El Goonish Shive III - Totally Adorkable! [Archive]

Weimann

2015-04-23, 01:38 AM

Welcome to the third (continual) thread about the webcomic El Goonish Shive (http://www.egscomics.com/)!

For the new readers, El Goonish Shive is a long-running plot-and-character-driven action-dramedy with elements of teen life, magical kung fu, gender-switching and all-around silly stuff happening. The art has also undergone a massive improvement since the beginning, so don't be too off put by the dramatic difference in quality at the start. It also shifts between "grey-scale" and colour.

Right now, Immortals granting weapon-grade magic to teens and awkward mall dates! Simultaneously!

Previous threads:
El Goonish Shive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?115992-El-Goonish-Shive) (2009)
El Goonish Shive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?137572-El-Goonish-Shive) (2010)
El Goonish Shive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?191721-El-Goonish-Shive) (2011-2012)
El Goonish Shive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?278783-El-Goonish-Shive) (2013 ->)
El Goonish Shive II - I stand by my ridiculous comic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?350273-El-Goonish-Shive-II-I-stand-by-my-ridiculous-comic)

Lissou

2015-04-23, 04:10 AM

Ashley's clarification: I guess I understand where she's coming from. Nice to get specifics about Ellen too.

Weimann

2015-04-23, 05:24 AM

It's indeed neat that the comic shows two people of differing opinions (Ashley and Tedd) both having developed reasoning being their opinions and not taking a stance for either. Classy there, Dan.

The Mormegil

2015-04-23, 05:54 AM

I don't get Ashley's point. Like, at all. Then again, my field is literally based on precisely defining things.

Cavelcade

2015-04-23, 06:18 AM

The same word has different meanings to different people. If I say 'blue', you and I will think of different shades (or maybe you'll think of the emotion sad, or that annoying earworm Eiffel 65 song, or something else) - but if I show you a blue panel (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/000080_Navy_Blue_Square.svg/2000px-000080_Navy_Blue_Square.svg.png), even if it doesn't look the same to you as it does to me, we're looking at the same thing.

Ashley would rather show you what she is then tell you what she is and have you interpret it in some other way. Even if what you see when she shows you isn't what she sees, at least you're seeing what she's thinking of.

The Mormegil

2015-04-23, 06:53 AM

Rater202

2015-04-23, 08:14 AM

It's indeed neat that the comic shows two people of differing opinions (Ashley and Tedd) both having developed reasoning being their opinions and not taking a stance for either. Classy there, Dan.

What's Tedd's opinion about this? I'm confused?

Unless you're talking about his reaction to Gender Fluidity having a name, but that's an entirely different circumstance so it can't really be compared.

Cavelcade

2015-04-23, 08:16 AM

I think what she's trying to avoid is being identified as part of a group about whom there is a view about what they are that she doesn't feel comfortable having assigned to her. Saying "I'm attracted to both gals and guys" is a statement purely about the individual's preferences, saying "I'm bisexual" identifies you with others who call themselves that. You can't necessarily stop someone conflating the two sentences, but you can try and get yourself separated from the group, if you don't want them to immediately jump to whatever society's idea of that group is.

I probably wouldn't do it, personally, because I find it useful to use these labels. I have no problem calling myself a nerd, but I wouldn't fault someone for wanting to distinguish themselves from the group:nerd if they didn't feel society's idea of group:nerd defined them in a useful way.

Edit: Is the Tedd situation different? To me it does seem like one of the best examples in the comic of both sides of an issue having a proponent (Tedd: labels = good because I can identify with a group, Ashley: labels = bad because I don't want to) with Ellen being in the middle of the spectrum.

Felius

2015-04-23, 08:21 AM

She's actually pretty reasonable with her issues here. It's not so much the base concept of "bisexual" as in "being potentially attracted to both sexes", as it is about all the rest of concepts people attribute to the term that don't really have anything to do with the core concept. I can't say I agree with her, mostly because I'm of the camp of using words in their "proper" meaning and explaining that they mean more than that meaning*, but I can understand where she's coming from and that's a pretty reasonable place. That, and well, I don't find broad and light labels to not be so bad, as long as people using them remember what the label means, instead of just throwing everything they want at it, plus that most of the time, it's simply not their business what other people are.

Or rather, saying that someone is bisexual is less of a mouthful than saying that someone is attracted to both women and men, and indeed, neither are other people's business unless the person in question wants them to know, say, because they said person is looking for a partner and do want to let people of both sexes know that they might be interested in them.

But anyway, I'll stop here, before this becomes a rant about personal preferences and how no one has a duty to be attracted to anyone else, and back at Ash: And most of all, I found that she responds to Elliot's in a very reasonable manner.

*Comes with being an atheist, at least when I can bring myself to care to explain that no, being atheist only means that one doesn't believe in any god or gods, and that's all the word mean, and that atheists come in all sizes, forms, colors, genders, political ideologies, social ideologies, and so forth. :smalltongue:

Mith

2015-04-23, 08:40 AM

I would say that her point is reasonable in that she doesn't want any assumptions made about her. If you tell people what you are using labels, they usually have some assumptions attached to that label. If you show people who you are, they do not have these assumptions.

In other news, do people think that Ashley will end up dying her hair blonde? It's funny reading Dan's rants about how much of a pain her hair is to shade, so I wonder if he is going to change it after this arc.

Rater202

2015-04-23, 08:56 AM

Edit: Is the Tedd situation different? To me it does seem like one of the best examples in the comic of both sides of an issue having a proponent (Tedd: labels = good because I can identify with a group, Ashley: labels = bad because I don't want to) with Ellen being in the middle of the spectrum.

Let's say that you've spent most of your life knowing you were different:Maybe it's all the time, maybe it's just some times, but there are times when it feels like you are legitimately in the wrong body.

You find out that there's an entire group of people like you, that there's a term that describes exactly how you feel about yourself.

The relief would be palpable.

If I'm grokking it right, which I might not be, in Ashley's case it's about society at large putting labels on people-and then you have to conform to that label.

Let me use an example my Soc professor used-If a man is only sexually attracted to other men but of his own free will remains Abstinent his entire life, not because he thinks being homosexual is wrong but because he genuinely isn't interested in sex, is that man "gay"?

Bisexual is a vaguely defined term that means different things to different people, so using it as a label means it won't fit just right all of the time.

Gender fluid, on the other hand, isn't society's label, it's a label for people who are at an inbetween point in their gender identity-sometimes they feel like they're the correct biological sex, sometimes they feel they're the wrong one, and sometimes they feel like they're somewhere in between. That is a label that perfectly describes Tedd's situation.

So basically it' the exact opposite situation Ashley dislikes the "bisexual" label because it's too broad and doesn't fit exactly. Tedd likes the "gendered fluid" label because it describes his situation perfectly and lets him know that he's not a freak off all on his lonesome to suffer by himself for all eternity.

Yuki Akuma

2015-04-23, 10:27 AM

Ashley is pretty reasonable about her stance but I still think decrying labels in general is pretty silly. They're just names for things to make communication about concepts easier.

Calemyr

2015-04-23, 11:16 AM

Ashley simply doesn't truck with being compartmentalized, classified, and labeled. She is Ashley. All those things are part of her, but none of them define her.

She reminds me of the Sten, from Dragon Age Origins, who amusingly claimed that you couldn't simply define the elven race as 'a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel at poverty'. A fairly accurate definition, to be fair, but so dilute and generalized that it loses all meaning. In classification, you stereotype. In labeling, you gloss over what's unique in favor of what's common. She is Ashley, and to classify her as anything is to make her less than what she is.

It's a mindset I can appreciate.

Tedd feels isolated and alone. His father openly disapproves of his tendency to change genders on a whim. Nobody else seems all that interested in the same things he is (or at least not to the extent). He has nothing to connect to, so he feels like a freak and a weirdo. Place a label on him, 'gender fluid', and suddenly he has a place in existence. He's not an anomaly, he's a rarity. He's part of the world, not some bizarre exception to it. Now he is not alone - even if he doesn't know anyone else who shares the classification, it's a place he fits.

It's a mindset I can appreciate.

Lissou

2015-04-23, 11:19 AM

I wouldn't say Tedd and Ashley have different attitudes, necessarily. "The word simply EXISTING was a big deal to me when I was younger" sounds a lot like Tedd's "There is a word for it"

Ronnoc

2015-04-23, 01:04 PM

Speaking as someone who both enjoys etymology and exacting measurements Ashleys stance seems silly. I can understand not wanting to be treated as a label and I can certainly understand wanting to avoid connotations however communication requires the use of labels as approximations, otherwise we all end up speaking Entish and taking a few years to introduce someone.

Radar

2015-04-23, 02:41 PM

My understanding of Ashley's stance is thus: this particular label trails way too much unnecessary baggage. It probably felt as being treated as an inhabitant of Planet of Hats - all your personality defined by one particular trait and a tonne of assumptions associated with it. In essence, she simply wants to avoid stereotyping, which honestly happens way too often - especially with labels that are in a widespread use.

As for the overall need for words, in the case of sexual or romantic preferences, everything that actually matters can be communicated with those simple words: I like you. :smallwink:

Describing personal identity might need more nuances, but sometimes I feel that there is no need to make labyrinths out of simple matters. :smallsmile:

Jinglebelle

2015-04-23, 05:43 PM

I really like El Goonish Shive. It started out not good, but through the concerted effort of the author, it is now what anyone with reasonable standards would call a Good Webcomic. Dan Shive is an inspiration to me.

Lord Raziere

2015-04-23, 06:54 PM

*snip for*
It's a mindset I can appreciate. X2 Combo

As someone who has high functioning autism, allow to me weigh in on this.

I actually identify and agree with both Tedd AND Ashley. Because I found that in my experiences with having high functioning autism, I want both things: to have a group that I can identify with but at the same doesn't entirely define me.

Identity is not a simple thing that can be expressed purely in labels and words. On one hand, having a word for certain aspect of you is needed for good communication and to help yourself define that part of you, on the other hand, being JUST the label isn't really being you. You are bigger than any label anyone can put on you. A big part of learning about high-functioning autism for me- and probably a big part of learning identity for everyone- is knowing that a part of you, isn't ALL of you. That you are more than can be simply boringly defined, and thats ok! More than ok, thats beautiful. Indescribably, fascinatingly, wondrously beautiful.

I'm not autistic, I'm a person first, who has the trait of high-functioning autism. I identify with that yes, and it is true that I am part of the group in a way. However that does not define me. There is so much more than just that. A big part of individuality is knowing that the smaller definable parts of you add up to something undefinable but beautiful. I don't care how much you want me precisely defined, you can write book after book of biographies on a single person detailing their entire life in as much detail as possible, and you still won't capture them in full.

Really, I can tell you from my own experience that Tedd and Ashley are not all that different, they are on the same continuum- figuring out their identity. I'm thinking both Tedd and Ashley had no idea what to call what they were feeling before the words and it caused no amount of uncertainty of who or what they were, because they didn't know. Once they knew, it allowed them strength- strength enough to say "thats only a part of me". Its defining a piece of the puzzle of you, not all of it. Tedd, I'm pretty sure would him/herself argue that they are more than just gender-fluid: they are one who does science experiments with transformation technology, someone who is boy/girlfriend to Grace, someone who likes intellectual challenges, someone who likes nerdy interests, someone who likes playing videogames with Elliot, things like that.

Identity is a bunch of easily definable puzzle pieces that fit together into something we cannot fully see, a shape we cannot describe. And because of that, it is wondrous beyond compare.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-04-23, 07:25 PM

I don't get Ashley's point. Like, at all. Then again, my field is literally based on precisely defining things.

Speaking as someone who both enjoys etymology and exacting measurements Ashleys stance seems silly. I can understand not wanting to be treated as a label and I can certainly understand wanting to avoid connotations however communication requires the use of labels as approximations, otherwise we all end up speaking Entish and taking a few years to introduce someone.

If I may, let me give both of you a semi-related example from my own past. I'll be a little vague with the particulars due to board rules, but hopefully the message will go through.

Some time back, I was working with a bunch of USA Americans, and I revealed in conversation that I was religious, which in my country is as minor a characteristic as saying I enjoy going to sporting events. They immediately assumed and ascribed to me a bunch of political, philosophical and even scientific positions based on this revelation that were so completely off the mark I actually did a double take*. Then it happened again, with a different bunch of USA Americans. And then a third time. Suffice to say that I have stopped actually applying the label of "religious" to myself when in the presence of USA Americans. Can you see why?

Yours,

Grey Wolf

*I have since educated myself and know where they were coming from, but I was not aware at the time-

The Mormegil

2015-04-24, 01:07 AM

If I may, let me give both of you a semi-related example from my own past. I'll be a little vague with the particulars due to board rules, but hopefully the message will go through.

Some time back, I was working with a bunch of USA Americans, and I revealed in conversation that I was religious, which in my country is as minor a characteristic as saying I enjoy going to sporting events. They immediately assumed and ascribed to me a bunch of political, philosophical and even scientific positions based on this revelation that were so completely off the mark I actually did a double take*. Then it happened again, with a different bunch of USA Americans. And then a third time. Suffice to say that I have stopped actually applying the label of "religious" to myself when in the presence of USA Americans. Can you see why?

Yours,

Grey Wolf

*I have since educated myself and know where they were coming from, but I was not aware at the time-

:smallconfused: I guess?

I don't know, I think the fact that you are religious (as in "you have property A") is something people should take into consideration when assessing you. If the vast majority of religious people also have properties B, C and D, it is actually accurate to assume that you have those properties too until proven otherwise. If you see a guy with a long beard sleeping in a park under old papers, you will think he's a homeless man, very poor, stinky and may be involved in little crimes and drugs. You are likely to be correct, and approaching this person with different preconceptions is wrong and could result in serious problems. If an orc approaches you with an axe in hand, you should probably run - not stereotyping could cost your life (that's fantasy, and as such is an extreme example).

As for the fact that people don't want "in" in certain groups given the implications is something I also find dumb. Statistically, some people are total ****wads. They are likely to be part of every group. They are likely to be easily singled out by anyone opposing that group. If your reaction to this is saying "the group is wrong", if everyone that is not a total ****wad just abandons ship and leaves only the bad apples in, the group WILL become doomed. This is the reason only vanilla groups based on majority opinions usually stick together, and why "balanced" positions are so dominant (actually, that's mostly game theory, but eh). This is also how we lose words and, alongside them, concepts. If you want a recent example, look at feminism and MRAs.

