There's something about Minrah...

[Nitro~Nina]

Okay, so, first of all, I absolutely adore Minrah. She's great. She's an absolute ray of sunshine and her insights into the characters around her are a treat, not to mention being the exact sort of well-rounded good-vibes bruiser that really suits the fully-fledged Order of the Stick. Having recently caught up on the comic for the first time since about 2017, I was absolutely stoked to both meet her and then find out that she was joining the party.

There are also a couple of things that caught my eye which I thought were pretty rad, and that's mostly what this post is about:

With what Thor says to her in 1135 "OMG" (bottom middle panel), obviously there's something Going On with her. This could be some sort of dark secret, I suppose, but it didn't come off that way to me. Those are the eyes* of someone experiencing total validation from their favourite person ever, though after the comic being so chill about same-gender relationships it would be a little surprising if that was what she was talking about.

So that was percolating through the ol' noggin for a while. Then I read what she says to Belkar in 1194 "Spiritual Counselling", specifically in the bottom-left panel... I don't know whether or not this was intentional, but that little comment on how great it feels for new people to get to meet the new you after a big change? As a trans person, that resonated so, so strongly with me, particularly with her follow-up in the middle panel. It really is the best feeling ever and, while Minrah's insight into Belkar's more moral journey might simply relate to her guard-to-cleric switch (or some as-yet unseen moral shift in her own life), it felt so much like a "Hey! We recognise this experience!" to me that I felt it was worth mentioning.

I don't know that Minrah is trans and I don't want to make assumptions, but I wouldn't be surprised by it and I think it's probable that the ongoing parallels are intentional given obvious awareness of Gender Stuff in the past. Regardless, it's cool and made me happy to read!



*Okay so they're dots, but they're expressive dots!

[Laurentio III]

Had the same feeling, but as there is no way to know, skipped the issue.
For sure, Thor being the brother of Loki and a cool guy all around, wouldn't be prejudiced.

[Anymage]

Rich has stuck his foot in his mouth pretty solidly with trans issues before, so I don't foresee him making trans issues front and center in the comic at any point down the line.

Still, I'll happily headcanon Minrah as trans. And would be overjoyed if Rich basically said that he wouldn't make a plot point of it on account of being worried that he'll bung something up, but that he's happy to call it Word of God and won't ever write anything to dispute the idea either. Characters have been turned into accidental trans icons before (I'm thinking Chromie from WoW), and representation is better for their existence and later acceptance into canon.

[Metastachydium]

I don't know that Minrah is trans and I don't want to make assumptions, but I wouldn't be surprised by it and I think it's probable that the ongoing parallels are intentional given obvious awareness of Gender Stuff in the past. Regardless, it's cool and made me happy to read!

It's unlikely (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?570891-I-think-there-can-be-trans-characters/page6&p=23428093#post23428093), I'd say.

[Laurentio III]

It's unlikely (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?570891-I-think-there-can-be-trans-characters/page6&p=23428093#post23428093), I'd say.
The Giant stated that he won't joke on the argument. Minrah would be the opposite, a positive character taken seriously, and with remarkable discretion.
It's just head-canon. There are vibes of the argument, not straight-up evidences.
I'd leave it this way. It's nice, it's relatable. No need to spoil it.

[Nitro~Nina]

It's unlikely, I'd say.

In that case, if indeed it is implied with Minrah, I suspect that it'll stay implied. I'm very happy to see the comic mature on its representation of this issue as it has with V's gender, but if The Giant has stated that he's not interested in explicitly representing that experience, particularly in the interests of avoiding hurt, then I'd imagine that he won't. It's a shame, but I appreciate the caution for what it is.

I agree with Anymage that it's unlikely to ever be front-and-centre, even if only for narrative Elan-y reasons in the last arc with a newdf character, but a chill acknowledgement wouldn't go amiss.

