Sometimes a cigar is not a cigar

[Snails]

I would say I love the imagery of the last panel of #929.

It is a wonderful "Freudian" image for Tarquin to take Roy's own sword and pierce the Elan/Roy bromance in one manly stroke.

But the elegant part is how Tarquin, by so piercing Elan, is apparently "promoting" himself to the role of the New Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0056.html).

Kudos to the Giant!

[AKA_Bait]

While I agree with you that the skewering is something of a call back to Nale's attack on Elan. I'm not seeing the whole "Freudian" angle here other than that a greatsword is a big, phallic object. This is a "bromance", not a romance, after all.

[goodyarn]

While I agree with you that the skewering is something of a call back to Nale's attack on Elan. I'm not seeing the whole "Freudian" angle here other than that a greatsword is a big, phallic object. This is a "bromance", not a romance, after all.

I think what he means is that by taking Roy's sword, he is symbolically castrating him.

And I just want to add: It's not every day a father stabs both his sons in the same day...heck, the same hour. So, I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that too.

[ThePhantasm]

This sort of thing pretty much sums up everything I hate about literary criticism.

[NerdyKris]

You do realize two non related people can be very close with out it being sexual, right? Not everything has to involve sex.

I also think it's a little disturbing that you're seeing that, given that it's his father stabbing him and Elan has repeatedly stated that he sees Roy as an older brother. And Roy's trip to heaven implied that he subconsciously sees Elan as a substitute for his baby brother. So there's no romance. (or bromance). Just family.


This sort of thing pretty much sums up everything I hate about literary criticism.

Agreed 100%. I love sex, don't get me wrong, but when you start seeing everything as sexual, it's time to rethink your idea of, well, friendships.

[Ghost Nappa]

And I just want to add: It's not every day a father stabs both his sons in the same day...heck, the same hour. So, I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that too.

Tarquin is pretty screwed up. I think we will see a Villainous breakdown before this is over. Shouldn't Elan still have a MCLW available to him?

[Vinyadan]

Agreed 100%. I love sex, don't get me wrong, but when you start seeing everything as sexual, it's time to rethink your idea of, well, friendships.

Or sex.

But I like the idea of a genre-savvy Tarquin who goes all Kronos on his sons in the hope of them not turning into Oedipus - with the result that they become Zeus instead.

[Snails]

And I just want to add: It's not every day a father stabs both his sons in the same day...heck, the same hour. So, I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that too.

And we can see that by choosing a sword for Elan and a mere dagger for Nale, Tarquin loves Elan more.

Is Nale going to find out about this and mope forever in his afterlife?

[AKA_Bait]

And we can see that by choosing a sword for Elan and a mere dagger for Nale, Tarquin loves Elan more.

Is Nale going to find out about this and mope forever in his afterlife?

Considering what plane Nale is headed to, he'll probably have other things on his mind. I know, I know Nale's alignment isn't proven but it doesn't really matter among the Nine Hells does it?

[The Oni]

At any rate, when I start talking about my favorite men in psychology, I prefer them to be Jung.

...No homo.

[Copperdragon]

I'm totally not seeing this to be any sort of analogy of Tarquin actually penetrating Roy and Elan with his penis and this standing for anything other than him stabbing them both with a sword, and by that we learn that Elan still underestimates how ruthless his father is.
Where you found a "bromance" between Roy and Elan is also completely hidden in the fog for me.

Tarquin is counting on Elan having enough HPs to survive this while Roy is not supposed to. That is all that is to see here.

If it resembles anything than some joke about "stabbing Elan through the chest runs in the family" but I am not even seeing that as the situation is very different.

[Lorick]

While Snails may have meant differently, I've only ever heard the term "bromance" mean a very close friendship, never anything sexual.

[veti]

This sort of thing pretty much sums up everything I hate about literary criticism.

Quite (http://www.uiowa.edu/~c08g001d/Sontag_AgainstInterp.pdf).

(Apparently, links don't count towards the '10 character' minimum.)