I am feminist. Ashley is bisexual. If you have assumptions about us because of that, good for you, it means you can think. What's wrong is when you don't try to modify your assumptions once you get more data.

Lissou

2015-04-24, 01:22 AM

I totally understand Grey Wolf. I've had similar issues. In the past, when invited someplace where food will be served, I warned people "I'm vegetarian". People assumed many things about me and often became aggressive off the bat. I'm still not sure exactly what that was about, but nowadays I say "I don't eat meat" with is pretty much the exact definition, and therefore the very same thing, yet people act completely differently. Somehow, they understand that not eating meat can have many causes, but only if you don't call it vegetarian.

Sometimes I say "I don't eat animals" because some people think fish isn't meat (which confuses me too).

In other words, sometimes if you use specific words you'll have to deal with everyone's misinterpretations and then prove those assumptions wrong (assumptions that, you say, they are right to make). Better to use phrasing that doesn't cause them to form those assumptions in the first place, though.

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-24, 02:27 AM

Ah wow... Sarah's spell can make people act in separately from her... with a basic AI... Wow thats a really abusable spell. I wonder if they "Know" things that they know in reality. Like if a guard knew a password would Sarah be able to go into the simulation and make him tell her it?

I am going to assume no but I can see decent arguments for it... Still that power has all kinds of abuse potential...

Cavelcade

2015-04-24, 02:56 AM

:smallconfused: I guess?

I don't know, I think the fact that you are religious (as in "you have property A") is something people should take into consideration when assessing you. If the vast majority of religious people also have properties B, C and D, it is actually accurate to assume that you have those properties too until proven otherwise. If you see a guy with a long beard sleeping in a park under old papers, you will think he's a homeless man, very poor, stinky and may be involved in little crimes and drugs. You are likely to be correct, and approaching this person with different preconceptions is wrong and could result in serious problems. If an orc approaches you with an axe in hand, you should probably run - not stereotyping could cost your life (that's fantasy, and as such is an extreme example).

I feel like you're completely missing the point Grey_Wolf is trying to make here. I don't want to speak on his behalf (because, to be honest, Grey_Wolf is the person on this forum I think best capable of carrying on a debate on their own) but I believe the point he was trying to make is that because that label had such vastly different meanings where he comes from in comparison to where the USA came from, it actively became negative in how useful it was in describing him. And in general that's probably true of all labels - some people are more concerned with being properly understood and are willing to spend the extra time to make sure their views are not misconstrued, while some people are indifferent to it. It's all just lines in the sand with regard to where you stand on the issue, so I don't see any stance as being objectively superior, just a preference.

And if Sarah can make people act as if they had autonomy, I see no reason she can't do the same with PCs. Although it might result in an inaccurate result from the PC? Interesting thought.

Douglas

2015-04-24, 03:19 AM

And if Sarah can make people act as if they had autonomy, I see no reason she can't do the same with PCs. Although it might result in an inaccurate result from the PC? Interesting thought.
Making a person or PC act in the simulation does not necessarily imply having access to the person's memories or PC's data. We know she could, say, have a simulated person do a backflip, but not whether she could have that same person tell her his passwords. Similarly, she might be able to have a PC display an image of a forest that she imagines, but not the contents of its Documents folder.

Or she could do all of those things, we don't actually know yet.

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-24, 03:24 AM

Making a person or PC act in the simulation does not necessarily imply having access to the person's memories or PC's data. We know she could, say, have a simulated person do a backflip, but not whether she could have that same person tell her his passwords. Similarly, she might be able to have a PC display an image of a forest that she imagines, but not the contents of its Documents folder.

Or she could do all of those things, we don't actually know yet.

Ya too many variables in this spell to say for 100% certain.

My personal guess is that she can access the computer fine (Internet won't work but anything locally on the computer would be accessible) and not be able to control people into telling her things.

Thats just my guess though I could see it going either way.

theNater

2015-04-24, 03:37 AM

Ah wow... Sarah's spell can make people act in separately from her... with a basic AI... Wow thats a really abusable spell. I wonder if they "Know" things that they know in reality. Like if a guard knew a password would Sarah be able to go into the simulation and make him tell her it?
Between "illusion of autonomy" and "diminish the accuracy", I'm inclined to guess no(or at least, not reliably).

'Course, between those there's enough wiggle room for Dan to say whatever he wants works or doesn't, so who knows?

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-04-24, 07:54 AM

I don't know, I think the fact that you are religious (as in "you have property A") is something people should take into consideration when assessing you. If the vast majority of religious people also have properties B, C and D, it is actually accurate to assume that you have those properties too until proven otherwise.

Which was precisely my point: the vast majority of religious people do NOT also have the properties B, C and D that those USA Americans estadounidenses ascribed to me. My particular religion (like almost all religions) has order of magnitude more adherents outside the US than inside, and yet those USA Americans estadounidenses assume that all religious people are like USA American estadounidense religious people (without even going into "do characteristics B, C and D even appear in the vast majority of USA American estadounidense religious?" question, btw, which I'm doubtful of but am not qualified to state).

In fact, there is a word for what you are doing (ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume all members of the group has). It is not a nice word, and it is especially famous when it comes to those assumptions based on skin colour. So do tell, what is the practical difference between assuming that all members of religion X have properties B, C and D, and assuming that all members of race X have properties E, F and G? E.g. was the person that assumed that Ashley should learn English (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2038) correct in his assumption, in your eyes, since the "vast majority" (to use your own words) of Asian people can't speak English?

Edit: Forgot my conclusion: IMnpHO, the correct response to a label is to only ascribe the characteristics necessarily shared by the entire group. Whether the vast majority, or hell even 99.9% of all its members also have properties B, C and D is irrelevant. Do not make assumptions: this person in front of you might be the 0.01%.

Edit 2: since English somehow lacks the proper word that uniquely identifies USA-ers, I went ahead and borrowed one from Spanish.

Grey Wolf

memnarch

2015-04-24, 08:04 AM

Which was precisely my point: the vast majority of religious people do NOT also have the properties B, C and D that those USA Americans ascribed to me. My particular religion (like almost all religions) has order of magnitude more adherents outside the US than inside, and yet those USA Americans assume that all religious people are like USA American religious people (without even going into "do characteristics B, C and D even appear in the vast majority of USA American religious?" question, btw, which I'm doubtful off but am not qualified to state).

In fact, there is a word for what you are doing (ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume all members of the group has). It is not a nice word, and it is especially famous when it comes to those assumptions based on skin colour. So do tell, what is the practical difference between assuming that all members of religion X have properties B, C and D, and assuming that all members of race X have properties E, F and G? E.g. was the person that assumed that Ashley should learn English (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2038) correct in his assumption, in your eyes, since the "vast majority" (to use your own words) of Asian people can't speak English?

Grey Wolf

As opposed to what, Canada Americans? USA Americans is not a proper descriptor. It's like saying Germany Germans.

The word is stereotyping and Mormegil already used that.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-04-24, 08:07 AM

As opposed to what, Canada Americans? USA Americans is not a proper descriptor. It's like saying Germany Germans.

The word is stereotyping and Mormegil already used that.

False. The Mexicans are quite correct when they state that they are as American as people who live in the USA. Edit: and for that matter, so are Argentinians. There is no non-confusing USA patronymic, so you get a clarification. It is not like saying Germany Germans, it's like saying Germany Europeans, if "German" didn't exist. Or, to grab a real example, "Germany Dutch" to talk about the Pennsylvania Dutch immigrants to the USA.

Edit: reading a bit more on the topic of Mexican's trying to reclain the term American to mean everyone from the American continent, I have come across a word that means "person from the United States of America": estadounidense. I'll go ahead and replace that in my post above.

GW

halfeye

2015-04-24, 09:27 AM

False. The Mexicans are quite correct when they state that they are as American as people who live in the USA. Edit: and for that matter, so are Argentinians. There is no non-confusing USA patronymic, so you get a clarification. It is not like saying Germany Germans, it's like saying Germany Europeans, if "German" didn't exist. Or, to grab a real example, "Germany Dutch" to talk about the Pennsylvania Dutch immigrants to the USA.

Edit: reading a bit more on the topic of Mexican's trying to reclain the term American to mean everyone from the American continent, I have come across a word that means "person from the United States of America": estadounidense. I'll go ahead and replace that in my post above.

GW
Germany Germans?

Using English the way I do, that would be German Germans. Not that it's not still silly, it's just correctly silly now.

I have used "USAians" to refer to people from the USA before now, I think something like it is needed. It seems to me that there are two American continents connected by a landbridge. In my opinion they are not one continent, there is a landbridge, but there is a wider landbridge connecting Africa to Eurasia, and the difference between Europe and Asia is just how far West/North East/South you are.

Mith

2015-04-24, 09:33 AM

I am not American, though I live in North America... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29g57XTYgLE)

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-04-24, 09:35 AM

Germany Germans?

Using English the way I do, that would be German Germans. Not that it's not still silly, it's just correctly silly now.

I agree, but remember, we have to assume that the word "german" doesn't exist, just like there is no word for "person from the USA". I know it was grammatically nonsense, but I needed precision more than I needed grammatical correctness.

I have used "USAians" to refer to people from the USA before now, I think something like it is needed. It seems to me that there are two American continents connected by a landbridge. In my opinion they are not one continent, there is a landbridge, but there is a wider landbridge connecting Africa to Eurasia, and the difference between Europe and Asia is just how far West/North East/South you are.

Sure, but even if people of USA where referred as "North Americans", that would still be incorrect. Less so, but still incorrect.

To drag this back to the actual topic: am I the only one deeply disturbed with the possibilities of the spell? It looks like with enough development, Sarah could eventually be trapped in it, or be incapable of telling reality from the spell. That is a recipe for mental breakdown.

Grey Wolf

Cavelcade

2015-04-24, 09:46 AM

I would describe my feelings more on the intrigued side of the spectrum. Virtual vs. Real is a dichotomy I enjoy seeing explored, so it will be interesting to see how deep Sarah gets into it. I hope Dan will do it justice. Plus, it's a good opportunity to show aspects of a character.

It was great fun when Adventure Time did the episode "All the Little People" - it was able to show how dangerous being in control of your fantasies can be, especially if you're liable to feel guilty if things don't work out. It's actually one of my favourite episodes that show Finn's character, as well as being an interesting insight into the way the artists approach the show.

halfeye

2015-04-24, 09:53 AM

Sure, but even if people of USA where referred as "North Americans", that would still be incorrect. Less so, but still incorrect.

Grey Wolf
I entirely agree. It needs to be something short, even "USAian" is probably too long, especially as you need to pronounce the first three letters individually. Is USian possible? Can we slur that into "Usian" without it sounding horrid?

Pandora loves unpredictability, so the unexpected is a given (in so far as the unpredictable being predictable isn't an oxymoron).

Radar

2015-04-24, 11:33 AM

Edit: Forgot my conclusion: IMnpHO, the correct response to a label is to only ascribe the characteristics necessarily shared by the entire group. Whether the vast majority, or hell even 99.9% of all its members also have properties B, C and D is irrelevant. Do not make assumptions: this person in front of you might be the 0.01%.
To this I'd like to add just a few words: even if assuming B, C and D would be accurate 99.9% of the time and have very low probability of causing misunderstanding, when you encounter a person with quality A, for any person in those 0.1% it will happen Every. Damned. Time.

This is a very solid reason to forgo that particular label and even aquire aversion to labels in general.

Aside from that: could Sarah use her illusion spell while inside of her illusion spell and thus gain truly ludicrous time acceleration Inception style? And yes, I think the loss of accuracy clinches it for complicated equipment like computers.

edit: there were no typos here, you haven't seen anything. :smalltongue:

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-04-24, 11:39 AM

Aside from that: could Sarah use her illusion spell while inside of her illusion spell and thus gain truly ludicrous time acceleration Inception style?

Oooh, that's a good one I had not considered. We have spent so much time discussing whether electronics work, we have not even mentioned "will spells work?". That could be fun. In a "definitely will drive you mad, as described in Inception" meaning of fun.

And yes, I think the loss of accuracy cliches it for complicated equipment like computers.

I think you mean "clinches"? I am aware of cliches about lack of accuracy of simulations, but otherwise don't see how those would interact.

GW

The Mormegil

2015-04-24, 03:39 PM

Debate:

Which was precisely my point: the vast majority of religious people do NOT also have the properties B, C and D that those USA Americans estadounidenses ascribed to me. My particular religion (like almost all religions) has order of magnitude more adherents outside the US than inside, and yet those USA Americans estadounidenses assume that all religious people are like USA American estadounidense religious people (without even going into "do characteristics B, C and D even appear in the vast majority of USA American estadounidense religious?" question, btw, which I'm doubtful of but am not qualified to state).

Isn't that a language barrier? If I told you I was property A in italian, you wouldn't understand the word. English just has this little issue of being used entirely too much by too many different geographical groups that think they are using the same language. On to the real point:

In fact, there is a word for what you are doing (ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume all members of the group has). It is not a nice word, and it is especially famous when it comes to those assumptions based on skin colour. So do tell, what is the practical difference between assuming that all members of religion X have properties B, C and D, and assuming that all members of race X have properties E, F and G? E.g. was the person that assumed that Ashley should learn English (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2038) correct in his assumption, in your eyes, since the "vast majority" (to use your own words) of Asian people can't speak English?

Racism, noun. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.

So, ascribing a member of a group characteristics you assume most members of the group have is not racism. It lacks the part where you discriminate or act superior. Should I offer sunscreen to black people? I think not doing that isn't racist: I am ascribing to them characteristics (resistance to sunlight) that I believe most people of their race have. (For all I know, I'm wrong. I can reasonably assume to be statistically correct, however). As for the Ashley example: he's ignoring a good amount of context to make that assumption, but let's ignore that and say there aren't many asian people that are born in the USA (which is false). The problem there is how he acts on that information. If I saw an asian girl in a shop having trouble with something, should I not assume she is having trouble with the language and try and help her if I can? Is that racist? I don't think it is. If someone saw me at a party reading a math book (happened), they probably will think I'm a nerd. If they use that assumption to be a jerk, call me names and accidentally spill drinks on me, that's wrong (nerdism? :smalltongue:); if they tried to get me into their social circle and help me out in a context I'm not comfortable in, they wouldn't be. Both people act on the same assumptions and preconceptions, except one tries to help while the other is just being a ****. Maybe I'm a jock and just need to finish this book by tomorrow at all costs, but couldn't resist going to the party anyway? Should they not assume anything about me at all because there might be an extreme case? I don't like that. I'd rather take the reasonable risk and be wrong some of the times (unless the result is extremely offensive yadda yadda yadda - just make an informed average risk benefit evaluation).