[KillianHawkeye]

Isn't she referring to her story from a few panels earlier about how she was a town guard who wanted to be a Cleric, and everyone told her she wouldn't make it as a Cleric but she did it anyway? And now when she meets new people, they don't see her as "not Cleric material" because they're just meeting her as a Cleric?

I mean, it could be an allegory to being trans, but she's literally just talking about any big life change and the before and afters thereof.

[Fyraltari]

If memory serves, you're not the first one to suggest this notion.

Because of the post linked above, I don't think this is intentional on the part of the author. However, this does not make the interpretation any less valid!

The scene with Thor seems to me an exercise in ambiguity. What I mean by that is that the point of the scene is to demonstrate that Thor is a "cool" god, who accepts his worshipers as they are and doesn't want for them to change themselves to please him. Minrah is or does something that she feels shame for and Thor tells her that it is not shameful. Leaving it unstated what Minrah's secret shame is allows for all readers to relate to Minrah, in that we all have something we've hidden from people we care about/wished they'd accept.

The scene with Belkar is about all changes, all reinventions of the self. It makes a parallel between Minrah's career/class choices and Belkar's growing empathy. The message is that change is always possible, despite all the naysayers in the world, and always worth it if it makes you a better, more authentic version of yourself.

Basically, this is the beauty of applicability in action. By not being symbolic of a specific issue, Minrah allows every reader to project any issue they care deeply about in her and get a positive message out.

Fiction only exists in the minds of the people that consume it. To you Minrah is transgender, and so it is true. To someone else, Minrah may mean something else and that is true as well.

So, if it makes you happy that Minrah is trans, let no one tell you that she isn't. Because you are right.

[Chronos]

If any particular character in this comic is trans, we'd probably never know it. In our world, trans people can get surgery and hormone treatments and the like to shift their bodies closer to matching their minds, but it's an incomplete process, that still leaves clues to the body they were born with. So it's possible for trans people in our world to be recognized as trans.

But a D&D world is magical. With magic, it's possible to change the sex of a person's body completely and permanently, with no sign of their previous sex (provided you wait long enough for your hair to grow out). So the only plausible way to know someone's birth sex would be for them to tell it. And why would anyone bother to tell?

[Coppercloud]

If memory serves, you're not the first one to suggest this notion.

Because of the post linked above, I don't think this is intentional on the part of the author. However, this does not make the interpratation any less valid!

The scene with Thor seems to me an exercise in ambiguity. What I mean by that, is that the point of the scene is to demonstrate that Thor is a "cool" god, who accepts his worshipper as they are and doesn't want for them to change themselves to please him. Minrah is or does something that she feels shame for and Thor tells her that it is not shameful. Leaving it unstated what Minrah's secret shame is allows for all readers to relate to Minrah, in that we all have something we've hidden from people we care about/wished they'd accept.

The scene with Belkar is about all changes, all reinventions of the self. It makes a parallel between Minrah's career/class choices and Belkar's growing empathy. The message is that change is always possible, despite all the naysayers in the world, and always worth it if it makes you a better, more authentic version of yourself.

Basically this is the beauty of applicability in action. By not being symbolic of a specific issue, Minrah allows every reader to project any issue they care deeply about in her and get a positive message out.

Fiction only exists in the minds of the people that consume it. To you Minrah is transgender, and so it is true. To someone else, Minrah may mean something else and that is true as well.

So, if it makes you happy that Minrah is trans, let no one tell you that she isn't. Because you are right.

Can I sig this beautiful post of yours?

[Fyraltari]

Can I sig this beautiful post of yours?
It would be my honor.

[Coppercloud]

It would be my honor.

Thanks and done (with the limitation on the number of characters, sadly). I don't even know exactly what touches me in it, but here I am, I just wrote my first ever signature :smallredface:

[Rrmcklin]

I feel, and have always felt we're unlikely to ever find out what Minrah was talking about, because that wasn't actually the point of the scene and there's no indication it has any relevance to what will be going on. It was just to establish somethings about Thor, as well as add a little more to Minrah having a life outside of the story even if that life won't matter for the story.

So you can project whatever you want onto it, and while I'm pretty sure the Giant has said he's not going to include trans matter in this story because he feels like he's already poisoned the well on that front, I'm sure he'd love to know that a trans person (probably more than one, actually) felt validated by it. Or that anyone felt validated by something he wrote, for that matter.

[brian 333]

Whatever the Dark Secret Thor Is Cool With may be, I don't think it is gender identity. I also don't think it is anything else, either.

I think that Stickworld does not care about gender identity. People are as they present themselves, and it matters far more what your classes and levels are than what you carry under your faulds. While I realize that many people find representation important, my personal opinion is that it is better that being yourself is just normal rather than something that is weird and needs representing. In Stickworld, it's normal. Why would she think Thor would care about that?

But I also think the author intentionally left it blank so that readers could fill in the blank with their own Dark Secrets and find a measure of non-judgemental acceptance. So, if you want to think it meant, "Being trans is okay," then that's what it means.

But I think there is another clue that may speak louder on that subject, which also has multiple possible interpretations: when Minrah went to see her mother, she reported that her mother's response was to look at baby pictures and sigh. Did that mean she was worried that Minrah might die before giving wwwher grandchildren? (She did, in fact, do just that.) Did it mean Minrah put her career before family? Did it mean she identified as male and never wanted to become a mother? We don't know.

Thor's advice, "You do you," seems appropriate here. Fill in the blanks so they make sense to you, and let that be canon until the author says otherwise. (I'm betting he won't.)

[Xirdus]

Fiction only exists in the minds of the people that consume it.

Eh, I'm not fan of this view on art. OOTS is an actual webcomic on an actual website/in actual books made of specific pictures and worst telling a specific story. Even if nobody read it, it would still exist and tell the same story with the same pictures and words. You can tell it's an actual thing because one can be objectively, provably wrong about it. If I said Minrah never met Belkar, you can pull up an actual comic where Minrah talks to Belkar to show that I'm definitely wrong beyond any doubt. It wouldn't be possible if OOTS only existed in my mind.

And I'm not just being technical. There's this one school of thought that says all art is up for the interpretation by the receiver, and every interpretation is equally valid even if it disagrees with the author themselves. I subscribe to the opposite view, that the only valid interpretation is that which the author had in mind when creating that work (and no take-backs). Sometimes the work intentionally has multiple interpretations, and then they're all equally valid. Sometimes the work is intentionally vague so that no possible interpretation is actually right. And of course, we can't read the author's mind so we'll never know what the intention was. But we can make educated guesses. I believe trying to discover the true meaning of a work is an essential part of experiencing art. But it wouldn't be possible to discover anything if every interpretation was equally correct. That's why it's essential for some interpretations to be plain wrong.

That said, headcanons aren't bad. They're works of art themselves - a cross between fanfiction and critical analysis, in a sense. They're fun and enriching to engage in, and isn't fun and enrichment the whole point of art? But headcanon will always be distinct from actual canon. That should always be kept in mind (no pun intended). It's totally valid - as a headcanon - to believe Minrah is transgender. Nothing in the comic contradicts it, so why the hell not. And if it puts her actions in a new light, all the better. But a headcanon where she's secretly a cleric of Loki would be wrong. Because she just isn't.

That was my 3 copper pieces. You can now go back to having fun.

[Fyraltari]

Eh, I'm not fan of this view on art. OOTS is an actual webcomic on an actual website/in actual books made of specific pictures and worst telling a specific story. Even if nobody read it, it would still exist and tell the same story with the same pictures and words.
If no-one read it, there would only be pictures on a screen. The act of reading is what makes it a story. Minrah does not exist, it is our minds who perceive a pattern in the colors and constructs a character we call Minrah. Ceci n'est pas une naine, as Magritte would put it.


I subscribe to the opposite view, that the only valid interpretation is that which the author had in mind when creating that work (and no take-backs).
So all the people enjoying Troll 2 for obviously different reasons than its creator are wrong?


Sometimes the work intentionally has multiple interpretations, and then they're all equally valid. Sometimes the work is intentionally vague so that no possible interpretation is actually right. And of course, we can't read the author's mind so we'll never know what the intention was. But we can make educated guesses. I believe trying to discover the true meaning of a work is an essential part of experiencing art.
When a comedy movie shows low-income characters as oafish and crude and high-income characters as snooty and weak, do you think it would be wrong to see the movie as a reflection of contemporary class struggles if the filmmaker says she only wanted to make some fart jokes without any message to it?

Art does not exist in a vacuum, it is the expression of the people who made it and of those who consume it.

A message needs three components: a sender, a channel and a receiver. Without either there is no art. A painting is not a painting until someone looks at it, just shapes of pigments. The meaning is constructed by the receiver from the elements the sender used to create the channel.



But a headcanon where she's secretly a cleric of Loki would be wrong. Because she just isn't.
But that is not an interpretation of the text. That is just a lie about the text. Intepretations are built from the text, they do not contradict it. That just wouldn't make any sense.

[Ionathus]

After giving an assignment, my writing professor sometimes said "write something that interests you, and don't worry too much about what it means. That's for the Lit Majors to figure out." :smallbiggrin:

While I get where you're coming from, fiction (and art as a whole) is much, much more open to interpretation than its "original" meaning. We wouldn't still be performing Shakespeare if it hadn't been allowed to evolve alongside English-speaking culture for the past 4 centuries. The Elizabethan messages and themes simply don't apply to us in the same way they did to the original audience.

While I'm not in full-on "Death of the Author" camp, I definitely believe that a work can take on significant meaning beyond the original creator's intent. The creator's opinions on their work are important, and it feels silly to work towards finding an interpretation that goes directly counter to that, but if they leave ambiguity or if a work happens to allow for reading between the lines...I do believe that the interpretation can be an authentic experience as well. Half of any art is about sharing your unique vision with others, and you can't really control how they will experience it.

All in all, while I don't personally read Minrah as trans in part due to the Giant's comments on his own track record there, it doesn't contradict anything we see in the story, and I'd be delighted if someone found validation in that read.

[Xirdus]

So all the people enjoying Troll 2 for obviously different reasons than its creator are wrong?

I don't know what this Troll 2 thing is but there's a difference between enjoying something and telling other people what that something is about. Borderline criminal and antisocial behaviors aside, there's no such thing as enjoying something in a wrong way. But one can be wrong about what the story of Trolls 2 is.



When a comedy movie shows low-income characters as oafish and crude and high-income characters as snooty and weak, do you think it would be wrong to see the movie as a reflection of contemporary class struggles if the filmmaker says she only wanted to make some fart jokes without any message to it?

Yes, absolutely yes! Too many comedy movies were ruined by obsessive interpreters seeing social commentary where there's clearly none. (And too many 19th century poems were ruined by obsessive teachers seeing a homesickness metaphor everywhere.)

It's wrong to say the movie IS a reflection of contemporary class struggles. But it's totally fine to say the movie MAKES YOU THINK OF contemporary class struggles. And exploring that similarity to greater depth is a great idea too and there's much to learn from it! Just as long as you remember the movie itself IS NOT about the class struggle.


Art does not exist in a vacuum, it is the expression of the people who made it and of those who consume it.

Half true. It's an expression of the people who made it, full stop.


A painting is not a painting until someone looks at it, just shapes of pigments.

And a chair isn't a chair until someone sits on it. According to you, at least - according to me, if something was made for the purpose of sitting on it, it's a chair the moment it's made and remains a chair until it's destroyed. You can sit on a table but it doesn't make it a chair. You can even fold half of it upwards to work as a back-rest of sorts, and it's still not a chair. And no naturally occurring rock formation will ever be a chair no matter how much it resembles one - because it wasn't made with the purpose of sitting on it. And if a movie isn't about class struggle, it doesn't magically become it just by you looking at it.

Here's a question for you. Can a blind hermit make a painting?


But that is not an interpretation of the text. That is just a lie about the text. Intepretations are built from the text, they do not contradict it. That just wouldn't make any sense.

I can stack as many interpretations as you want until there's no contradiction. Minrah didn't see Thor in afterlife. Durkon didn't see Minrah in afterlife. It was all just a figment of his imagination. Durkon didn't talk to Thor in person - he was communicating through whatever's divine equivalent of telepathy. Quiddity is experienced by mortals as colors, and divine telepathy is experienced as a very convincing 5D hallucination - and it had to account for Minrah's presence because that's what Durkon was imagining. Meanwhile, real Minrah went to chaotic evil afterlife and had a 5D hallucination of Loki. Ever since she's become Loki's cleric, she's been tasked by him to pretend to be Thor's cleric instead, as a practical joke of sorts. Thor found out one day and thinks it's funny as heck. So he lets this charade continue and even lends his power sometimes to boost Minrah's credibility (that's how she was able to use Thor's Might through Hammer of Thunderbolts.)

If you really believe the story only exists in reader's mind, you are forced to admit this obvious load of bull is as valid as every other interpretation.

[Metastachydium]

I don't know what this Troll 2 thing is

A famed trainwreck of a "horror" film. Spoiler alert: it doesn't have trolls and it's not the second installment of any series entitled Troll. You should check it out, it's a classic!


according to me, if something was made for the purpose of sitting on it, it's a chair

Hm. How about a récamier? Is it a chair? A sofa? A bed? Or better yet, a bench. Is a bench a chair? Hm.

[Xirdus]

A famed trainwreck of a "horror" film. Spoiler alert: it doesn't have trolls and it's not the second installment of any series entitled Troll. You should check it out, it's a classic!

Unfortunately I don't like horrors. Or maybe fortunately?


Hm. How about a récamier? Is it a chair? A sofa? A bed? Or better yet, a bench. Is a bench a chair? Hm.

Forumer's struggle - if you're too concise, you open up to obvious cheap shots, but if you're too verbose, you open up to people not reading your post and replying anyway. But thank you for teaching me a new word!

I wonder what récamier was called before Récamier.

[Emanick]

Unfortunately I don't like horrors. Or maybe fortunately?

Probably immaterial in this case. The movie is so inept at accomplishing what it set out to do that, in practice, it evokes no horror at all. Nobody watches it for anything but its (largely unintentional) comedic value.

It's an interesting test case for the theory that only the creator's intent matters in determining what art fundamentally is, because the film so utterly fails to communicate its intended message (a highly negative commentary on vegetarianism) that it's hard to claim that what the "artist" tried to put into the movie is what the audience actually got out of it.

[Xirdus]

And yet, you can tell what the film utterly fails to communicate.

[Robots]

I really like your interpretation, OP. Idk if we'll ever see the thing that Minrah didn't want Thor to talk about, but I think your theory is pretty good.

[Emanick]

And yet, you can tell what the film utterly fails to communicate.

Only because the creators have talked about it in interviews. I wouldn't have been able to tell you what they were getting at if all I'd done was watch the film.

[H_H_F_F]

I don't think you necessarily have to be "A story's only meaning lies in its intent" to be against complete death of the author style arguments.

The Great Gatsby is a touching portrayal of American society in the years leading up to the Great Depression. The shadow of the Depression looms large over that story, but it's completely accidental - it was written before hand.

On the other hand, what defines a text? We all can agree that an interpretation of OoTS as a story about two frogs murdering a squirrel in 4th century Gaul is an incredibly weak interpretation, because it isn't supported by the text. But what if I sit down and publish an OoTS comic that's just a strip of Roy saying "actually, this whole story was just a metaphor for 2 frogs murdering a squirrel in 4th century Gaul"? Would that make the interpretation stronger?

Well, no, but the reason is that I'm not the person writing OoTS. Rich is. If Rich were to post that comic, it would support my argument.