[Snails]

While Snails may have meant differently, I've only ever heard the term "bromance" mean a very close friendship, never anything sexual.

Yes, thank you.

The way I think of "bromance" is a relationship between men that is deeply felt and/or intimate enough to feel embarrassing by the standards macho yankees, but usually not sexual at all.

If I thought an explicit sexual angle was important then Tarquin cast as Phinehas of Numbers25:6 would be the obvious allusion.

[NerdyKris]

Yes, thank you.

The way I think of "bromance" is a relationship between men that is deeply felt and/or intimate enough to feel embarrassing by the standards macho yankees, but usually not sexual at all.

If I thought an explicit sexual angle was important then Tarquin cast as Phinehas of Numbers25:6 would be the obvious allusion.

If you weren't intending to imply sex, perhaps you shouldn't be using the words "Freudian" and referencing a penis in your thread title. Also, "manly stroke".


I find the phrase "bromance" to be immature anyways. It's a close friendship. Literally, the type of bond found between brothers, as has been referenced directly by Elan.

[lord_khaine]

While Snails may have meant differently, I've only ever heard the term "bromance" mean a very close friendship, never anything sexual.

Thats also the only definition i have ever heard.
In regarding to building up a iron clad friedship between 2 guys, of the "bro's before ho's type" and according to the Bro code (http://valenciabrocode.blogspot.dk/p/bro-code-rules.html)

[Spoomeister]

If you liked that, you must have loved it when the gender-ambiguous character attacked the bad guys with a rainbow.

[DaggerPen]

*opens thread curiously*

*stares*

*backs slowly out of thread*

Seriously, I'm a big fan of reading way too much into things, but, uh. That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

[ti'esar]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png: Rise, Freudian psychoanalysis! Rise and seek the ignorance of the living!

...doesn't really work, but oh well.

[FlawedParadigm]

*opens thread curiously*

*stares*

*backs slowly out of thread*

Seriously, I'm a big fan of reading way too much into things, but, uh. That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

Yes. This. This so hard.

...er, so much...

[SaintRidley]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png: Rise, Freudian psychoanalysis! Rise and seek the ignorance of the living!

...doesn't really work, but oh well.

You know, there's a good reason other literary critics use Freud, even though we all know that he's been debunked time and again.

That reason is because despite his ideas not holding water, the general public's understanding of psychology is so steeped in Freudian theory that it is, at this point, just part of the culture. And since cultural influences work their way into art, seeing where Freud pops up (either consciously invoked by the author or by sheer happenstance) is about the only worthwhile thing you can do with the man.

[Bulldog Psion]

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Malack.png: Rise, Freudian psychoanalysis! Rise and seek the ignorance of the living!

...doesn't really work, but oh well.

Works for me. :smallbiggrin: Thanks for the smile!

[Vinyadan]

If the Giant were to answer this thread, I don't know what he would write, but it would almost certainly be awesome. :smallbiggrin:

[Copperdragon]

If the Giant were to answer this thread, I don't know what he would write, but it would almost certainly be awesome. :smallbiggrin:

It would probably be along the lines of "This is not how I intended or interpret this scene."

[oppyu]

I'm not sure what this thread is saying, mainly because people seem to be operating with different definitions and levels of understanding regarding Freudian psychology.

[Souhiro]

I think what he means is that by taking Roy's sword, he is symbolically castrating him.

And I just want to add: It's not every day a father stabs both his sons in the same day...heck, the same hour. So, I'm sure Freud would have something to say about that too.

Well, By using Roy's sword hes humilliating him, but is also a more spectacular movement. You know, like Link and that moves where he get some giant's BFS (Big F. Sword) and cleaves said giant with it: Link still has his Master Sword, a holy +5000 blade, why bother to use a non-magical sword to finish the evil giant? Because using the giant blade looks COOL.

So, impaling an enemy with your weapon? Badass. Impaling your enemy with a weapon procured in the battlefield? TRULY Badass.