(Now you might say we are naturally biased towards groups we are part of (which is true), but then everyone is racist, so I'm going to say striving to avoid those feelings is enough to say one person isn't racist.)

Edit: Forgot my conclusion: IMnpHO, the correct response to a label is to only ascribe the characteristics necessarily shared by the entire group. Whether the vast majority, or hell even 99.9% of all its members also have properties B, C and D is irrelevant. Do not make assumptions: this person in front of you might be the 0.01%.

Yeah, I don't like that. The way I see it, you are handicapping yourself due to risk aversion. Which I guess is fine if you believe the result of making a faux pas is bad enough. Which I guess is also comprehensible given that you were on the receiving end of this while I never actually was, and I probably am not going to be ever. Overall, though, I think that assuming something about someone and being proven wrong is not that bad. Also, the 0.01% is really statistically insignificant, so I have trouble caring about it: the world is made of exceptions, but is run by approximated models. And they work.

halfeye

2015-04-24, 04:00 PM

Debate:
Racism, noun. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.
If I were going to discuss this, that's not the definition I would use.

there aren't many asian people that are born in the USA (which is false).

No, that is true. To be an asian, you have to have been born in Asia, the USA is not in Asia.

Cavelcade

2015-04-24, 04:00 PM

Radar

2015-04-24, 04:08 PM

(...)Also, the 0.01% is really statistically insignificant, so I have trouble caring about it: the world is made of exceptions, but is run by approximated models. And they work.

You're missing the important point: Ashley is in this particular case that 0.1%. For her in particular, the misinterpretation happened every damned time. For her paritcular case it was way more practical to do away with the label, then to constantly deal with preconceptions about her.

Lord Raziere

2015-04-24, 05:14 PM

Debate:

Yeah, I don't like that. The way I see it, you are handicapping yourself due to risk aversion. Which I guess is fine if you believe the result of making a faux pas is bad enough. Which I guess is also comprehensible given that you were on the receiving end of this while I never actually was, and I probably am not going to be ever. Overall, though, I think that assuming something about someone and being proven wrong is not that bad. Also, the 0.01% is really statistically insignificant, so I have trouble caring about it: the world is made of exceptions, but is run by approximated models. And they work.

I don't know why I don't like this mindset.

But I do. Lets examine why.

Why would I dislike an attitude that can potentially offend 0.01% of people? well lets see, statistics are relative. in a world of what, 7 billion people by now? 0.01% of that is like what, 700,000 people? Whoa thats a lot. Why would I want to offend 700,000 people? I'd be afraid of offending even 700 people or 70 people. 700,000? are you CRAZY? Thats like a freaking town of people to offend. and only one of me. Not wise in any circumstance. Sure they're probably spread out. but I feel like offending one is offending them all, to insult someone because of a preference they have is to insult everyone who has that preference as well. its a principle I have to adhere to, regardless of how improbable the circumstances.

memnarch

2015-04-24, 05:15 PM

...

Edit: reading a bit more on the topic of Mexican's trying to reclain the term American to mean everyone from the American continent, I have come across a word that means "person from the United States of America": estadounidense. I'll go ahead and replace that in my post above.

GW

Estadounidense translates to mean "American", unless you go for the literal translation which is "Of, from, or relating to the United States." And if we want to be picky, there are two United States; the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. Context is everything, and things do have a typical meaning. If, for example, I said someone from Afghanistan was an Afghan and that I was wrong, despite being the generally accepted name for citizens of Afghanistan, I would call myself correct because I meant the blanket. You could also be a Lesbian while being male, simply because there's the Greek island of Lesbos.

In the same line of thinking, American, in English, has come to mean someone from the United States of America. More information is needed if the writer/speaker intends to refer to either or both of the continents with America in their name.

...
Aside from that: could Sarah use her illusion spell while inside of her illusion spell and thus gain truly ludicrous time acceleration Inception style? And yes, I think the loss of accuracy clinches it for complicated equipment like computers.

...
If that indeed can be the case, I guess we'll know what happened if Sarah ever passes out in a random coma some day. :smalleek:

Also related, I'm wondering how Dan will work in the NP story into the main comic. Will Sarah be freaking out about Pandora telling her all these things still? I hope this doesn't get only small reference when Sarah shows up again.

halfeye

2015-04-24, 06:23 PM

Estadounidense translates to mean "American", unless you go for the literal translation which is "Of, from, or relating to the United States." And if we want to be picky, there are two United States; the United States of America and the United States of Mexico. Context is everything, and things do have a typical meaning. If, for example, I said someone from Afghanistan was an Afghan and that I was wrong, despite being the generally accepted name for citizens of Afghanistan, I would call myself correct because I meant the blanket. You could also be a Lesbian while being male, simply because there's the Greek island of Lesbos.

In the same line of thinking, American, in English, has come to mean someone from the United States of America. More information is needed if the writer/speaker intends to refer to either or both of the continents with America in their name.
We need a word for "person from the USA". "American" doesn't do that, because America is a continent or continents, that include many other states. Common useage doesn't cut it as a test, because the majority can be factually wrong, as they are in this case.

Lissou

2015-04-24, 07:04 PM

I've known people who say "Users", probably partially because "user" is already a word, but I find it confusing. I tend to say "Statian" or "Stater" as in "someone from the States". I find it less confusing because, although there are other places called "United States of", those places are "United States of [Country]" meaning you can just use the country, while the USA is "United States of [Continent]" so using just the continent is confusing. I think a lot of people miss that distinction. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain in Northern Ireland" means "The United Kingdom that includes Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "The United States of Mexico" means "The United States that, together, form the country of Mexico". But "The United States of America" means "The United States that are all located in America" in the same way that "The European Union" means "The Union of countries that are all in Europe". (Which means that USA really is already a wrong term, since it doesn't include ALL the United States of America. It doesn't include the Mexican ones, which are also united states of America).

Just like you can't say "Europe" and assume everyone understands you're excluding all European countries that aren't part of the EU, you shouldn't say "America" and assume everyone will understand you're excluding all American countries that aren't part of the USA.

But since other countries have names that allow for different shortenings, I'm all for shortening the USA to US or even just States, even though "the states" just means "the countries" and is still confusing, I find it less confusing than using the continent.

French also have a noun and adjective for the USA specifically by the way. Étatsunien. That's also used for the language. As a translator, if I translate something from "American English", on the book it will say it's translated from "Étatsunien" (Since Canadian English is also a form of American English, so just "American English" would also be inaccurate and potentially confusing).

I think this debate about the USA makes it all too clear how labels can be unhelpful when the people are using them to mean different thing. Highlighted again by the user who pointed out "Asian" means "from Asia" even though it's often used to mean "person of a specific race regardless of where they were born or what their citizenship is". I'd add to that that even when people use it as a race, very often they mean East-Asian specifically and exclude Middle-Eastern or South-Asian, despite both being Asian historically (if you use it for "racial origin" and not "citizenship"). And of course white people who were born and raised in Asia, who are citizen of Asia, even who don't speak a word of English, would rarely be called "Asian" if they visit the US, even if they may very well identify as such.

halfeye

2015-04-24, 08:02 PM

Yuki Akuma

2015-04-24, 08:05 PM

When someone says 'American', you know they're talking about someone from the United States. People don't call people from North and South America 'Americans'. They call them 'North Americans' or 'South Americans'.

Similarly, if someone says 'The United States of America', you know they mean the country between Canada and Mexico. Just because the name is made up of vague-sounding words doesn't mean the name itself is vague. No one would ever think you meant Mexico or Canada.

'American' is the accepted English language demonym for 'person from the United States of America'. Just like 'British' is the accepted English language demonym for 'person from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', even though the UK isn't the only place with 'Britain' in its name.

See also: 'Chinese' despite there being two countries with China in the name, 'Dutch' even though people from the Netherlands aren't from Germany (Deutschland), etc.

Lissou

2015-04-24, 08:45 PM

When someone says 'American', you know they're talking about someone from the United States. People don't call people from North and South America 'Americans'. They call them 'North Americans' or 'South Americans'.

That is an assumption. I have, in the past, used "American" to meant "All Americans combined", and wouldn't have used either "North American" or "South American" because both would be too restrictive (since I meant both of those, plus Central Americans, plus possibly other Americans depending on how you divide up America). And I have heard people use it this way, too. Assumptions like this one are exactly the problem with labels. Yes, within the United States, people who say "American" typically mean "from the United States of America". That is not true of everywhere and it was something for me to adjust to when I moved to the US. You may think people are being disingenuous here just because they don't like the word, but it's not just that. I has been a problem for people in the past and that's why the issue gets raised.

Similarly, moving to the US caused me to have to get used to things like "This person isn't Christian, they're Catholic" because "Christian" is assumed to mean "Protestant" in the US, even though I didn't actually know the difference between "Christian" and "Catholic" before I moved because the former is used to mean the latter where I come from. Of course both uses are inaccurate anyway.

It's fine using labels if you know the person you're talking to has the same definition for them as you do. When you know that they don't, and you don't know a word they'd understand for what you mean, it makes more sense to use a sentence than a label to describe things.

EDIT: Also, when I learned the continents, "North America" did not include Mexico. Here, it does. So even using "North America" could easily be misunderstood if you don't first make sure you mean the same thing.

The Mormegil

2015-04-25, 12:01 PM

No, that is true. To be an asian, you have to have been born in Asia, the USA is not in Asia.

Point taken.

Lord Raziere

2015-04-25, 03:05 PM

Lissou

2015-04-25, 09:59 PM

I think if you're going for a word this long, US American works fine. It's more self-explanatory than "Eagle" and has the same number of syllables.

halfeye

2015-04-26, 11:18 AM

well, we got Canadian, Mexican....thing is, if we want separate names for the Americas and the US, we got to come up with something catchy and rolls off the tongue for the US.

maybe the term "Eagle-American" would be a good distinction? American to refer to the America continent in general, and Eagle to denote someone coming from the states, since we Eagle Americans seem to like Eagles a lot. how about that?
There are many animal possibilities, most of them potentially uncomplimentary:

Rattlesnake Americans? Armadillo Americans? Grizzly Americans? Beaver Americans? Coyote Americans? Alligator Americans? Boa Americans?

I think if you're going for a word this long, US American works fine. It's more self-explanatory than "Eagle" and has the same number of syllables.
Agreed, but I think it should be much shorter, it's something that will get abbreviated if it's long.

Lord Raziere

2015-04-26, 03:33 PM

Agreed, but I think it should be much shorter, it's something that will get abbreviated if it's long.

oh, how about Usamian? it rolls off the tongue, it's short for "US American" and it has SAM in it, like Uncle Sam!

Qwertystop

2015-04-26, 11:22 PM

So, more spell info - apparently, any modifications decrease accuracy.

Also, the commentary makes it clearer - the trait that gave the spell was probably her extremely vivid imagination.

Rater202

2015-04-26, 11:56 PM

Okay, revising my stance on computers based on new information.

As the information is present , Sarah should be able to access information on a computer-if she knows enough about how the computer is programed to find the file if she was using it in real life and proceeds to use the computer manually.

An idea of what folder it may also be required.

Otherwise she gets what she expects which might not be an accurate depiction of what's actually in the file.

The Mormegil

2015-04-27, 01:48 AM

Douglas

2015-04-27, 04:22 AM

This is a really cool way to phrase this spell. Also, I'm sure everybody believes Sarah when she says she's not going to use that spell to undress people without consequences. :smalltongue:

Although... Is she going to use it to undress Sam? I'm not sure Dan wants to go there. But it's kinda fun to imagine the reactions she, and him, could have to that.
That's barely even the tip of the iceberg of the Power Perversion Potential (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerPerversionPotential) inherent in this spell. I doubt Dan will ever make more than vague oblique references to such things in comic because it would make the comic extremely family-unfriendly, but just last Friday Pandora was telling us about how Sarah could "make the people around [her] act out whatever [she] wants with an illusion of autonomy". As this is all in Sarah's head, backed by her imagination, there probably really are truly no limits on that "whatever" bit.

Lissou

2015-04-27, 06:51 AM

Yes, I'm fairly certain it was a reference to her shipping people, and the ability she now has of making them do thing in her head, to each other or possibly to her.

The Mormegil

2015-04-27, 07:01 AM

That's barely even the tip of the iceberg of the Power Perversion Potential (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerPerversionPotential) inherent in this spell. I doubt Dan will ever make more than vague oblique references to such things in comic because it would make the comic extremely family-unfriendly, but just last Friday Pandora was telling us about how Sarah could "make the people around [her] act out whatever [she] wants with an illusion of autonomy". As this is all in Sarah's head, backed by her imagination, there probably really are truly no limits on that "whatever" bit.

I kind of want to know how far she is willing to go with it. Her friends are definitely fair territory for her imagination, so are they fair game for magically-enhanced imagination too? It feels different, but is it different from having a sexy dream?

Also the range is kind of a problem. You usually want to imagine sexy things in private, but she can't get the full use out of this spell in her house (unless her neighbors are hot).

Cavelcade

2015-04-27, 07:39 AM

It's possible she could populate the house with images of the people she wants there, based on how she imagines them to be. These images might be wildly inaccurate, but they'd be wildly inaccurate in the ways she wanted them to be.

As for a name for Americans from the US, why not Samites (based on the suggestion to work Sam in somewhere)?

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-27, 02:09 PM

I kind of want to know how far she is willing to go with it. Her friends are definitely fair territory for her imagination, so are they fair game for magically-enhanced imagination too? It feels different, but is it different from having a sexy dream?

Also the range is kind of a problem. You usually want to imagine sexy things in private, but she can't get the full use out of this spell in her house (unless her neighbors are hot).

Ya she can alter reality enough to make her fly and do other obviously impossible stuff. She may be able to "Snap her fingers" as Pandora said and just have them straight up appear magically. They might not look exactly like them or be slightly off but it should be accurate enough.

