, they're not mentally ready. *snort* If we restricted sex until a person was mentally mature enough, most people would be virgins at 30 and a large number would die celibate. Piro's conscience, Seraphim, seems to be enforcing Western morality on him, probably because that's where Piro came from. For more reference into the matter, look up ephebophilia; it's not the same thing as pedophilia anywhere except on the lawbooks. Secondly, for all that Piro has been shown to be sexually attracted to these girls, he hasn't done anything even in cases where he could probably get away with it. Doesn't this restraint count for anything? Are we condeming him for what he feels, not for what he does? It's been said that the person who faces and resists temptation is stronger than the person who's never confronted with it. Given Piro's wishy-washy personality, I find it admirable that he's holding out for what he ultimately feels is right.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 20, 2005 2:46 PM

Secondly, for all that Piro has been shown to be sexually attracted to these girls, he hasn't done anything even in cases where he could probably get away with it. Doesn't this restraint count for anything? Are we condeming him for what he feels, not for what he does? It's been said that the person who faces and resists temptation is stronger than the person who's never confronted with it. Given Piro's wishy-washy personality, I find it admirable that he's holding out for what he ultimately feels is right.

Where this example seems to me to fall down is that Piro is portrayed not so much as exercising restraint as failing to perceive the opportunities available to him. But your overall point remains.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 20, 2005 5:21 PM

Granted, he's been in Tokyo a long time. Shouldn't those girls be, like, legal by now?

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 20, 2005 6:49 PM

Well, the only underage female that Piro would be in a position to be sexually attracted to, and failing to preceive it, is Yuki. Miho is actively repellant to Piro now; utter disgust is a good way to negate any sexual attractions.

Also, if morality comes into play at all, consider how Largo reacted to his one student (I'd list a name if I remembered; Eric still has a really good point about lack of cast page) basically being an escort to older men. While his reaction wasn't overboard (which makes sense because Largo was, in the sequence, close to dead to the world), it was still obvious contempt.

Comment from: Jeff Eaton posted at November 20, 2005 9:00 PM

What really bothers me, and I didn't notice it until this article which seems to indicate it wasn't all that bothersome until now, is the lack of portrayal of the pre-marriage life of Nick and Ki. As one of the posters above said, holding off until marriage is hard and it's frustrating. Too, you have to work harder to keep the romance in there.

Sean,

I think it's interesting that you mention your faith background when explaining your own choice to avoid having sex until you're married. I went the same route for pretty much the same reasons. What's really noteworthy about GPF is that, as Weds said, there's no real context provided for the decision. The only people I know who've gone that route are ones who were part of a community of like-minded religious believers. Their sexuality was tied, to some extent at least, to the rest of their beliefs.

Those without that belief context tend to find the same choice either baffling, or quaint, or 'okay for people who don't have a sex drive.' Heck, even a lot of the people I know who DO share the same faith come to those conclusions.

It's like having loads of characters who refuse to use banks, because they're morally opposed to usury. It's justifiable, and understandable, and even an opportunity to bring more depth to characters by exploring their beliefs, their worldview. But simply treating it as 'one of those things' doesn't ring true. Especially when you look back over the way Ki was portrayed in the past years of GPF.

Comment from: Sean Duggan posted at November 21, 2005 2:24 AM

I actually knew one guy in college who'd made the decision not on religious grounds, but because he just felt it made for a more stable relationship. Unfortunately, I've lost track of him since college, so I don't know how it all turned out for him.

And you're right... the change in Ki does ring a bit false. Either she's become a true believer (and Road to Damascus experiences happen more often than you might think) or she's putting up a front for Nick. *shrug* It will be interesting to see how this is addressed, if it's addressed.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at November 22, 2005 5:16 AM

"Statistically speaking, people in monogamous relationships have better sex and are happier."

If they haven't had sex with anyone else, how do they know it's better?

Just askin'. I mean, I got told the same stuff in CCD.

As for GPF, I could have believed a flashback story in which Ki had a licentious past (well, licentious by GPF standards; this is the comic in which Fooker's alcoholism manifested itself as a shocking ONE BEER A DAY!), but went through an experience that caused her to decide to wait for marriage. I do NOT believe a flashback in which Ki has been stalwartly against premarital sex since puberty, and has had no romantic experience beyond a college engagement that went traumatically wrong. It doesn't jibe at all with the way this character has been portrayed. Frankly, it feels like the "Sam" storyline was crafted primarily to establish that Ki, all past references to ex-boyfriends and pantiless frolicking notwithstanding, is a virgin, and therefore a worthy bride for Nick.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 22, 2005 5:40 AM

"Statistically speaking, people in monogamous relationships have better sex and are happier."

If they haven't had sex with anyone else, how do they know it's better?

More to the point, it seems obvious that people who are unhappy and have awful sex will be more likely to keep trying new partners. Duh.

It's like those studies which purported to show that marriage is good for you because married people are, on the average, healthier: People are less likely to want to marry a sick person, and people who are sick are less likely to have the freee time and energy to devote to the courtship of potential future spouses. Corellation, as we all remember, does not imply causality.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 22, 2005 9:24 AM

To be fair, I held out on sex for a long time for religious/moral beliefs, as did my girlfriend (now wife). Thing is, though, we're different religions, and the moral reasons were different too.

However, maybe it's telling that we did cave before the wedding night. However, the flip side is that when we finally agreed to have sex, we had been together nearly 7 years and we both knew we'd be married relatively soon (I proposed a few months later). We figured that a committed monogamous relationship that was solid was just as good as marriage for those purposes.

Comment from: Jeff Eaton posted at November 22, 2005 9:35 AM

As for GPF, I could have believed a flashback story in which Ki had a licentious past (well, licentious by GPF standards; this is the comic in which Fooker's alcoholism manifested itself as a shocking ONE BEER A DAY!), but went through an experience that caused her to decide to wait for marriage.

Well.

There were the flashback strips establishing that she was the hottie on campus, that she made a habit of scampering around in skirts sans panties, that every guy on campus thought she was hot stuff, that she went skinny-dippin' at lake whatchamakallit, etc.

There's certainly enough wiggle room in those early flashbacks to say that she wasn't REALLY physically involved with anyone. But it's also accurate to say that a very different picture of Ki was presented in the first few years of GPF, and that no explanation was given to resolve The Two Kis.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 22, 2005 10:45 PM

I never knew a girl who went around in skirts sans panties who was a pure, frightened little kitten. Just .. well, it's almost like when they switched Daryns in Bewitched, and nobody even commented on it. It's just not the same character, and I think we're not supposed to catch on to that fact. 'cause, y'know, we're blind, and have short-term memories.

Comment from: Freemage posted at November 23, 2005 1:25 PM

You know, I don't think we've established, yet, that all sexually active women are trouble in the GPF world. However, I think we can say the reverse is true--all evil women in GPF use sexual aggression as a weapon.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: