PDA

View Full Version : Malack



Quelin
2013-03-13, 10:59 PM
I would have directed this to Rich privately as it has been mulling over in my head a bit, but gave up looking for a way to do that privately and decided to turn it into a discussion instead.

Who thought that Malack was female before he revealed through conversation he was a male? I certainly did and though that the way Malack was played could have easily gone either way.

Personally, I'm disappointed that Malack was not a woman as it would have been a nice departure from the traditional male/female roles. I always appreciate seeing a strong female role where the character could have been either gender without hurting the story. Nothing against Haley, Roy, and Elan who do fulfill a bit of the non stereotypical role too. However, on the other side we have Elan and his demon girlfriend, but the Linear Guild is on the whole a ton more stereotypical.


Thoughts? does it matter? Would other people like to see at least one non traditional or stereotypical gender / class combo? I realize this is entirely up to Rich since this is his comic but it can still be discussed :)!

Cavenskull
2013-03-13, 11:35 PM
If Malack's gender was sufficiently ambiguous that one had to pay attention to dialogue to figure it out, I don't think changing the character's gender would have had any real value.

Anyway, it's not as if we've had a shortage of female antagonists. Besides Sabine, there's Tsukiko, Miko, Therkla, Crystal, the bandit leader, and the black dragon that tried to kill Vaarsuvius' family. Tsukiko and Miko in particular played classes that I would normally associate with male characters. In all the cases mentioned, being female had some impact on the story. Miko had to deal with Roy's sexism, Tsukiko had a very unhealthy fetish, Crystal had that typical teenager-style rivalry with Haley, Therkla had to weigh following orders against her feelings for one of the protagonists, the black dragon was a mother, and Elan wooed the bandit leader.

With Malack, the means of creating "children" would be exactly the same, no matter which gender Malack is. I think making a character female solely for the sake of gender equality does more harm than good, since it's all too easy to make a character that looks female, but doesn't act that way.

ti'esar
2013-03-13, 11:37 PM
If Malack's gender was sufficiently ambiguous that one had to pay attention to dialogue to figure it out, I don't think changing the character's gender would have had any real value.

Anyway, it's not as if we've had a shortage of female antagonists. Besides Sabine, there's Tsukiko, Miko, Therkla, Crystal, the bandit leader, and the black dragon that tried to kill Vaarsuvius' family. Tsukiko and Miko in particular played classes that I would normally associate with male characters. In all the cases mentioned, being female had some impact on the story. Miko had to deal with Roy's sexism, Tsukiko had a very unhealthy fetish, Crystal had that typical teenager-style rivalry with Haley, Therkla had to weigh following orders against her feelings for one of the protagonists, the black dragon was a mother, and Elan wooed the bandit leader.

With Malack, the means of creating "children" would be exactly the same, no matter which gender Malack is. I think making a character female solely for the sake of gender equality does more harm than good, since it's all too easy to make a character that looks female, but doesn't act that way.

I think this is precisely the type of argument that the OP is objecting to (and I would as well, though I don't really care about Malack's gender).

Cavenskull
2013-03-14, 12:20 AM
I think this is precisely the type of argument that the OP is objecting to (and I would as well, though I don't really care about Malack's gender).
The OP's argument seems a bit contradictory though. If Malack's gender doesn't matter, why express disappointment at it being the "wrong" one? Several significant characters in OOTS are female, so I don't feel as if Rich is missing out on any opportunities.

KillingAScarab
2013-03-14, 12:28 AM
It was ambiguous at first (and Malack seemed to empathize with Vaarsuvius a little), sure, but it wasn't long before Tarquin used a pronoun. Perhaps I don't read enough in comparison to others, but Malack being highly concerned/motivated by the murder of his children seemed novel to me. It was a parent who lost children, rather than a child who lost a parent (or in Eugene's case a mentor) and had to swear vengeance, yadda yadda yadda. There was more to it than simply the bounty set out by the empire for a traitor; he had been an adventurer and were he not tied up in the domination of the Western continent I believed he would have sought Nale for himself. Then we found out he's a vampire and his "children" would have likely had no free will, so that undercut things a bit.

Anyway, regardless of sex or gender, I now want to see more parents who became adventurers, so Malack has been something of an inspiration. I'm not demanding it from this comic, though House Kato might work and without tragedy. I'll be content with Elan, Nale and Tarquin for now.

ti'esar
2013-03-14, 12:30 AM
The OP's argument seems a bit contradictory though. If Malack's gender doesn't matter, why express disappointment at it being the "wrong" one? Several significant characters in OOTS are female, so I don't feel as if Rich is missing out on any opportunities.

Because of normativism. The idea that a character should only be female if there's a specific reason for them to be just reinforces the idea that men are "the norm" and women are a strange deviation from that norm.

I don't think that much of judging works based on their adherence to some standard of social justice, and even if I did, I believe the Giant averts gender stereotypes rather spectacularly with Vaarsuvius (and the entire elven race to a lesser extent), so I'd hardly be complaining about OOTS. But it's a position I can definitely understand.

jere7my
2013-03-14, 12:33 AM
Because of normativism. The idea that a character should only be female if there's a specific reason for them to be just reinforces the idea that men are "the norm" and women are a strange deviation from that norm.

Ding ding ding. Well said.

SowZ
2013-03-14, 12:42 AM
Because of normativism. The idea that a character should only be female if there's a specific reason for them to be just reinforces the idea that men are "the norm" and women are a strange deviation from that norm.

I don't think that much of judging works based on their adherence to some standard of social justice, and even if I did, I believe the Giant averts gender stereotypes rather spectacularly with Vaarsuvius (and the entire elven race to a lesser extent), so I'd hardly be complaining about OOTS. But it's a position I can definitely understand.

Eh, if character's are only male when there is no strong reason to be any gender, sure. But making the female gender the default in all cases could lead to a gender imbalance among the characters the author may want to avoid. Saying, "Most stories have more male characters, so swinging it to favor females shouldn't be weird," is all well and good. But someone shouldn't hold an author to that. When gender doesn't matter, an author shouldn't just default to male, sure. But they shouldn't have to default to female, either.

Red XIV
2013-03-14, 12:44 AM
Then we found out he's a vampire and his "children" would have likely had no free will, so that undercut things a bit.
Given his stated intentions for Durkon, it's likely that Malack did grant free will to his vampire children, at least after they had time to adapt to the transition to being undead.

veti
2013-03-14, 12:57 AM
Perhaps I don't read enough in comparison to others, but Malack being highly concerned/motivated by the murder of his children seemed novel to me.

Speaking as a parent, I can assure you that if my child was murdered, "highly motivated" would understate my feelings considerably. Much, much more so than the murder of my own parents.

But this is a gloomy and unprofitable train of thought, and I'm jumping off it now.

KillingAScarab
2013-03-14, 01:09 AM
Given his stated intentions for Durkon, it's likely that Malack did grant free will to his vampire children, at least after they had time to adapt to the transition to being undead.I interpreted that as: Durkon cannot be Malack's peer if Durkon is a yes-man. I haven't seen anything recently to suggest they were not subordinates. Given his attitude about servitude, I currently think Malack's warped viewpoint would place a much greater emphasis on the authority of a parent.


Speaking as a parent, I can assure you that if my child was murdered, "highly motivated" would understate my feelings considerably. Much, much more so than the murder of my own parents.

But this is a gloomy and unprofitable train of thought, and I'm jumping off it now.Thank you for your response. Yes, I don't want to encourage that black thought. To clarify, flipping the family tragedy on its head was novel to me, but it is fiction where parents are protagonists which I think I will be more likely to seek out, not that particular motivation.

Cavenskull
2013-03-14, 01:15 AM
Because of normativism. The idea that a character should only be female if there's a specific reason for them to be just reinforces the idea that men are "the norm" and women are a strange deviation from that norm.
I realize the examples I gave presented a more extreme view than what I intended. What I meant was that if a character is going to be female, it shouldn't be solely to satisfy a quota. It's not necessary to have a carefully-thought-out reason for each and every female in the story, but there should be more to it than simply trying to balance a ratio. For instance, there are quite a few women in the Azure City army--particularly among the paladins. But that says more about gender equality in their military than to fulfilling a quota. On the flip side, I don't think I've seen any women in the Empire of Blood's army, and considering Tarquin's tendencies in particular, I don't think changing that would make sense.

As for Malack in particular, considering Tarquin's sexist ways, I'm not sure it would really make sense for Malack to be female. And think of the negative message that would send if Malack maintained the same personality. "Oh, women can't help but put up with the boorish nature of chauvinistic men." If anything, I prefer the idea that Malack's disapproval of Tarquin's antics comes from the perspective of another male.


I don't think that much of judging works based on their adherence to some standard of social justice, and even if I did, I believe the Giant averts gender stereotypes rather spectacularly with Vaarsuvius (and the entire elven race to a lesser extent), so I'd hardly be complaining about OOTS. But it's a position I can definitely understand.
Oh, Rich goes a lot farther than that, for sure.

zimmerwald1915
2013-03-14, 01:39 AM
As for Malack in particular, considering Tarquin's sexist ways, I'm not sure it would really make sense for Malack to be female.
This is an interesting point of view, because there are two women in Tarquin's party, and aside from the one panel where he gathered his whole group to make his pitch, we've seen neither of them working with Tarquin personally. We do know that the groups seem to shuffle, so it is conceivable that Tarquin could have paired himself with either woman for a cycle or two.

Cavenskull
2013-03-14, 02:06 AM
This is an interesting point of view, because there are two women in Tarquin's party, and aside from the one panel where he gathered his whole group to make his pitch, we've seen neither of them working with Tarquin personally. We do know that the groups seem to shuffle, so it is conceivable that Tarquin could have paired himself with either woman for a cycle or two.

I had noticed that myself, but forgot to address it more thoroughly while trying to figure out how to word my post. That's why I mentioned Malack's personality in particular. The two female characters in the party might have been more inclined to play along with his tendencies, or conversely they might have set him straight early on. Either way, it's hard to imagine those characters grumbling about Tarquin's behavior the way Malack does without sending across a negative message in the comic.

ti'esar
2013-03-14, 03:20 AM
I realize the examples I gave presented a more extreme view than what I intended. What I meant was that if a character is going to be female, it shouldn't be solely to satisfy a quota. It's not necessary to have a carefully-thought-out reason for each and every female in the story, but there should be more to it than simply trying to balance a ratio. For instance, there are quite a few women in the Azure City army--particularly among the paladins. But that says more about gender equality in their military than to fulfilling a quota. On the flip side, I don't think I've seen any women in the Empire of Blood's army, and considering Tarquin's tendencies in particular, I don't think changing that would make sense.

Again, though, talking about "quotas" is the wrong way to think about it. Why isn't it filling a quota to have male characters? Why should there be an "unbalanced ratio" in the first place?

You're making a legitimate point with the specifics, but I don't think you're really grasping the bigger issue.

Mike Havran
2013-03-14, 03:30 AM
I don't like the idea of making a character [X*] because the story needs to be "balanced" and currently there are fewer [X] characters than they should be according to some hypothetical demand.

*insert just about any character trait.

Raineh Daze
2013-03-14, 03:53 AM
Gender shouldn't have a quota, nor should it be defined strictly by role.

To address the very first point, though: no, I didn't. He's significantly more masculine than the female lizardfolk, as far as I can tell.

nonamearisto
2013-03-14, 04:02 AM
We don't see many female lizardfolk, so it may be hard to tell that. As it is, there shouldn't be a quota for males or females in a comic. If there was, the Order would probably fall short of it, given that only Hayley (and maybe V) are female.

deworde
2013-03-14, 04:08 AM
I think there's a gap between "ratio" and "representation". Getting a perfect 50/50 split is not as important as countering the tendency to default to male.

My response is always this: Does the statement "She's a woman [x]?" sound like a logical thing to be surprised by? If so, you have a serious gender imbalance. Same for race, etc.

"She's a woman secretary" (used to be strange)
"She's a woman thief?"
"She's a woman warrior?" significantly less strange than previously, although I'm waiting on the next step ("She's a woman warrior... wearing non-titillating armour?").
"She's a woman gamer?" is becoming less strange.
"She's a woman plumber?"... and there it is. Of course there are women who plumb, but the mental image isn't automatic, and that's because it's so rarely seen.

In that case, deliberately choosing to make your character a woman *while changing nothing else*, is generally laudable, as it either highlights the imbalance, or mitigates it by normalising the image.

See the Sapphire Guard, as an example of this. My default image of a paladin was male, and now it's more generalised (Lien, Miko, the Lawful Good Honeys)


I don't like the idea of making a character [X*] because the story needs to be "balanced" and currently there are fewer [X] characters than they should be according to some hypothetical demand.

*insert just about any character trait.

But if there's an imbalance for no logical reason (e.g. the plot/setting would function perfectly well with the change to X, but no-one ever does that), then that's a problem, because it means that Xes are being marginalised. And how is the problem going to be fixed without actively attempting to fix it?

skim172
2013-03-14, 04:36 AM
I think it barely matters. We might as well ask whether Roy is bald or shaves his head - would mean a lot to the character in real life, but no perceptible difference to the reading audience. Whether Malack is male, female, two creatures of opposite sexes fused into one, an alien third gender, or a robot with no sexual characteristics, the story, and his/her/their/glbxxzl/10110 role in the narrative remains unchanged.

Though ... OOTS would be pretty different if aliens or robots were involved. Forget I said that.

I always find the "strong" or "non-traditional" female character angle a little dubious anyway - it too often devolves into a stereotype on its own.

pikeamus
2013-03-14, 04:56 AM
I can certainly get behind the idea of avoiding gender normatization I think this comic has already done a good job on that front. Miko springs immediately to mind, most works of fiction would have cast a character with her flaws and strengths as a man by default.

Mike Havran
2013-03-14, 04:59 AM
But if there's an imbalance for no logical reason (e.g. the plot/setting would function perfectly well with the change to X, but no-one ever does that), then that's a problem, because it means that Xes are being marginalised. And how is the problem going to be fixed without actively attempting to fix it?

To be honest, if plot and setting works well either way, why should one care if Xes are "being marginalised" or not?

Chessgeek
2013-03-14, 05:09 AM
Rich usually makes some sort of statement with his characters, whether it's
"Greedy ≠ uncaring" (:haley:)
or "Not all fighters are stupid" (:roy:)
or "All life is important" (:redcloak:)

So now we can ask ourselves what statement Malack makes. For one, he shows that Evil doesn't necessarily mean unsympathetic, but also, perhaps, that men can feel a strong attachment to their children? I mean, obviously parents care about their children regardless of gender, but stereotypically the mother always cares more about the children. Perhaps Rich thought of this, and decided to show the other side, a father grieving over his dead children?

And, of course, Rich has already had a mother grieving over dead child (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html)(ren) in the comic.

My 2 ¢

deworde
2013-03-14, 05:22 AM
To be honest, if plot and setting works well either way, why should one care if Xes are "being marginalised" or not?

Well, as a upper-middle-class British white male computer geek, I rarely encounter this personally, but I'm reliably informed that being marginalised sucks. People don't take your complaints seriously, make jokes that upset you but "don't upset any of my other friends", don't think about what kind of things you'll need when making plans, etcetera.

It's not that they're being malicious, it's simply that the context they operate in has meant they've never really encountered these needs to think about them. And when it is drawn to their attention that their behaviour could be described as insensitive, they get offended because it seems like it's implied that they meant to hurt someone, or that they're stupid for not thinking of it. At the same time, changing this behaviour generally means putting an obligation to think more carefully or work harder, for no real benefit to them.

The overall effect is that perfectly good people end up mistreating other perfectly good people because changing societal norms is hard. Any attempt to mitigate or change this, by for example not reconfirming that marginalisation within popular fiction, I would describe as a good thing.

KillianHawkeye
2013-03-14, 06:08 AM
I really think this is a nonissue, but maybe that's because I have no preconceived notions of an assigned gender to particular races or character classes. I always evaluate each character as an individual, and therefore I never think that any character should have been a different gender (or color, or hair style, or anything else for that matter).

Honestly, this topic makes no sense to me at all. :smallconfused::smallsigh:

TopCheese
2013-03-14, 06:11 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Fragenstein
2013-03-14, 06:18 AM
... swinging it to favor females shouldn't be weird...

But it can be, if she's into that.

Mike Havran
2013-03-14, 06:29 AM
...

Any attempt to mitigate or change this, by for example not reconfirming that marginalisation within popular fiction, I would describe as a good thing.

I think you overestimate the impact of such in-story "marginalisation" way too much. If author of fantasy fiction needed to evaluate every [X] trait prior giving it to new character with regards to how many Xes have already been in the story so far and how well does that fit with the unwritten and ever-changing standards of contemporary society, it would get rather tiresome and unhealthy to the plot itself.

Sunken Valley
2013-03-14, 06:32 AM
What about Ganji. Ganji's gender has never been mentioned but we assume he's male.

hamishspence
2013-03-14, 06:45 AM
It's made pretty crystal clear here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html

Kish
2013-03-14, 07:06 AM
In all the cases mentioned, being female had some impact on the story. Miko had to deal with Roy's sexism, Tsukiko had a very unhealthy fetish, Crystal had that typical teenager-style rivalry with Haley, Therkla had to weigh following orders against her feelings for one of the protagonists, the black dragon was a mother, and Elan wooed the bandit leader.
Yep, every significant female character in OotS is defined by her sexuality. Malack is not defined by his sexuality. And so he's male.

Oh wait. That's what the OP's talking about.

Gift Jeraff
2013-03-14, 09:05 AM
How else was Tarquin supposed to make the sausage party joke?

deworde
2013-03-14, 09:24 AM
I think you overestimate the impact of such in-story "marginalisation" way too much. If author of fantasy fiction needed to evaluate every [X] trait prior giving it to new character with regards to how many Xes have already been in the story so far and how well does that fit with the unwritten and ever-changing standards of contemporary society, it would get rather tiresome and unhealthy to the plot itself.

I'm not suggesting that any one individual doing something will make a big change, but that doing it or promoting that others do it is a good thing in and of itself regardless of effectiveness.

Also, claiming that evaluating the X makeup of your cast and how the characters interact with each other, and looking at what Xes you haven't covered for no other reason than that they didn't occur to you, would damage the average fantasy novel plot seems to me to be bassackwards. Especially since the major criticism of fantasy as a genre is its slavish adherence to a few well chosen tropes and character templates. At worst, it would get you looking deeper into the story you were trying to tell, by encouraging you to consider why Bracknar the Swarthy Barbarian Pirate King can't be female.

Note that in OotS's case, he's for the most part parodying these templates, which is as I said in the prior post, drawing attention to these imbalances. More importantly, funny.

Yaije9841
2013-03-14, 11:58 AM
I'd have thought it would be the gender norm for female to assume the role of what appears to be a concerned parent in a supportive group role. Bonus points if that role is also the 'healer'.

KillingAScarab
2013-03-14, 12:22 PM
I always find the "strong" or "non-traditional" female character angle a little dubious anyway - it too often devolves into a stereotype on its own.Kate Beaton drew a hilarious send-up of this over on harkavagrant.com. Two of them, actually. This isn't the Webcomics section, so that's all I'll say about it.

deworde
2013-03-14, 12:26 PM
Kate Beaton drew a hilarious send-up of this over on harkavagrant.com. Two of them, actually. This isn't the Webcomics section, so that's all I'll say about it.

Oh, come on. At least post the links.

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311
http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=336

KillingAScarab
2013-03-14, 12:30 PM
Oh, come on. At least post the link.I haven't read all the rules on linking to comics with half-naked swearin' fighter pilots-maybe.



The fact that you want Malack to be female just for the sake of being female is just as bad as someone making every lead male (Edit: just cause they don't think women should be leads in their story endedit) (which Rich hasn't).Denounce someone else's point of view just a little more, whydoncha?

sims796
2013-03-14, 12:33 PM
Well, as a upper-middle-class British white male computer geek, I rarely encounter this personally, but I'm reliably informed that being marginalised sucks. People don't take your complaints seriously, make jokes that upset you but "don't upset any of my other friends", don't think about what kind of things you'll need when making plans, etcetera.

It's not that they're being malicious, it's simply that the context they operate in has meant they've never really encountered these needs to think about them. And when it is drawn to their attention that their behaviour could be described as insensitive, they get offended because it seems like it's implied that they meant to hurt someone, or that they're stupid for not thinking of it. At the same time, changing this behaviour generally means putting an obligation to think more carefully or work harder, for no real benefit to them.

The overall effect is that perfectly good people end up mistreating other perfectly good people because changing societal norms is hard. Any attempt to mitigate or change this, by for example not reconfirming that marginalisation within popular fiction, I would describe as a good thing.

...


....... hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Get over it, it is a stick figure comic about a group of adventurers loosely based on D&D.

The fact that you want Malack to be female just for the sake of being female is just as bad as someone making every lead male (Edit: just cause they don't think women should be leads in their story endedit) (which Rich hasn't).

Here I'll spill some milk so you can cry over that too.

Whaddya know?

Zmeoaice
2013-03-14, 12:37 PM
It's made pretty crystal clear here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0738.html

Meh, I heard girls say "Suck my d**k" before. Although the person might have been referring to Enor.

Roland St. Jude
2013-03-14, 01:05 PM
Sheriff: Locked for review.