Is this different from just a sexy dream though? It feels different just because this is intentional rather than incidental. I still would say this is probably not like morally reprehensible though. It just seems like it would be similar to thinking of a fantasy while alone. He imagination is just a lot more detailed than a regular one would be.

The Mormegil

2015-04-27, 03:17 PM

Ya she can alter reality enough to make her fly and do other obviously impossible stuff. She may be able to "Snap her fingers" as Pandora said and just have them straight up appear magically. They might not look exactly like them or be slightly off but it should be accurate enough.

Is this different from just a sexy dream though? It feels different just because this is intentional rather than incidental. I still would say this is probably not like morally reprehensible though. It just seems like it would be similar to thinking of a fantasy while alone. He imagination is just a lot more detailed than a regular one would be.

I would have no qualms about it myself. The way I see it, it would be morally reprehensible NOT to use this power in its entirety. I'm just wondering how Sarah feels about it.

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-27, 06:36 PM

I would have no qualms about it myself. The way I see it, it would be morally reprehensible NOT to use this power in its entirety. I'm just wondering how Sarah feels about it.

Agreed I was just raising the question really. Also as Pandora noted that someone else in the government has this spell. Any chance it is Agent Craminum? (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1695) I think it is at least likely.

The Mormegil

2015-04-28, 01:29 AM

Agreed I was just raising the question really. Also as Pandora noted that someone else in the government has this spell. Any chance it is Agent Craminum? (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1695) I think it is at least likely.

Yeah, that's what everyone seems to be guessing. I'm starting to believe it's a bit too obvious; ultimately still the most likely though.

Silva Stormrage

2015-04-28, 04:18 AM

Yeah, that's what everyone seems to be guessing. I'm starting to believe it's a bit too obvious; ultimately still the most likely though.

Oh darn I thought I was being clever :smalltongue:. I don't check the official forums at all.

The Mormegil

2015-04-28, 08:19 AM

Oh darn I thought I was being clever :smalltongue:. I don't check the official forums at all.

Yeah I thought that too, and so did all of Twitter :smallredface:

The Mormegil

2015-04-29, 01:44 AM

Douglas

2015-04-29, 02:08 AM

So THIS is Pandora's scheme. "You can't use this totally awesome spell unless there's extra magic energy around, so have fun helping your friends taking care of the problem!" Uh, oh. Poor Sarah. :smallfrown:
Or maybe Sarah's gained power since meeting Jerry by using Tedd's watches all the time. The watches require the extra power near Moperville to work for most people, but I think they pull power from the user first, so using them may have exercised Sarah's (rather small) reserves of magic power.

Whether that's true or not, now that she has a spell of her own she should be able to build up power by practicing it a lot. The Moperville energy buildup may be a necessary training support tool for her for the moment, but she should outgrow it eventually. If all else fails, Tedd should be able to make a magic battery for her, like that gauntlet that let him see the invisible whale.

Rater202

2015-04-29, 07:18 AM

Yeah, it's been said that using devices like the watches can increase magical power and lead to Awakening.

Lissou

2015-04-29, 08:43 PM

Yeah, it's been said that using devices like the watches can increase magical power and lead to Awakening.

Ah. I thought since Tedd can use the watches fine but has 0 magical power and will never awaken, that the watches acted the same with everyone else and not just him. It seemed weird that it would increase people's power, but only if they weren't Tedd. I guess that's due to the whole rarity thing.

Mewtarthio

2015-04-29, 11:25 PM

I believe the watches draw power from the nearest available source. So, for most people, even non-magical ones like Sarah, they draw power from the wearer, which counts as magical exercise and makes them more likely to Awaken. For Tedd, who has no magical power (and presumably for people who've exhausted their own reserves, like burnt-out Nanase), the watches draw from Moperville's copious ambient energy.

Qwertystop

2015-04-29, 11:54 PM

Rater202

2015-04-30, 09:09 AM

Ah. I thought since Tedd can use the watches fine but has 0 magical power and will never awaken, that the watches acted the same with everyone else and not just him. It seemed weird that it would increase people's power, but only if they weren't Tedd. I guess that's due to the whole rarity thing.

Tedd done't have no magical power, it's just he doesn't have the potential to get spells.

The Watches are a magical implement-Like a Magic Wand.

you program the spell into the wand and it can be charged with magical energy-in the case of the watches, from Moperville's ambient magic.

It's not your power going into the casting, when you activate the implement, and it's not your spell, but you're still the one doing the casting and thus it counts as casting a spell as far as getting "experience" counts.

Tedd's problem is he has almost no magical potential, and thus can't cast spells of his own. He has to use implements like the TF watches.

Or at least that was the case before Pandora marked him. I get the feeling that his "more dangerous rarity" powers are not meant to interact with normal spells.

Lord Raziere

2015-04-30, 10:04 AM

Or at least that was the case before Pandora marked him. I get the feeling that his "more dangerous rarity" powers are not meant to interact with normal spells.

.....wait.

magical system with two things not supposed to go together + Dan is a magic the gathering fan + this reminds me of Mistborn = Tedd has a broken magic combo :smalleek:

Yuki Akuma

2015-04-30, 02:19 PM

Remember: Grace cannot use the watches, because her magical energy is incompatible with Earth-style magic. If the watches didn't draw on the user at all, that wouldn't be a problem - ergo, the watches do draw on the wearer.

Rater202

2015-04-30, 04:45 PM

Revision: Implements such as wands or the watches mostly draw on stored reserves or ambient magic.

The Ambient Magic being the reasons the watches work at all us something established

Qwertystop

2015-04-30, 04:51 PM

We still don't know if the ambient magic means everyone's got a bigger personal pool/faster regen rate or if the watches (and personal spells) are just drawing from it. Nothing's come up where there would be a distinction, except possibly Tedd's gauntlet (it's implied that it draws from what he's got, not ambiance, because if it drew from ambiance he wouldn't need to put it on to charge it. If it drains faster than he regenerates, its charging speed would be capped to his regeneration speed after the initial rush - given that, would leaving town change the speed of a long-term charge?)

Calemyr

2015-04-30, 04:53 PM

Qwertystop

2015-04-30, 05:34 PM

They took out Tengu by draining the energy in the environment. Without it fueling his transformation he got burnt pretty fast.

That works either way, though. We don't know whether Tengu's spell drew from both his personal pool and the environment (and, when the environment ran out, he couldn't keep it up running just off of his personal pool) or whether it drew only from his personal supply of magic, but the environmental magic was rapidly refilling that supply as it was used (same result - when there's no more environmental energy, he runs out and can't refill).

The only thing we know for sure about usage is that the guardian forms ran off environmental energy, but they're generally very odd. That just tells us that (some?) spells can use environmental magic directly. Separately, we know that Ellen stopped getting buildup issues when she left town for a short time, so environmental magic can also affect personal energy gain rates.

We don't know if spells other than the guardian forms (a special case in a lot of ways already) use environmental magic directly, or if the proportion of environmental to personal use can be varied if you know how apart from the guardian forms cheating it.

We do know that spell catalysts like wands and watches can store energy internally, but again we don't know how the environmental magic has an effect. It might be increasing the user's supply, it might be increasing the watch's battery capacity, it might be feeding into the spell directly, it might be a mix. Even Grace's inability doesn't really help - the watches can't cast spells on their own, or without the whole activation sequence, so even if all the required power is there directly from the watch and/or environment, Grace still couldn't trigger it.

In absence of further experiments (or appropriate situations), we don't know which is which for any of this. Of course, until then, it also sort of doesn't matter - until something comes up that makes a distinction again, like with Not-Tengu, it doesn't have any effect on what we see; if it did that'd be more evidence one way or the other.

Lissou

2015-05-01, 01:15 AM

Well, we got our answer/clarification with today's comic: Sarah is not stronger and does not have more magic energy, but using the spell over and over could cause her to awaken and develop her own magic energy. As it is, she's only using the ambient energy.

So I guess it's in Sarah's interest not to get rid of that extra energy right away. On the other hand, the more she uses her spell, the more she uses it up. If she uses it up somehow before she awakes.... I don't think that will happen, though.

Interesting all around, at any rate.

Douglas

2015-05-01, 02:59 AM

Ok, so I'm seeing ridiculously strong incentive for Sarah to use this spell all the time, to both exercise her metaphorical magic muscles and mitigate the magic energy overload problem. This might cause issues with secrecy and temptation, but I don't think it will turn her against solving the ambient energy problem; not if she's smart about it, at least - Tedd should be able to make a magic energy battery like his gauntlet for her.

Cavelcade

2015-05-01, 03:22 AM

Intellectually, yes, Sarah will still see the long term necessity of removing the ambient magic (probably). But I can see an emotional resistance to the idea coming to the fore pretty easily, possibly manifesting it as her trying to put off the inevitable getting rid of ambient magic and working against Tedd doing it straight away.

People are very good at justifying these things to themselves. I can see Sarah feeling extremely guilty over it and eventually doing the right thing, though.

Rater202

2015-05-01, 07:54 AM

As it is, she's only using the ambient energy.
Read the comentary-she does have some magical enrgy, but it's not enough to cast the spell-she uses up her own juice, then takes the ambient enrgy to fill in the gaps.

Ok, so I'm seeing ridiculously strong incentive for Sarah to use this spell all the time, to both exercise her metaphorical magic muscles and mitigate the magic energy overload problem. This might cause issues with secrecy and temptation, but I don't think it will turn her against solving the ambient energy problem; not if she's smart about it, at least - Tedd should be able to make a magic energy battery like his gauntlet for her.

Again in the commentary-constant use won't make her stronger-Her second casting was apparently all ambient energy as she'd used up her personal pool on the first spell. Contant would be bad, but a few times a day would probably work, with time in between to recoup her lost energy.

Lissou

2015-05-01, 09:27 AM

Read the comentary-she does have some magical enrgy, but it's not enough to cast the spell-she uses up her own juice, then takes the ambient enrgy to fill in the gaps.

True of the first time she casts it after a while, but if she casts the spell often, she'll be using only ambient energy from the second time on. If she wants to muscle her magic muscles she needs to wait long enough between each time she uses it. However if she wants to force an awakening she might need to use it pretty much non-stop. Those might get in the way of each other (although when she goes to bed hopefully that gives her time enough to replenish her energy. We don't really have a time frame of how long it would take her. Does it replenish slowly because she's not a strong caster and not able to replenish her energy as fast as more experienced users, or does it replenish fast because it's the same rate for everyone and she hits her cap really quickly?).

halfeye

2015-05-01, 10:42 AM

Again in the commentary-constant use won't make her stronger-Her second casting was apparently all ambient energy as she'd used up her personal pool on the first spell. Contant would be bad, but a few times a day would probably work, with time in between to recoup her lost energy.
There's the caveat at the end:

(assuming Pandora is to be believed)
That's a total let-out for the author changing his mind. We know she misleads (I'm not certain about lies because my memory is terrible, but probably that too).

Squark

2015-05-01, 01:47 PM

I don't think Pandora lies- Mostly because bending the truth is more fun for her, as opposed to any actual principles, but still.

Mewtarthio

2015-05-01, 10:43 PM

She does strike me as the sort of psuedo-fey creature that always speaks in half-truths just to inwardly chuckle at the irony of her words.

Qwertystop

2015-05-01, 11:03 PM

She does strike me as the sort of psuedo-fey creature that always speaks in half-truths just to inwardly chuckle at the irony of her words.

Exactly. She's almost definitely not actually unable to lie, but it's a fun little thing to do - maybe moreso with her, since she's all about unpredictability and little challenges.

Landis963

2015-05-02, 12:46 AM

So what's the other half of the truth?

Rater202

2015-05-02, 08:26 AM

I like to think that Pandora sometimes tells people the exact and complete truth, but relies on either her personal reputation or the reputation of the Fae-like immortals to make people misjudge her words-either they take her at face value and they do what she wants, or they distrust her and do the opposite of what she wants which could potentially lead to unpredictable results.

Evidence: Back when Magus first appeared, she told Wolf, Cranium, and Edward Verres exactly what happened, but did so in her "creepy child form" and did so using an egg metaphor.

Here she's telling Sarah exactly how her spell works, but is once again in creepy child form and all Sarah knows about her is she appeared on television and caused a panic, and that she's probably the one going around and marking people for mysterious reasons. Either Sarah believes her, or she doesn't do to not trusting the creepy magic child.

Gez

2015-05-04, 07:11 AM

http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2049

What is up with Ashley and books, though? I'd she allergic or something? In fact, that would be pretty funny.

She really likes reading, and is likely to get sucked in and trapped.

That would be funny after this setup. :smalltongue:

I think the most likely scenario is that she hates reading books - like, really can't stand it - but she's ashamed of it and is terrible at fibbing, so she's bound to do something really stupid (likely to impress Elliott). Liz, being level-headed, knows this is a really bad idea, they've discussed it before. Naturally Elliott is like, even worse when it comes to reading, so it's really all in her head. We have a lot of room for embarrassing misunderstandings.

The way Liz told her "no bookstore", my guess is that she loves reading, and Liz thinks such a nerdy thing would be a turnoff for guys (or even, it has been in the past).

Pretending you don't like something that you do doesn't sound like something Liz would encourage to me as that is more or less the definition of conformity.

Well. Maybe the reason is a bit more complicated, something like "books explode if Ashley gets too close to them" or something, but I don't think the reason is "Ashley doesn't like reading". Not from her reaction to being told to avoid the bookstore. Plus she wouldn't need to be told that if she didn't like books in the first place. So I think Ashley likes books and is likely to want to go to the bookstore but for some reason, it's a good idea for her not to.

Oh, well yea. I am leaning towards "gets sucked in" myself which is not the same as not wanting Elliot to know that she likes reading.

Oh, I see. I didn't mean "Liz doesn't want Elliot to ever learn that Ashley likes reading". I meant "Liz thinks that getting sucked into a book and completely ignoring your date as a result probably isn't a first date kind of thing to do and could completely blow her chances".

:smallconfused: really? You guys think she's into reading? :smallconfused: We'll see. I still think everything points to the contrary. There could be a subversion, but that's not what I expect here.

Then, why was her answer to "don't go to the bookstore" "what's wrong with bookstores?" rather than something like "eww, of course not! Those are full of books!"? And why would Liz have to tell her to stay away from a place she's already want to stay away from?

Look at her eyes. (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2025) Also, she literally says "books are great they're full of paper and have words in them".

As for why she'd have to stay away from the bookstore, I think it's to avoid to get in a situation where she'd feel forced to lie about reading (peer pressure and a culture of "reading is for smart people"), because she's really bad at lying. As you can see in the above panel, and as she said herself.

Because we have obvious evidence (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1777). Yes, she was a kid back then, but I have yet to find a person, who outgrew books or comics, when they really liked it before.

That's evidence she likes manga, not books. That's hugely different.

Here is an idea? Judging by the fact that Mr. Shive said something like "no one will guess this", I think it will be something Wacky (capital W). My guess is that the last time she went into a book store she ended up making a book fort, which Liz(?) had to spend the whole day coaxing her out of. The employees of said book store still have bumps on their heads from the books dropped on them when they laid siege on Ashley.

Well that was funny.

Lissou

2015-05-04, 07:24 AM

Gez

2015-05-04, 07:58 AM

I'm glad it got cleared out.

May I ask though why you removed the names and links in the quotes? I find it very useful to get to the original posts and, in your case, it's difficult to follow the conversation without all the names. And with the multiquote feature it's pretty easy to, well, multi-quote. Was is a personal preference, a length thing, or not knowing about the feature or something?

I'm just used to forums not allowing to quote stuff from locked threads, because the software assume I'm gonna try to post it in the closed thread instead of copy-pasting it to another tab, so I haven't tried here. Go to page 45 of the previous thread if you want to see who is guilty of being wrong. :smalltongue:

Lissou

2015-05-04, 09:40 AM

I'm just used to forums not allowing to quote stuff from locked threads, because the software assume I'm gonna try to post it in the closed thread instead of copy-pasting it to another tab, so I haven't tried here. Go to page 45 of the previous thread if you want to see who is guilty of being wrong. :smalltongue:

Nah, I'll be fine :) I know you can quote from other threads with the multi-quote option, but I'm not sure if the ability was removed for locked threads. I don't think so but can't be sure. Thanks for the explanation though :) It seemed like you went into some extra work so I was curious why.

Calemyr

2015-05-04, 03:06 PM

Exactly. She's almost definitely not actually unable to lie, but it's a fun little thing to do - maybe moreso with her, since she's all about unpredictability and little challenges.

So what's the other half of the truth?

Look at her deal with Magus.
At first: "Ellen's life depends on you staying here."
Later: "If you hadn't remained here, I wouldn't have saved her."

The first statement is absolutely true, but absolutely deceptive.

Temporal Echo

2015-05-04, 11:35 PM

Poor Ashley, dodge a bullet only to be hit by a car instead.

Adaon Nightwind

2015-05-05, 06:03 PM

I must admit that Dan's Commentary made me smile a lot. I've only ever known one person to zone out like that in a bookstore (or library), and that person is male. Experiences do shape our expectations :)

Ashley is really coming forward as a character, and i am looking forward to more Ashley-Elliot-Screentime. Plus, i am really curious about the development of their relationship in regard to Elliot's "female side" and Ashley's attraction to both parts of him. As Dan has shown time and again, he will handle it with carefull consideration and just the right amount of fun, and i am looking forward to the coming conversations regarding this topic ^^

Mith

2015-05-05, 11:53 PM

Elliot, the best thing to do when assuming is the K.I.S.S principle: Keep It Simple Stupid! :smallbiggrin:

The Mormegil

2015-05-06, 01:18 AM

Well I don't know about you, but to me that was the obvious conclusion to reach on Elliot's side. I mean, how could you not imagine something like that? :smalltongue:

Lizard Lord

2015-05-06, 03:05 AM

In regard's to Dan's commentary I am just imaging Dan slowly backing out of a room with a huge creepy grin on his face while insisting said grin doesn't mean anything.:smallbiggrin:

Lizard Lord

2015-05-08, 03:48 AM

Landis963

2015-05-08, 09:28 AM

In regards to today's comic commentary, when I think of conclusion jumping in friends that first thing I think of is the episode where Monica thought Chandler had a shark fetish. Yes. Seriously.:smallannoyed:

Really? The first thing that popped into my head was Ross' insistence that "WE WERE ON A BREAK!!!!!"

The Mormegil

2015-05-08, 09:57 AM

Really? The first thing that popped into my head was Ross' insistence that "WE WERE ON A BREAK!!!!!"

Well, they were. :smallbiggrin:

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-05-08, 10:11 AM

Well, they were. :smallbiggrin:

Oh, come on. Don't tell. Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjLrdghOLJ0). (Best punchline in the entire Friends run, IMnpHO).

GW

Landis963

2015-05-08, 02:02 PM

Oh, come on. Don't tell. Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjLrdghOLJ0). (Best punchline in the entire Friends run, IMnpHO).

GW

God bless Hugh Laurie and his acting career.

The Mormegil

2015-05-09, 07:38 AM

God bless Hugh Laurie and his acting career.

Word. :smalltongue:

Felius

2015-05-11, 06:22 AM

Elliot, is not that hard. Seriously. First step, call Tedd. Second step, ask Tedd to let you speak with his father. Third step, tell the nice government wizard that your new girlfriend for some reason or the other knows a little, and needs to be debriefed on magic enough so to minimize the risk to herself and those around her. That and he probably would appreciate the opportunity to do extra exposition to someone unaware. :smalltongue:

Lissou

2015-05-11, 07:58 AM

Elliot, is not that hard. Seriously. First step, call Tedd.

Elliot, calling someone, "not that hard"? :P He'd probably find it easier to sprint over there directly.

Felius

2015-05-11, 10:24 PM

Elliot, calling someone, "not that hard"? :P He'd probably find it easier to sprint over there directly.

That also works I suppose. :smalltongue:

Lizard Lord

2015-05-13, 03:09 AM

So....I have a theory that came with the newest NP, or specifically the commentary that came with it.

The two young immortals (that likely awakened Nanase and marked Susan when they were older) may have been forcibly retested (as we know that did not have a proper reset, which is why they have vague ideas of their memory rather than having them via the same method Jeremy has his) by Pandora. It would explain why they are following the group if they learned about Pandora's own interest in the group.

Also "when they were older" is a phrase that can only be used with either time travelers or EGS's immortals. :smallwink:

Mith

2015-05-13, 08:28 AM

I have to say that Pandora is becoming one of my favourite characters now.

The Mormegil

2015-05-13, 09:56 AM

Lissou

2015-05-13, 09:59 AM

I think the commentary might actually be trying to hint that Jerry can't hide from Pandora yet. Otherwise, no need to hint at something that was already outright stated in the exact same commentary.

Rater202

2015-05-13, 10:04 AM

SAlso "when they were older" is a phrase that can only be used with either time travelers or EGS's immortals. :smallwink:

Now, theoretically a timelord doesn't have to time travel, and could use the phrase "when I was older" to refer to being older biologically in a previous life than they are in now.

I'm quite fond of the phrase "When I was older and stupider".

The Mormegil

2015-05-15, 02:07 AM

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

Pandora in a nutshell.

Lizard Lord

2015-05-15, 02:30 AM

I'm half surprised Dan didn't add a "wait...what was that last part" (or something along those lines) after "sweet". :smallbiggrin:

Mith

2015-05-15, 11:48 AM

"May you live in interesting times."

Lamech

2015-05-24, 05:11 PM

I like the Friday NP comic. Its totally something an average scientist would care about. ".2997924579 Gm/s? DAMN! I need to get it up to .2997924581 Gm/s And one day I will! I know it! "

Qwertystop

2015-05-24, 05:42 PM

I like the Friday NP comic. Its totally something an average scientist would care about. ".2997924579 Gm/s? DAMN! I need to get it up to .2997924581 Gm/s And one day I will! I know it! "

Um. Not sure why that's in gigameters, but a meter per second isn't really such a small amount that it'd never be relevant.

And Tedd's going after something significantly more relevant - half height is still pretty big in a lot of ways. It's small enough to be inconvenient and possibly disorienting, but not really enough for a total shift in what you can do. Relative to the person shrunk, most things become unreasonably large, but you don't reach scales where they'd be used as completely different things (throw pillow as a bed, needle as a spear, etc.). You just end up with chairs being overly tall (and wide) chairs that you can't get to or sit on comfortably, and the same for most other furniture. The most you could get as far as new functionality goes is being able to get into doors sized for small children.

Radar

2015-05-25, 02:42 AM

Um. Not sure why that's in gigameters, but a meter per second isn't really such a small amount that it'd never be relevant.
It's in Gm/s because .2997924579 Gm/s is the speed of light, so pushing it even for a few m/s would be a very big deal, yet seem so small, when you look at the numbers. :smallsmile:

Qwertystop

2015-05-25, 07:54 AM

It's in Gm/s because .2997924579 Gm/s is the speed of light, so pushing it even for a few m/s would be a very big deal, yet seem so small, when you look at the numbers. :smallsmile:
Ah. Okay then.

Lamech

2015-05-25, 12:53 PM

Um. Not sure why that's in gigameters, but a meter per second isn't really such a small amount that it'd never be relevant.If I counted right its a differences of .2m/s technically. More to the point,[ its very small proportion-wise. And in most cases that's what matters. A millimeter tiny distance when talking about the height of a mountain or skyscraper. It probably changes by more than that through out the day. Its a huge distance when talking about distances in most proteins. In this case however:

It's in Gm/s because .2997924579 Gm/s is the speed of light, so pushing it even for a few m/s would be a very big deal, yet seem so small, when you look at the numbers. :smallsmile:

Technically its very slightly less if my sources were right. But yes, that was the issue.

Felius

2015-05-25, 06:51 PM

Ehh, what kind of crappy bookstore doesn't let you sit there all day and read its stock? Around here most of them even have cafes inside. :smalltongue:

Qwertystop

2015-05-25, 06:56 PM

So, are they going to get caught by a person walking up and seeing them, or by the addition of a new camera since the last time Ashley used that spot?

Personally, I expect the latter, with a cut to the security person, whose opinion is that there's no rule against it and he doesn't really care.

Rater202

2015-05-25, 07:02 PM

Ehh, what kind of crappy bookstore doesn't let you sit there all day and read its stock? Around here most of them even have cafes inside. :smalltongue:

Most f them make you buy the book first.

I think that's the point.

Lissou

2015-05-25, 07:25 PM

The stores I've gone too that are big enough to have security cameras also don't care if you read in them because they know they make more profit by allowing it than by forbidding it. But that's my sample, and I don't find it unrealistic that a store big enough and making enough profit to have security cameras would still get annoyed at people reading in it, especially in a mall. When it's a regular store, presumably people went in because they like books. In a mall store, though, they may have walked in to kill time only (although even people who walk in a book store to kill time may buy stuff).

I find that the main draw of people reading in bookstores, for the bookstores, is that people see you reading a book, and figure it must be a really good book for you to be stuck in it and reading it in an uncomfortable store because you just can't wait to know what happens next, so more people buy it. I is like a "[employee]'s favourite!" sticker, except people mistrust it less because the person "recommending" the book isn't getting paid.

Forrestfire

2015-05-25, 08:15 PM

My experience has been the same. When I was younger, my brother and I would go to Barnes and Noble to read manga for hours - no one ever really cared, even though we never bought any of those books (I would spend my holiday gift money on D&D books, but it's not like I was a regular enough customer for them to notice). There'd always be lots of people hanging around reading as well. The store had couches and comfy chairs set up for it, even.

Lord Raziere

2015-05-26, 12:18 AM

......I'm beginning to think that Ashley should have her own huggable plushy. she is just so adorably awkward in every comic she appears in.

Weimann

2015-05-27, 02:05 PM

If Elliot and Ashley didn't both come on on hedgehog-level of smoothness, I feel like Monday's page could have been a pretty charged moment between them. Luckily they're both awkward enough that neither was disappointed.

GAAD

2015-06-09, 11:59 PM

Heh. Tedd in today's NP reminds me of Yahtzee's playthrough of Ocarina of Time.

Mith

2015-06-14, 11:54 PM

Douglas

2015-06-14, 11:58 PM

My guess with the current comic (http://www.egscomics.com/) is that transformations are easiest when you have a clear image in mind, and that there is no clearer image than someone sitting in front of you.
I don't think it really has to do with Ashley being in front of him, but rather that the easiest way to do "about Ashley's size" is to picture Ashley, and if he does that all sorts of other aspects of her appearance will get pulled in.

Mith

2015-06-15, 12:40 AM

I honestly missed that point of "about Ashley's size." It still fits my idea of a clearer frame of reference, though.

Temporal Echo

2015-06-17, 10:04 PM

That is the cutest form of transformation sabotage I have ever seen.

The Mormegil

2015-06-18, 12:07 PM

She is so adorable

Douglas

2015-06-19, 05:05 AM

I think the "sabotage" worked.

Qwertystop

2015-06-19, 07:36 AM

I think the "sabotage" worked.

Uncertain. This is Elliott's change we're talking about - his default is big.

JohnTheSavage

2015-06-19, 09:07 PM

Uncertain. This is Elliott's change we're talking about - his default is big.

Not that big. He's at about double V5'd size with this transformation.

Rater202

2015-06-19, 09:44 PM

Clearly his default sized bust did not scale with his smaller body.

AGD

2015-06-22, 10:07 AM

Damn, stop making me jealous, Elliot!

I think, I know, what we'll have as a sketchbook tomorrow.

halfeye

2015-06-22, 11:32 AM

Elsewhere:

Today's comic continues to lack even the floating ashes of remnants. Today's el goonish shive update has more tension, and that's literally just the conclusion of a transformation sequence done for funsies! The only hope is S.S. BillBoar.
So, a slow day in the comics today?

Rater202

2015-06-23, 12:26 AM

Elliotshy is best Elliony.

Mith

2015-06-23, 12:26 AM

Especially looking at the sketchbook (http://www.egscomics.com/sketchbook.php?id=864), my first thought is "That has got to be a pain in the back."

Cavelcade

2015-06-23, 04:56 AM

Elsewhere:

So, a slow day in the comics today?

Some comics you read for fun, some comics you read because you can't stop yourself.

AGD

2015-06-23, 09:04 AM

Especially looking at the sketchbook (http://www.egscomics.com/sketchbook.php?id=864), my first thought is "That has got to be a pain in the back."

Elliots Super-Strength allows him, to wear that weight without problems.

The Mormegil

2015-06-24, 02:35 AM

How did I not think about it before? Well, calling it NOW: it's the griffon. It WAS relevant after all!

The Mormegil

2015-07-01, 02:41 AM

So I think this is the first time Elliot has ever said that he prefers being a girl sometimes. It was pretty obvious, but I think it's the first time he actually admits it.

Maybe he'll stop being dumb about his energy buildup now. He doesn't need an excuse to be a girl when he wants to be. His friends already are fine with Tedd, and his parents are the most forgiving and awesome parents ever. He could also count Ashley's bisexuality as an excuse if he really needs to.

Rater202

2015-07-01, 02:43 AM

Grace is scary about video games.

Radar

2015-07-01, 04:36 AM

Grace is scary about video games.
As if it wasn't know before. (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1090) But yes, Justin's weirded out look is totaly justified.

Also: I like the backgrounds in the latest comics. I kind of doubt that Elliot would catch that much of attention, but I'm a general fan of background stories and details - Girl Genius spoiled me that way. :smalltongue:

Silva Stormrage

2015-07-08, 12:34 PM

Man I know the pace for this date seems to be going decently slow (Or at least it seems that way to me) but I just love the Ashley/Elliot interactions. Awkwardness for all :smalltongue:

Weimann

2015-07-10, 08:03 AM

The Mormegil

2015-07-10, 08:14 AM

Man I know the pace for this date seems to be going decently slow (Or at least it seems that way to me) but I just love the Ashley/Elliot interactions. Awkwardness for all :smalltongue:

They are adorable. Just adorable. So awkward. So cute. The more Elliot stays with Ashley the more I can find him tolerable. Which is a big plus.

Lord Raziere

2015-07-13, 01:58 AM

.....and with monday's comic I just realized:

there are technically as of this moment four different lesbian couples in El Goonish Shive:
fem-Elliot and Ashley
fem-Tedd and Grace
Ellen and Nanase
Rhoda and Catalina

now you may argue, that Elliot is straight, but at the moment she seems to not have much of a problem with kissing Ashley while in female form, and Tedd is gender-fluid. this comic is already the gay singularity that Homestuck wishes it was.

The Mormegil

2015-07-13, 09:51 AM

Before today's update, I would have agreed with previous poster that the date, while cute, didnt have great momentum.

At this point, however, I find it hilarious.

Even if the most recent developments are sure to stir all kinds of things up, I'll admit that it was a while ago we had something like the dramatic climax of the battle with not-Tengu or Susan's confrontation with Tom. I realise that it can't be like that all the time, but right now it feels exceedingly mellow.

I mean, except for RIGHT NOW right now. How about that, huh?

This whole chapter is great for me. I am fine with not getting epicness out of everything, if the things we get are good. I wasn't fine with the MtG tournament arc going nowhere for about half a year, but it wrapped up nicely at the end (I'd still have cut like half of that stuff, especially Larry).

This arc, however, is comedy gold. It's awkward, cute, funny and ridiculous. And I'm ok with that :smallcool:

Lissou

2015-07-13, 04:23 PM

I actually loved the MTG arc and I'm not really interested in either of the stories going on right now (or any of the 3 stories, really, if you include current Newspaper comics. I enjoyed the Sarah arc while it was running though).

I'm waiting for the current stories to pay off or be over, whichever comes first, and for the strip to get back to stuff I'm more interested in :P I guess we have opposite tastes.

Rater202

2015-07-13, 04:33 PM

And that's okay.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more of Sam, see where that goes.

Lissou

2015-07-13, 04:57 PM

And that's okay.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit more of Sam, see where that goes.

Now I'm thinking about his date with Sarah, and the fact that Sarah now has a power... How is she going to use it during their date?

Silva Stormrage

2015-07-13, 06:21 PM

Now I'm thinking about his date with Sarah, and the fact that Sarah now has a power... How is she going to use it during their date?

Oh wow thats temptation, might be hard to use though without getting up to use the restroom or something like that. Otherwise Sam will be seeing Sarah just closing her eyes concentrating on something for like a minute or so :smalltongue:

AGD

2015-07-14, 02:47 PM

Lord Raziere

2015-07-14, 03:38 PM

What does gay singularity mean.

I dunno, thats just something Hussie said.

Quoth Hussie:

homestuck will eventually reach a gay singularity. mark it down. it will make korra look like republican propaganda.

he has a long way to go before he even reaches El Goonish Shive levels- he has only one gay relationship going (RosexKanaya), he just broke up the second (MeenahxVriska) so he is now down to 1/4 the levels of lesbian that EGS has.

halfeye

2015-07-14, 04:40 PM

Sidesaddle? sidesaddle?

Sidesaddle is about protecting the hymen from accidental breakage. I'm not saying that Sarah isn't a virgin, but even so, is the physical object that important to her?

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-14, 04:52 PM

Sidesaddle? sidesaddle?

Sidesaddle is about protecting the hymen from accidental breakage. I'm not saying that Sarah isn't a virgin, but even so, is the physical object that important to her?

I suspect that a broom or pole would be exceedingly uncomfortable when ridden in the "traditional" position (on a horse, you have a saddle. Even on a bike you get a bit of a wide area to rest your weight on, insufficient as that area usually turns out to be). IIRC, Harry Potter actors did not enjoy filming Quidditch green screen. Side saddle might be a less uncomfortable way to sit on one of those, regardless of any other considerations.

Grey Wolf

Rater202

2015-07-14, 04:54 PM

I'm not sure that's a Forum appropriate topic.

halfeye

2015-07-14, 05:45 PM

I suspect that a broom or pole would be exceedingly uncomfortable when ridden in the "traditional" position (on a horse, you have a saddle. Even on a bike you get a bit of a wide area to rest your weight on, insufficient as that area usually turns out to be). IIRC, Harry Potter actors did not enjoy filming Quidditch green screen. Side saddle might be a less uncomfortable way to sit on one of those, regardless of any other considerations.

Grey Wolf
Yeah, except you could grip with your legs if you were rolling off, which it seems to me is an idea which deserves some consideration even when flying straight and level. Some sort of saddle might well be good, and wouldn't be difficult to devise, bicycle saddles should be adjustable to fit for example.

Forrestfire

2015-07-14, 06:44 PM

Occam's Razor regarding the pose: as stated in the description, based off of this image :smalltongue::smallwink:

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110514043635/leagueoflegends/images/4/48/Lux_SorceressSkin_Ch.jpg

Lissou

2015-07-14, 06:55 PM

I figured it was based on the image but had the same though. For balance reasons, I would sit the normal way on this, no sideways. And that has nothing to do with hymens, as far as I know. This way of riding was developed when women wore long dresses/skirts, which means they had to lift them and reveal their legs if they rode the normal way. Since showing one's legs was indecent, this way of riding was developed. When it became obvious that it led to many more accidents due to lack of balance, women were allowed to wear pants but only for horse-riding in many places. Those laws are sometimes still in place although not enforced.

Since the character is already showing her legs, this way of riding makes no sense except for aesthetic reasons, i.e. it's considered sexier.

Silva Stormrage

2015-07-24, 11:18 AM

Hold on, maybe I am being stupid here but why is Elliot freaked out that Tensaided is calling him? He already showed him that he "knows" Cheerledra. I don't see any reason why he would be calling now.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-24, 11:30 AM

Hold on, maybe I am being stupid here but why is Elliot freaked out that Tensaided is calling him? He already showed him that he "knows" Cheerleadra . I don't see any reason why he would be calling now.

I think the implication is that the Cheerleadra moment has not yet happened at the time of this date with Ashley (all those silent stills happened "at some point during the summer" not necessarily concurrent with the storyline). If so, he's freaked out because he can't answer with a girly voice, and because he's just been reminded he still needs to go through with the (implied) promise to have Cheerleadra and Tensaided meet.

Edit: yeah, thinking about it, that doesn't quite work - this has to be happening after school is back in session, so either he forgot to do the Cheerleadra thing before start of school (and therefore, it is still pending, and the still moment didn't happen during the summer, despite its title), or he did do the Cheerleadra thing, and Tensaided is calling because he needs Superhero help, and the last panel of today's comic is a misdirection. Maybe. Or of course other possibilities I'm missing.

Grey Wolf

Silva Stormrage

2015-07-24, 11:44 AM

I think the implication is that the Cheerledra moment has not yet happened at the time of this date with Ashley (all those silent stills happened "at some point during the summer" not necessarily concurrent with the storyline). If so, he's freaked out because he can't answer with a girly voice, and because he's just been reminded he still needs to go through with the (implied) promise to have Cheerledra and Tensaided meet.

Grey Wolf

What? No, the Cheerledra meeting moment happened during the summer in the "Previous summer moment" section. It is winter already. The Cheerledra moment definitely happened already unless I am totally misremembering what happened and when.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-24, 11:47 AM

What? No, the Cheerledra meeting moment happened during the summer in the "Previous summer moment" section. It is winter already. The Cheerledra moment definitely happened already unless I am totally misremembering what happened and when.

Yes, sorry, I realised that after I posted (see edit above). I've tried finding an up-to-date timeline, but the wiki I've seen stops short of the summer.

GW

Calemyr

2015-07-24, 11:52 AM

What? No, the Cheerledra meeting moment happened during the summer in the "Previous summer moment" section. It is winter already. The Cheerledra moment definitely happened already unless I am totally misremembering what happened and when.

I don't think you're misremembering. It's clearly winter (all the pre-date commentary on coats vs dresses), and that event was established as happening during the summer.

It is very likely that we're about to see more of that event now, and that Tensaided's perception is better than we give him credit for - enough that if Elliot answers with a female voice it will be proof enough to completely convince him that they're the same person.

I gotta say, as adorkable as Elliot/Ashley may be, Dan is going to some effort to show a very strong chemistry in play.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-24, 11:59 AM

Calemyr

2015-07-24, 12:09 PM

Are those people in the background of panel 4 running? If they are, and they are running away from/towards some big event near Tensaided's video rental store, it might reinforce the "Tensaided needs superhero help" hypothesis of mine. I still don't see how that meshes with the double "oh-crap" face moment, though.

GW

If you're reading it right, the double oh-crap seems well deserved if you look at it.

* He can't answer the phone with a female voice or Tensaided will know for sure.
* He can't jump to help because Ashley doesn't know about him being Cheerleadra yet.
* He can't get Ashley to screen his call because, again, she doesn't know about it.

Elliot is in a very tight position if something is going down at the video store. He can't leave Tensaided hanging, he can't leave Ashley wondering what happened, he can't get back to male form out in the open, and he can't rely on Ashley because she doesn't know about it all.

Of course, the point of this would be to force Elliot to tell Ashley about Cheerleadra, placing him in a position where the only way out is revealing the secret. I doubt he has much to worry about, though. Given Ashley's easy adaption to Elliot being a gender shifting, slime igniting, internet celebrity, super martial artist, I don't see how she'd take Elliot being a superhero as well as being anything but another "so cool" aspect to him.

Wow. I just said that. This comic is weird.

Radar

2015-07-24, 12:12 PM

Sidenote: Elliot still has the phone, but does it originaly have a heart on it? :smallbiggrin:

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-24, 12:17 PM

If you're reading it right, the double oh-crap seems well deserved if you look at it.

He can't answer the phone with a female voice or Tensaided will know for sure.
He can't jump to help because Ashley doesn't know about him being Cheerleadra yet.
He can't get Ashley to screen his call because, again, she doesn't know about it.

All that justifies the current "oh crap" face (although I'm unsure if he has had time to think through the whole scenario - Ashley has looked back at where those people are running to, but Elliot is looking at his phone the whole time). However, I still don't see how that connects to the last panel "oh crap" face. That one is definitely a "Elliot has forgotten he still needs to do something difficult", with "forgotten" seemingly the key component due to the "What are you" bit. I'm not sure how that connects to the current situation - what is he suddenly realising he has forgotten to do, just from a phone call from Tensaided?

Grey Wolf

memnarch

2015-07-24, 12:26 PM

If you're reading it right, the double oh-crap seems well deserved if you look at it.

* He can't answer the phone with a female voice or Tensaided will know for sure.
* He can't jump to help because Ashley doesn't know about him being Cheerleadra yet.
* He can't get Ashley to screen his call because, again, she doesn't know about it.

Elliot is in a very tight position if something is going down at the video store. He can't leave Tensaided hanging, he can't leave Ashley wondering what happened, he can't get back to male form out in the open, and he can't rely on Ashley because she doesn't know about it all.
...

He totally could. Just because you've got your phone, doesn't mean you're in a position to answer it. Some situations include driving, swimming, noisy environment, can't get through layers of winter clothes, etc.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-07-24, 12:32 PM

He totally could. Just because you've got your phone, doesn't mean you're in a position to answer it. Some situations include driving, swimming, noisy environment, can't get through layers of winter clothes, etc.

...Playing "Doctors" with your date in a changing stall...

Calemyr

2015-07-24, 12:37 PM

All that justifies the current "oh crap" face (although I'm unsure if he has had time to think through the whole scenario - Ashley has looked back at where those people are running to, but Elliot is looking at his phone the whole time). However, I still don't see how that connects to the last panel "oh crap" face. That one is definitely a "Elliot has forgotten he still needs to do something difficult", with "forgotten" seemingly the key component due to the "What are you" bit. I'm not sure how that connects to the current situation - what is he suddenly realising he has forgotten to do, just from a phone call from Tensaided?

Grey Wolf

The flashback "oh crap" is to tell us that the Cheerleadra event hadn't happened at that point, and that it's likely to happen soon. Elliot forgot about it and suddenly realized he really should do something about that ASAP. We're going to see Tensaided and Cheerleadra meet, and Tensaided's going to say or do something that makes Elliot very cautious around him.

He totally could. Just because you've got your phone, doesn't mean you're in a position to answer it. Some situations include driving, swimming, noisy environment, can't get through layers of winter clothes, etc.

He could, yes, but then he wouldn't be Elliot. Elliot is a very responsible and empathetic young man. This isn't about how Elliot looks to others, it's about how he sees himself. The idea of knowingly leaving Tensaided in a state like he would be in (in this crisis hypothesis), it would tear the guy up. Jumping into action would be an acceptable alternative, but that would require abandoning Ashley in the middle of a very successful first date with no explanation. That's not cool, either. So he's in a pinch created by his own personal morals - hurt Ashley, leave Tensaided unanswered, or reveal something to Ashley much earlier than he'd otherwise feel comfortable doing so.

The crisis could quite probably be tied to the cloak monsters the gang are researching now, turning into a tag team between friends who are officially unaffiliated against a magical foe. This would explain why the two events are happening concurrently.

Silva Stormrage

2015-07-24, 08:09 PM

Ya with the people running in the background (I didn't notice them at first) I am betting for Tensaided needing heroing assistance. More than likely dealing with the cloaked things wandering around. Cue Ellen and crew getting a text and arriving on scene fairly quickly :smalltongue:

Lizard Lord

2015-08-06, 11:58 PM

"Well, I believe that sufficiently explains the "Oh crap" reaction as well as framing it like he forgot something important.

Weimann

2015-08-12, 10:54 AM

Well there goes all pretense of secrecy. I think Elliot prefers that anyway.

Also, one hell of a first date.

Ashley's reaction to this will be very interesting. On the one hand, Elliot is literally an embodiment of a fantasy she's had since she was a child, and also a superhero. On the other, is that kind of inequality really good for a relationship? Compare with Susan, who found herself not ready to be involved with Elliot even knowing of his powers. I wonder if Dan will address this, or if it'll just be "best boyfriend ever!"

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-12, 11:14 AM

On the other, is that kind of inequality really good for a relationship?

But she already knew going in that he was way more "powerful" in a martial arts sense than she is. This is a guy that will parkour walls to return a cellphone rather than walk around three students. He also took down a goo monster. Yes, his power level increases when he becomes Cheerleadra, but the imbalance existed before she knew his secret (she was just not aware of the size of the differential), so she is presumably fine with it.

Also, I disagree about this inequality being at all relevant to the relationship, but I have little to back it up other than my gut feeling, so feel free to consider it my subjective opinion, and therefore to ignore it.

Grey Wolf

Lizard Lord

2015-08-12, 11:28 AM

Did we miss a panel where they both took cover or did Elliot just change into Cheerleadra in the wide open where anyone could see? :smallconfused:

I mean I suppose he didn't look anything like Elliot or Ellen at the time, (or like anyone else for that matter) so I suppose it would be fine if he did as long as he doesn't use that particular form again.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-12, 11:37 AM

Did we miss a panel where they both took cover or did Elliot just change into Cheerleadra in the wide open where anyone could see? :smallconfused:

He did check out the area around her before he transformed, so it might be that the coast was clear enough. But as you yourself point out, it's not like she can be recognised as Elliot in her current form - it makes the buxom short girl shape the fourth "secret" personality of Cheerleadra.

Interesting that he can change from an altered shape to Cheerleadra, when she cannot change from Cheerleadra to anything other than Elliot and the three designated secret personalities, though. Nevermind, I think that's not actually true - he just didn't want to transform back to Elliot in front of Justin's Ex.

Grey "yes, I pretty much randomly picked the pronoun each time, just like I do with V" Wolf

Douglas

2015-08-12, 04:14 PM

Interesting that he can change from an altered shape to Cheerleadra, when she cannot change from Cheerleadra to anything other than Elliot and the three designated secret personalities, though. Nevermind, I think that's not actually true - he just didn't want to transform back to Elliot in front of Justin's Ex.
I'm having trouble finding the specific strip now, but I do remember Elliot explicitly stating that limitation, I think in conversation with Ellen.

Also, one hell of a first date.
I'm wondering what she'll tell Liz about it.

Ashley: Best! First date! Ever!!!!!!
Liz: Really? What happened?
Ashley: Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...................... *stares blankly while trying to figure out what non-secret thing she could possibly play up as worth that exclamation*

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-12, 05:06 PM

I'm having trouble finding the specific strip now, but I do remember Elliot explicitly stating that limitation, I think in conversation with Ellen.

Oh, so maybe I didn't imagine it? To the archives!

...

Found it (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1273). So yes, I'll restate: Interesting that he can change from an altered shape to Cheerleadra, when she cannot change from Cheerleadra to anything other than Elliot and the three designated secret personalities.

Grey Wolf

Qwertystop

2015-08-12, 05:22 PM

Most likely reasoning: Turning to Cheerleadra changes his abilities. The same as how he can't change to any of the alter-egos without going super first. Elliot has a turn-into-a-girl spell and a turn-into-Cheerleadra spell. Cheer then has turning back into Elliot (which may or may not be a spell - we don't know if Cheerleadra is an enchantment or a changed default) and the alter-egos.

malloyd

2015-08-12, 06:30 PM

He did check out the area around her before he transformed, so it might be that the coast was clear enough. But as you yourself point out, it's not like she can be recognised as Elliot in her current form - it makes the buxom short girl shape the fourth "secret" personality of Cheerleadra.

In a more conventional superhero comic, this might also have marked Ashley as a close enough friend to be a target for Cheerleadra's enemies. But in this setting I don't think she has any serious ones. Harassment by paranormal enthusiasts is probably about the worse she is at risk of.

The Mormegil

2015-08-13, 06:47 AM

malloyd

2015-08-13, 10:42 AM

I didn't think of that, but it's true. :( Now I want Ashley to get a mark.

Depends on the inequality. "My date is physically stronger than me" isn't usually something women have a problem with. Being outclassed in everything would be more iffy, but they seem pretty even in brains or social skills.

Rater202

2015-08-13, 12:42 PM

Equality is about more than ability.

There's a joke about a woman who finds a bottle with a genie inside, and it's the benevolent kind, and eventually the woman falls in genuine love with the genie, and the genie falls in genuine love with the woman, and the woman starts plotting ways to free the genie so that they can have an equal relationship.(That's not the joke. I'm not 100% sure the actual joke part is board safe)

Going by ability, there's no way that's an equal relationship, but as far as the couple is concerned, they'll be equal as soon as the genie is free.

Elliot doen'st seem like the kind of guy who plots to make all of the decisions, nor the kind of guy who deliberately leaves decisions for his partner to do.

Since Ashley has a similar personality to Elliot, well, she's not likely to deliberately try and make all of the decisions or foster decision making of onto her partner.

Landis963

2015-08-13, 01:44 PM

There's a joke about a woman who finds a bottle with a genie inside, and it's the benevolent kind, and eventually the woman falls in genuine love with the genie, and the genie falls in genuine love with the woman, and the woman starts plotting ways to free the genie so that they can have an equal relationship.(That's not the joke. I'm not 100% sure the actual joke part is board safe)

It's not. Foglio adapted it into one of his dirty comics, under the name of "Wish Fulfillment." (hur hur hur)

The Mormegil

2015-08-13, 04:54 PM

But she already knew going in that he was way more "powerful" in a martial arts sense than she is. This is a guy that will parkour walls to return a cellphone rather than walk around three students. He also took down a goo monster. Yes, his power level increases when he becomes Cheerleadra, but the imbalance existed before she knew his secret (she was just not aware of the size of the differential), so she is presumably fine with it.

Also, I disagree about this inequality being at all relevant to the relationship, but I have little to back it up other than my gut feeling, so feel free to consider it my subjective opinion, and therefore to ignore it.

Grey Wolf

Depends on the inequality. "My date is physically stronger than me" isn't usually something women have a problem with. Being outclassed in everything would be more iffy, but they seem pretty even in brains or social skills.

I'm not thinking about combat abilities, I'm thinking about awesomeness.

"My partner has all the cool transformation stuff I always dreamed of, and is a superhero. I dance soccer."

Rater202

2015-08-13, 04:56 PM

I'm not thinking about combat abilities, I'm thinking about awesomeness.

"My partner has all the cool transformation stuff I always dreamed of, and is a superhero. I dance soccer."

Yeah... There's no way she's not getting at least a watch at some point.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-17, 12:22 PM

Did we miss a panel where they both took cover or did Elliot just change into Cheerleadra in the wide open where anyone could see? :smallconfused:

And now we have our answer: she did change in the middle of an open walkway, in plain sight of the surrounding mall-goers.

Grey Wolf

halfeye

2015-08-17, 12:36 PM

And now we have our answer: she did change in the middle of an open walkway, in plain sight of the surrounding mall-goers.

Grey Wolf
Which makes Ashley a target for Cheerleadra haters, or fans, or whoever. Sounds like a bad plan to me.

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-17, 12:41 PM

Which makes Ashley a target for Cheerleadra haters, or fans, or whoever. Sounds like a bad plan to me.

Remember, Cheerleadra transformations come with in-built "hardcore identity protection" (link (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1265)) - all cameras in the vicinity will not work, and for all we know the magic may go as far as erasing memories; anyone that doesn't already know who Ashley is will be unable to photograph her for a while, and may be unable to remember much of her face either.

Edit: wait, that might be Noah's spell. Sorry. I still wouldn't be surprised if Cheerleadra comes with a similar security feature.

That said, I disagree it's a bad plan because clearly there is no plan to be good or bad: Elliot is being impulsive.

Grey Wolf

Silva Stormrage

2015-08-17, 03:57 PM

Ya, Elliot is just being super impulsive and I think at least someone in the mall might just backtrace the footage of Ashley today and notice that Elliot == Cheerledra.

From the camera's point of view.
Cheerledra is Girl-Elliot who was with Ashley
Go back to the clothing store
Find them leaving the bookstore
Notice them leaving a blind spot
Notice that Elliot is the one who ENTERS the blindspot and he never comes out and they can't find him again

Not 100% ironclad but close enough for anyone at the Mall with access to that stuff.

Or the government could get involved but hey speculation :smalltongue:

Calemyr

2015-08-17, 04:27 PM

Lizard Lord

2015-08-18, 02:46 AM

Silva Stormrage

2015-08-18, 02:21 PM

The in-comic supernatural detectives (unless Charlotte and Diane now count, which I suppose they might) and the branch of the U.S. government that deals with this stuff is already aware that Elliot=Cheerleadra.

Oh ya but the average mall security guard isn't and they might leak it to the general public is what I was saying.

malloyd

2015-08-18, 10:23 PM

Ya, Elliot is just being super impulsive and I think at least someone in the mall might just backtrace the footage of Ashley today and notice that Elliot == Cheerledra.

Theoretically maybe. But I'm not sure all that is actually accessible to mall security (in store security cameras may well be under the control of the individual store managers), and you'd have to go through a lot of footage. For something that's not a crime - which is after all presumably what we are paying you to look for. And if you did trace Cheerledra, well, that information has no usefulness to the mall management, and might very well expose them to some sort of liability should you, say, reveal her identity and it lead to somebody harassing her. Why are we letting you spend all those working hours on this again?

Calemyr

2015-08-19, 09:09 AM

Is Moperville large enough to have two "malls"? It's big enough for two schools, so I'm not sure. Given that it took Ellen and Nanase to solve the mystery of the Mall Goblin, I don't really think mall security is good enough to find their own handquarters, much less trace a camera-glitching superhero back to a makeout booth changing room in a store. Everyone else who was watching at the time saw some top-heavy short girl turn into Cheerleadra, not Elliot.

I'm not saying that mall security is actually bad, per se. Just not imaginative. Many of the answers to the mysteries of Moperville require the application of facts the public has trouble accepting, much less embracing. Like magic being real, elven looking immortals who prefer suicide to boredom, humans turning into monsters to escape mortality, shape-shifting aliens and their hybrid progeny, and extra planar "space whales" that eat magical energy to keep the flow of the world in balance. If you don't accept these things as fundamental facts of life, most of the weird stuff that happens in Moperville simply cannot be solved.

Lissou

2015-08-19, 03:05 PM

Calemyr

2015-08-19, 03:16 PM

I'm pretty sure Cheerleadra is NOT camera-glitching. The first time she appeared, she had to fly the scene because she looked like Ellen so she couldn't afford to be filmed up-close. I think her secret identities are her "privacy setting" while Noah's is the glitching.

Fair point. I think I did get them mixed up. Still, it's Sabotage Girl that they saw turn into Cheerleadra. How many people are going to track it back further in the first place?

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-19, 03:31 PM

Still, it's Sabotage Girl that they saw turn into Cheerleadra.

Not even that. I mean, yes, Sabotage Girl was attracting many stares (unclear how many even looked at her face on those cases, though), but I would guess the vast majority of on-lookers only started watching Cheerleadra when she turned on the light show. By that point, they had missed what she looked like beforehand.

Grey Wolf

Lizard Lord

2015-08-20, 12:15 AM

Rater202

2015-08-20, 12:42 AM

In response to the commentary of the current NPS comic; Why would the prequels be what makes Darth Vader irredeemable? In a New Hope he BLEW UP AN INHABITED PLANET! That's genocide yo'. That's small potatoes to everything evil he did in the prequels combined.

I'm pretty sure it was the other guy who blew up the planet, so Vader is only guilty becuase he didn't stop him.

In the Star Wars Prequels, a not evil Anakin exterminated a large number of sand people, even the children, and then an evil but not yet Vader later murder a large number of Jedi Younglings in cold blood because Palpatine said so.(As opposed to doing the less evil and more intelligent thing and brainwash and educate them so that they can be raised as dark side force users employed as elite soldiers for the Empire)

Being personally responsible for the murder of children is, while from a practical stand point, a lesser crime than deliberately not stopping a planet's destruction, from a emotional perspective, Anakin being personally responsible for the deaths of the children is worse than him being indirectly responsible for the greater tragedy.

Also, The Original Trilogy is ultimately about Vader's redemption, while the Prequels were about Anakin's Fall, so the narrative will treat his crimes differently, and a different narrative treatment will color the views of the audience.

Douglas

2015-08-20, 05:53 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2015-08-20, 05:59 PM

Update.
If I'm interpreting this dialogue correctly, the cloaked figure is seeking Elliot only as a means to finding someone else - someone female that Elliot knows.

Maybe it's really looking for Cheerleadra?

The other clocked figure was said to sound female, so maybe this one's looking for the other one? There was speculation early on that the female one was the griffin Elliot help with directions - and this one, with it's bifurcated scorpion-like tale, is quite likely NOT a griffin, I think.

Grey Wolf

Lissou

2015-08-20, 06:27 PM

Yeah, my guess is it's looking for the Griffin. Or possibly for Ellen. Lots of people seem to be after her.