I think that Freud would think badly about... everything, like preparing your breakfast, shaving yourself, keeping your hair, putting your necktie and driving to work. Also, don't think too much about this. I find this scene about cleaving through your son about spectacularity, not anything else.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

One of the problems with seeing sex in everything is this thread. I think Snail is reading way too deeply into the comic here. The last panel of 929 is many things; badass, shocking, gut wrenching, among other things. What it isn't, however, is sexual. I can sorta see how it might be interpreted that way, but it's kind of a stretch.

[Silverionmox]

Freudian symbolism seen as too far-fetched theories on the OOTS forum, of all places? Oh, the irony.

I'll further ruin everyone's day by supporting the Freudian interpretation: let me point out that Elan's and Roy's expressions would work perfectly fine as an in-comic show of orgasm.

[Quild]

This sort of thing pretty much sums up everything I hate about literary criticism.

In this case I don't think the thread is very serious.

Maybe my french teachers weren't serious during my whole scholarship.

[Cizak]

I'll further ruin everyone's day by supporting the Freudian interpretation: let me point out that Elan's and Roy's expressions would work perfectly fine as an in-comic show of orgasm.

Of course. Just as Durkon's face in panel 4 is orgasmic, clearly symbolising how the sun/universe/world **** him over constantly. Belkar is having an orgasm as Tarquin boots him and he also drops his dagger; Belkar's foot fetish is making him feel as less of man. Miron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html) gets one as Belkar stabs him with two daggers; this is to symbolise Miron's homosexuality and enjoyment of threesomes. Pretty much everyone except Tarquin get orgasms in the last panel of the same strip. Since Laurin is the oldest woman there, it's all about mother complexes.

The strip is obviously one big image of sex. I leave you with Tarquin, Laurin and Miron going through several holes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0926.html) Figure that one out yourself.

[goodyarn]

Whether you buy it or not (and I don't), Freudian theory deals with a lot more than sex. A lot of it deals with buried antagonism between parents and children. I believe that that those issues are what the OP was talking about. Not sex.

And yes, it's funny to talk about buried antagonism in such a violent panel. But there you go.

[Shatteredtower]

Whether you buy it or not (and I don't), Freudian theory deals with a lot more than sex. A lot of it deals with buried antagonism between parents and children. I believe that that those issues are what the OP was talking about. Not sex.

Ditto.

Come on, every human member of this party has serious father issues. (Only the humans, though. Odd, that.) Now Tarquin, one of those fathers, strives to separate two men who see in each other a brother (though Roy appears unaware of it), is striving to separate them as he did Elan and Nale. (The second time, that is, not the first.)

But the act that is meant to remove Elan from Roy's influence physically brings them together in symbolic brotherhood. We can leave it at the sharing of blood or we can get all Freudian about the father's action and it still works as imagery.

It's still not as squicky as sex on the back of a giant worm. (And now I'm seeing that as an awfully self-indulgent euphemism that I refuse to believe the Giant ever intended.)

[Mike Havran]

Miron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html) gets one as Belkar stabs him with two daggers; this is to symbolise Miron's homosexuality and enjoyment of threesomes. Now we know what was the favor Tarquin did him those 12 years ago.

[Silverionmox]

Now we know what was the favor Tarquin did him those 12 years ago.

He's been sitting on it for 12 years.. My god, it's everywhere!

[The Dark Fiddler]

Come on, every human member of this party has serious father issues. (Only the humans, though. Odd, that.)

To be fair, we don't know that V, Durkon, or Belkar don't have father issues... it's just not a driving part of their personality. V and Durkon in particular, being from longer-lived races, may have already worked out their issues.

[Gift Jeraff]

Laurin is familiar with Malack's "staff."

Tarquin using erotic asphyxiation to fight V.

When did this comic get so blue? Strip #260

[AKA_Bait]

To be fair, we don't know that V, Durkon, or Belkar don't have father issues... it's just not a driving part of their personality. V and Durkon in particular, being from longer-lived races, may have already worked out their issues.

In Durkon's case, I could see it never getting talked about at all. Dwarves probably repress stuff like that. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0084.html)


Tarquin using erotic asphyxiation to fight V.[/COLOR]

Don't forget the impact of V's androgyny on that one. Are we being told that Tarquin is a kinky switch hitter?

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

I don't think the Giant intentionally put any references to Freudian theory in OOTS, ever. Also, I've heard that its been debunked a number of times, but I'm not sure why. Does anyone know anything about that?

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks nice with a little space (that statement is not intended to be interpreted as sexual)

You can find a way to insert* a sexual meaning into almost anything. Sometimes it applies, but usually it's just coincidental.

It's the equivalent of saying "that's what she said" after someone makes an innocent comment.

The only real difference is that instead of milking* a tired old joke, you're attempting to sound insightful, which is more annoying.

Sometimes a cigar doesn't need to be pointed out at all. I fear that soon authors are going to have to include "that statement is not intended to be interpreted as sexual" at the bottom of all of their work just to discourage pretentious would-be literary experts from seeking the deeper interpretations.*



*that statement is not intended to be interpreted as sexual

I think it looks nice with a little space (that statement is not intended to be interpreted as sexual)

[Porthos]

I don't think the Giant intentionally put any references to Freudian theory in OOTS, ever.

*COUGH* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0308.html) :smalltongue:

[allenw]

It's still not as squicky as sex on the back of a giant worm. (And now I'm seeing that as an awfully self-indulgent euphemism that I refuse to believe the Giant ever intended.)

Have you read that strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html) recently? That wasn't even subtext; it was text. :smallamused:

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

*COUGH* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0308.html) :smalltongue:

I had completely forgotten about that comic.

[Doxkid]

You do realize two non related people can be very close with out it being sexual, right? Not everything has to involve sex.

...are you hitting on me?:smallamused:

[Coranho]

Yes, thank you.

The way I think of "bromance" is a relationship between men that is deeply felt and/or intimate enough to feel embarrassing by the standards macho yankees, but usually not sexual at all.

If I thought an explicit sexual angle was important then Tarquin cast as Phinehas of Numbers25:6 would be the obvious allusion.

This feels like reverse-bashing your own thread because don't like a comparison between bromance and sex even though (as pointed out) you made it.

Then you go and equate macho behavior to yankees in an intentionally offensive manner.

Hypocrisy count: 4.

[jogiff]

It's worth pointing out that Tarquin's attack seems to be a cleave of some sort. We have already seen Elan attaching sexual meaning to cleaving (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0102.html), but what particularly interests me is the less common usage of the word "cleave."

cleave: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly [Merriam-Webster]

The word cleave is notable in that it is one of the few words that is its own antonym, giving many different and opposing levels of interpretation to Tarquin's attack on Elan and Roy. On the one hand he wants to cleave apart Elan's relationship to Roy. On the other hand he wants to force Elan to cleave to him (either as an antagonist or a mentor). On yet another hand, he wants to cleave Roy. Finally, he wants to birth a new Elan who is a leader and not a follower. Children are usually birthed through pudental cleft, a derivative of "cleave."

All of these interpretations seem contradictory, but they can all be reconciled. Tarquin is in love with Roy, not Elan. Elan doesn't see Roy as a big brother, he sees him as a mother. We've already seen sexual tension between Roy and Tarquin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0753.html).

When Elan realized that his father remarrying his (biological) mother was a bad idea, he had a reason that he didn't acknowledge. He wanted his father to marry Roy. We know that Elan will get his happy ending, so it seems hard to ignore the inevitability that Roy and Tarquin will get married.

I don't know whether Roy will use the belt of gender swapping so that he and Tarquin can make more brothers for Elan, but the possibility shouldn't be ignored.

[skim172]

So, as a counterpoint, I offer a critique that argues that the comic is actually not about "manly strokes" and "piercing" at all. Instead, it is a feminist analysis of violence.

See, Elan refuses to fight his father - which is inherently a feminine act. He protects Roy with his own body - the maternal instinct. He stands face-to-face with his father, and women are more likely to speak face-to-face than men are. This shows that this is indeed a contest of femininity.

Durkon (a vampire, an obvious masculine symbol who penetrates and makes his innocent victims bleed) is de-powered by a woman who uses her brain - because women are thinkers while men are physical - to take away the powers of his "magic staff". Belkar, a simple masculine brute whose small size is symbolic of penis envy, is incapacitated by a kick to his offensive genitalia.

The gender-ambiguous Vaarsuvius is the only threat because of V's refusal to accept masculine patriarchy. Thus, V must be defeated - but not with the dagger (or phallus which is powerless to one who refuses the patriarchy) but with the whip (which is kind of like thread, which is used in sewing, which is associated with woman, so all rope-like structures are feminine symbols).

Tarquin is clearly not happy as he stabs Elan and Roy, which indicates that he is disgusted with the masculine act of penetration - also supported by the fact that he stands with his legs apart as he does so. Elan and Roy are thus penetrated - but Tarquin can not be. So ultimately, Tarquin's anger and hostility is rooted in a subconscious desire to live in a more matriarchial, feminine society where he does not have to penetrate anyone.

:smallfrown:

Okay, so you see how lazy and moronic that critique was? And also how limiting and reductionist? That was stupid. I am stupid for having written it down. And you have been made stupider for reading it. The world should be offended that I even thought of it. That isn't feminism - that's me taking a shallow idea of feminism and some buzzwords and using it for something entirely unrelated.

My point is that you can't just pick out individual items - like "piercing" the "bromance" by using a "sword" in a "manly stroke" - that could be sorta suggestive and pile them together as cumulative evidence for a deeper subtext. They need to have a cohesion of their own.


Lazy critics and academics (like me!) often namedrop Freud for easy credibility. It doesn't really mean anything - it's ultimately me going, "Hey, so that thing? And that other thing? Yeah? Kind of looks like another thing, maybe? Yeah. Well, Freud says so."

(Other lazy academic tips - reference the Bible, especially Genesis. "A bird lands in a tree" - that's totally about the Garden of Eden. And "See Spot Run" is symbolic of Cain running from the sight of God.)


Also, in real life, Freud is nowadays mostly rejected among the legitimate psych community. They give him credit as a founding figure of the science, and his general concepts are upheld. But his specific theories and methods - like Oedipal theory or psychoanalysis - are not widely viewed as credible.


Back on-topic, I think in this case, the cigar is a cigar. Or rather the sword is just a sword. Because what else was he supposed to stab him with? An oyster? An egg? A clasp purse? Some other thing that doesn't resemble a human phallus in any way, shape or form? :smallconfused:

[Bulldog Psion]

Back on-topic, I think in this case, the cigar is a cigar. Or rather the sword is just a sword. Because what else was he supposed to stab him with? An oyster? An egg? A clasp purse? Some other thing that doesn't resemble a human phallus in any way, shape or form? :smallconfused:

Yes, it's pretty difficult to stab someone to death with, say, a boot. :smallbiggrin:

[Shatteredtower]

Have you read that strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0690.html) recently? That wasn't even subtext; it was text. :smallamused:

No, I was referring to something I got from a typo I've since editted, referring to it as a Giant's worm. I'd prefer the intended form, as it's less disturbing.


Okay, so you see how lazy and moronic that critique was?

Not at all. The insight is appreciated as much as would be any blind man's description of an elephant. Perspective isn't picture.

[Snails]

The word cleave is notable in that it is one of the few words that is its own antonym, giving many different and opposing levels of interpretation to Tarquin's attack on Elan and Roy. On the one hand he wants to cleave apart Elan's relationship to Roy. On the other hand he wants to force Elan to cleave to him (either as an antagonist or a mentor). On yet another hand, he wants to cleave Roy. Finally, he wants to birth a new Elan who is a leader and not a follower. Children are usually birthed through pudental cleft, a derivative of "cleave."

That is an interesting point. Is cleave literally its own antonym?

[T-O-E]

I don't think the Giant intentionally put any references to Freudian theory in OOTS, ever.

Then it must be a physical manifestation of unconscious repression.