Qwertystop

2015-08-20, 06:30 PM

Hm. Can't get a handle on its thought process. It seems to recognize "German dark" as referring to a last name, where I personally would have read it first as beer and second as ethnicity, but it doesn't get that it only fits as a name of translated.

Dusk Eclipse

2015-08-20, 09:02 PM

If the cloaked figure is indeed looking for the Griffin, perhaps it is a Manticore? It does fit the scorpion-like tail.

Gadora

2015-08-21, 01:09 AM

Lissou

2015-08-21, 04:49 AM

I took that to be the cloak, wrapped around a long lion tail? The bifurcation need not be part of the tail itself, I mean. But I might be doing that thing where I go 'oh, hey the beak says it's a griffon, which totally fits with what others have said' and then looked at the tail and found a way to make that fit.

Oh yeah, picturing a griffin under it, I can totally see that. The beak is open, the eye placement is correct, and I can see the head feathers and the wings... Could be a lion's tail then I guess but on the other hand the position of the tail seems pretty weird to me, and the bifurcation is sharp. Still, looks more like a griffin than a manticore

EDIT: EGS NP

Well, someone got restyled. With that make-up on and the face being smoother, he looks way more like a girl, and... way less like himself. I didn't recognize him right away, and wasn't sure until I read the commentary.

Rater202

2015-08-21, 10:09 AM

Griffons are sometimes depicted with a snake for a tail.

Maybe in EGS, it's a case of Sexual Dimorphism.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-22, 02:24 PM

Griffons are sometimes depicted with a snake for a tail.

Maybe in EGS, it's a case of Sexual Dimorphism.

I thought that was chimeras.

Rater202

2015-08-22, 02:57 PM

I thought that was chimeras.

Traits are not mutually exclusive. Just because one thing has a thing, that doen'st mean other things can't have the same thing.

Also, mythologically speaking, a Chimera is a fire breathing creature with the head and forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters(and sometimes horns) of a goat, and the tail of a serpent. Not a snake tail.

It's only modern fictionalized depictions of Chimera that depict them with multiple heads and snake for a tail(and having dragon parts instead of or in addition to the snake parts)

Lizard Lord

2015-08-22, 09:25 PM

Traits are not mutually exclusive. Just because one thing has a thing, that doen'st mean other things can't have the same thing.

Also, mythologically speaking, a Chimera is a fire breathing creature with the head and forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters(and sometimes horns) of a goat, and the tail of a serpent. Not a snake tail.

It's only modern fictionalized depictions of Chimera that depict them with multiple heads and snake for a tail(and having dragon parts instead of or in addition to the snake parts)

Fair enough, though I had also heard that the origin of the griffin was noble houses combining the two animals that best symbolize nobility (the eagle and the lion) and use it as their own banner.

Hytheter

2015-08-22, 09:38 PM

Also, mythologically speaking, a Chimera is a fire breathing creature with the head and forequarters of a lion, the hindquarters(and sometimes horns) of a goat, and the tail of a serpent. Not a snake tail.

It's only modern fictionalized depictions of Chimera that depict them with multiple heads and snake for a tail(and having dragon parts instead of or in addition to the snake parts)

Um, that's totally wrong.
This is from 400 BC (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Chimera_d'arezzo%2C_fi%2C_04.JPG/1920px-Chimera_d'arezzo%2C_fi%2C_04.JPG). You can also just image search "ancient greek art chimera" to find a whole lot of stuff that looks like that and very little that doesn't.
The ancient greek poem Theogony also describes it thus: "[Echidna] was the mother of Chimaera...who had three heads, one of a grim-eyed lion; in her hinderpart, a dragon; and in her middle, a goat, breathing forth a fearful blast of blazing fire." The Bibliotheca says the same.

It's worth noting that the Greek word for dragon also means snake, which may explain that part of the interpretation.

Rater202

2015-08-22, 09:52 PM

Um, that's totally wrong.
This is from 400 BC (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Chimera_d'arezzo%2C_fi%2C_04.JPG/1920px-Chimera_d'arezzo%2C_fi%2C_04.JPG). You can also just image search "ancient greek art chimera" to find a whole lot of stuff that looks like that and very little that doesn't.
The ancient greek poem Theogony also describes it thus: "[Echidna] was the mother of Chimaera...who had three heads, one of a grim-eyed lion; in her hinderpart, a dragon; and in her middle, a goat, breathing forth a fearful blast of blazing fire." The Bibliotheca says the same.

Do you have the entire quote? Because the way it looks now, it looks like the stuff after the ellipses is referring to Echidna, rather than the Chimera.

I'd like to have the entire relevant part of a quote before responding to it.

Regardless, my initial education about the mythology used the "one headed" variant, and as that is a statue, not a myth...(and as stories and depictions change over time...)

Hytheter

2015-08-22, 10:19 PM

You can read the whole thing here (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hes.+Th.+319). The part I ellipsed out was just more description of Chimera but that wasn't relevant to my point.

It's not describing Echidna because Echidna is described in the previous passage (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D27 0) as a half nymph half snake creature.

Like you said, myths can vary over time and from place to place. But your initial comment was stated as an absolute, when in fact a good deal of available material contradicts it.

edit: "and as that is a statue, not a myth..." is a pretty poor argument, by the way; clearly the statues and artworks depicting chimera are inspired and based upon the myths and stories that tell of it. And in turn they probably inspired retellings of the stories. You can't just divorce the images from the text and say that only the latter matters.

Rater202

2015-08-22, 10:40 PM

There are however plenty of cases where the images are based on the artists interpretation of the text, and sometimes the artist may misunderstand.(I have seen illustrations on books or films based on books where the description is nothing like the image.)

But yes, I assumed that how I had been educated was the absolute truth.

malloyd

2015-08-23, 07:10 AM

You can read the whole thing here (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hes.+Th.+319). The part I ellipsed out was just more description of Chimera but that wasn't relevant to my point.

I'd say that description doesn't actually tell you anything about the body or tail at all. It describes the heads, a lion, goat and dragon, arranged front to back, nothing at all about the body they are somehow mounted on. You might be able to read it as the dragon head faces backwards (i.e. replaces the tail), but that's about it.

Hytheter

2015-08-23, 07:44 AM

I'd say that description doesn't actually tell you anything about the body or tail at all. It describes the heads, a lion, goat and dragon, arranged front to back, nothing at all about the body they are somehow mounted on. You might be able to read it as the dragon head faces backwards (i.e. replaces the tail), but that's about it.

My point was that it does indeed have multiple heads, whereas rater claimed that it had only one.

Besides, as I stated already, a significant amount of period artwork does in fact depict it with head replacing the tail.

The Mormegil

2015-08-28, 10:13 AM

I totally want a cookie now.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-28, 04:17 PM

Huh, it has a non-lion cat tail. Lots of people called it being a griffin, but did anyone call that? :smallconfused:

Mith

2015-08-28, 07:09 PM

Considering that Dan wanted to make it clear that this was a different griffin entirely, the tiger body was probably the clearest that he could do to make the point that this was a different griffin.

Lissou

2015-08-28, 10:13 PM

Lizard Lord

2015-08-29, 03:03 AM

Well, we can't see the end of the tail, so there might still be a tuft of fur there (I actually assumed there was until your comment). I took the tiger thing to be a pattern but yeah, come to think of it, could be a tiger's tail too I guess.

Regardless of whether or not it is fluffier at the end of the tail than the rest of it, what is shown is still not a lion tail.

Lissou

2015-08-29, 04:51 AM

Regardless of whether or not it is fluffier at the end of the tail than the rest of it, what is shown is still not a lion tail.

True, it's a griffin tail.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-29, 04:59 AM

True, it's a griffin tail.

Heh. :smallamused:

But, you know what I mean, right?

Lissou

2015-08-29, 05:12 AM

Heh. :smallamused:

But, you know what I mean, right?

Yeah, I do :P. If it has the shape of a lion's tail and the marking of a tiger's tail, it's really neither. But it could also be considered both. What I meant was that we're not entirely sure of the shape of the tail, since we didn't see the end of it. When she was cloaked, her tail seemed bigger towards the end, so I'm waiting to see if that's the case or if it was just the way the cloak wrapped around her tail or something.

Not that this is terribly relevant, but the shape of the tail did cause some speculation at the time, as it looked a bit scorpion-like, so I'm curious what the tip of it looks like.

halfeye

2015-08-29, 06:08 PM

AGD

2015-08-30, 01:34 PM

Another Thing. After the reveal of Elliots Gender...somethingness the most important white male Cis-Hetero Moperville Student in the Story is... Noah.

Yuki Akuma

2015-08-30, 01:52 PM

malloyd

2015-08-31, 04:17 PM

I think this is mostly because there's a slight imbalance towards female students as secondary characters for whatever reason.

EGS still has plenty of white cis-male heterosexual characters. They're just not students.

Glancing over the minor characters list, there may be as many male students as female ones who have gotten on panel names - Noah, Tony, Ronin, Matt Cohen, Cecil, both Toms, Erik, Gary, Gerald, Victor, Matt and Rat - though none of them have had a lot of lines, which makes orientations a little hard to assign.

Radar

2015-09-01, 05:36 AM

Good Tom has a girlfriend and bad Tom was a manipulative skirt-chaser (or how should I call it), so in their case we can at least say, they are attracted to women. Where they exactly fall on scale is up in the air though. The awful duo from the comic book store are supposedly interested in women as well even if all women around wished they weren't (see latest card tournament).

Qwertystop

2015-09-01, 11:25 PM

Oh, Dan.

Oh, Susan.

Lizard Lord

2015-09-02, 12:55 AM

Y'know I can't help but wonder if Tiger Griffin is an abusive spouse that Other Griffin is trying to escape from. Other Griffin seemed to be rather polite, but this one is all set to dispel and kill rather than just explaining the situation and asking for help.

Though I suppose the other possibility is that Tiger Griffin thinks Eliot kidnapped Other Griffin. That would also explain the reaction while not being quite as dark.

The Mormegil

2015-09-02, 12:53 PM

Y'know I can't help but wonder if Tiger Griffin is an abusive spouse that Other Griffin is trying to escape from. Other Griffin seemed to be rather polite, but this one is all set to dispel and kill rather than just explaining the situation and asking for help.

This was my first thought upon hearing that she was looking for her wife. If someone could do that storyline while maintaining a light tone it's probably EGS, so here's hoping.

halfeye

2015-09-02, 01:05 PM

This was my first thought upon hearing that she was looking for her wife. If someone could do that storyline while maintaining a light tone it's probably EGS, so here's hoping.
I want an update!

Egneil

2015-09-03, 12:11 AM

It looks like we're having a case of a literal genie.

As for the abused spouse angle; I never got that vibe. To me it looked more like the ancient wanted something from the griffin or from Eliot. I mean you can get the same initial actions by leaving certain things unsaid, and if you don't want to seem manipulative you can get the victim to ask you to start omitting things.

That's just my take on the scene though.

Lizard Lord

2015-09-03, 03:44 AM

theNater

2015-09-03, 04:20 AM

Are ancients and immortals the same thing?

Because, if so, that would mean that the French Immortals broke the rules (Jerry even flat out said that they lied). I suppose that could be added to the list of theories on how/why the French Immortals "died".
It's a reasonable guess; they apparently have similar reactions to rule-breaking.

The strip in question (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1117) leaves a bit of room for interpretation. It's possible they misled the girls without direct lies and Jerry didn't want to wrangle with the technicalities. Still worth putting on the theory pile, I'd say.

Calemyr

2015-09-03, 10:58 AM

Pretty sure "ancient" is just another term for immortal, probably favored by the more mythical set like gryphons.

I'm also guessing that the French immortals pulled a "from a certain point of view" twist on their words, so that they were telling the truth in a misleading way. From a certain point of view, they were already tied into events, thus the only ones suitable to finishing it. From a certain point of view, the fact that the abomination had already targeted them made them better suited to solving the problem, because the abomination might have been too smart to target professionals. From a certain point of view, they manipulated two scared girls to the purpose of equipping a new generation with the tools to fight monsters. Jerry is certainly looking at it from that last perspective.

Note that even the renegade immortal, Pandora, still obeys the rules. She tells the truth, even if she has to bend events to make it the truth ("Ellen would have died if you had left this school, because I would not have saved her.") She "guides" and "empowers" as a proper immortal should, but does it in ways no proper immortal would. She consistently follows the letter of the law while actively disobeying the spirit of the law. I'm sure she even has some legal justification for neglecting her scheduled deaths.

Lizard Lord

2015-09-03, 09:15 PM

I suppose it is also worth mentioning that being "incredibly knowledgeable and wise" doesn't mean you are never wrong (heck, it doesn't even mean never doing something stupid). Unless it was a just longer way of saying omniscient, but I very much doubt that.

theNater

2015-09-04, 02:10 PM

I'm sure [Pandora] even has some legal justification for neglecting her scheduled deaths.
I was under the impression the deaths aren't legally mandated, just a really good idea. Certainly, Jerry's description (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=1112) never indicates that failure to reset is a crime, merely that the likely consequences constitute a faux pas.

malloyd

2015-09-04, 02:53 PM

I don't see any particular reason to believe griffins are particularly up on the details of the rules of immortal society anyway. And the core here is an old, old problem: How do we know the Gods don't lie? Well they said so themselves....

Temporal Echo

2015-09-04, 06:54 PM

This is starting to feel like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you go to Elliot you can find out where your wife is, but Elliot has no clue what is going on with Griffon #1. However, Ellen and the others just happen to be discussing it because Griffon #1 & #2 are spotted and act differently enough for the investigation group to realize that there are 2 cloaked figures instead of 1, allowing them to tell Ashley who just happens to be there to serve as the go-between between Ellen and Elliot. This allows Griffon #2 to learn more about Griffon #1 because #2 caused an incident that caused Ellen to provide the information to Ashley who is taking it to Elliot, something that would not have happened had the ancient not had Griffon #2 cause a fuss. This makes the ancient's words at least somewhat true BECAUSE the ancient said them and caused the chain reaction that would make them true. Had the Ancient said nothing then it would not be true because Griffon #2 would not be in the mall to make Ashley call Ellen and get the info needed to help resolve the issue.

The interesting thing here though is the fact that Elliot now knows that the is a 'energy clog', leading one to wonder whether or not this whole mess was meant to give the heroes more info on Pandora's plans.