In the end, the Author is needed to even define a text. If you're discussing the narrative structure of Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is relevant, and Harry Potter and the Natural 20 isn't - and that is made true because of the Author's identity. "Harry Potter", as a piece if text, doesn't exist without an author. It's just seven books, and that's the generous case, which claims a "book" can be a unitary text without the function of the Author.

Anyway, author or no, I think we can all agree an interpretation can be stronger or weaker, and "Minrah is Trans" is much stronger than "Hobgoblin #472 hates cheese".

[Xirdus]

Anyway, author or no, I think we can all agree an interpretation can be stronger or weaker

I'm literally in an argument with someone who disagrees with that.

[H_H_F_F]

I'm literally in an argument with someone who disagrees with that.

Don't think so, necessarily. "Interpretations are valid regardless of intent", and multiple different interpretations can be valid" isn't "all interpretations are born equal".

[Ruck]

Yes, absolutely yes! Too many comedy movies were ruined by obsessive interpreters seeing social commentary where there's clearly none.

Firm disagree, but I think my next comment will elaborate better...


If you really believe the story only exists in reader's mind, you are forced to admit this obvious load of bull is as valid as every other interpretation.

To reiterate Fyraltari's point, there is a vast gulf between the reader interpreting the work in the text their own way, and the reader inventing interpretations that blatantly contradict the text.

In the above case, the class portrayals are part of the text, whether or not the author intended them to have any meaning. Indeed, this is where "Death of the Author" comes in handy-- sometimes a work is interesting in what it unintentionally reveals about the creator's thoughts and feelings. For example...


It's an interesting test case for the theory that only the creator's intent matters in determining what art fundamentally is, because the film so utterly fails to communicate its intended message (a highly negative commentary on vegetarianism) that it's hard to claim that what the "artist" tried to put into the movie is what the audience actually got out of it.

See also The Room, which is far more fascinating for what it unintentionally reveals about its creator than for anything its creator intended to communicate.

Aside, anyone else start hearing Jonathan Richman in their heads when they read the thread title?

[brian 333]

Here's a question for you. Can a blind hermit make a painting?

It's a thing! (https://www.everydaysight.com/blind-painters/)

[Emanick]

I'm literally in an argument with someone who disagrees with that.

Do you mean me? Because I don’t disagree with that statement in the least.

[Fyraltari]

I don't know what this Troll 2 thing is but there's a difference between enjoying something and telling other people what that something is about. Borderline criminal and antisocial behaviors aside, there's no such thing as enjoying something in a wrong way. But one can be wrong about what the story of Trolls 2 is.
But nobody disagrees about the story. People disagree about what the story is about. Everybody agrees it's the story of a family movie to the village of Nilbog and the son having to stop the locals (who are actually goblins in disguise) from tricking his relatives into eating their food which would transform them into vegetables for the goblins to consume.

People disagree on what the movie means, on what it communicates. The director stated several time that the movie is a deep reflexion about feeding, family and America. To literally everybody else this films is a nonsensical comedy you watch to have a laugh with your friends.

So who is right here? The man whose creative vision shaped the project? Or everybody else watching it? If a filmmaker can fail to communicate what they intended, does that not mean that they can be wrong about their own creation?


Yes, absolutely yes! Too many comedy movies were ruined by obsessive interpreters
Someone can't ruin a movie after it's done (short of destroying all the existing copies, of course).

seeing social commentary where there's clearly none. (And too many 19th century poems were ruined by obsessive teachers seeing a homesickness metaphor everywhere.)
Not commentary, expression. Comedy movies speak to what the filmmakers believe to be what their audience believes about the individuals/groups being mocked. If a successful comedy movie relies on the stereotypes I suggested, that speaks to these stereotypes being accepted by the public and reinforces them. It is a snapshot of how the creatives behind the project see their environment.

This is true for all art in one way or another. Every piece of art is self-portrait and a mirror hold out to the public at the same time.


Half true. It's an expression of the people who made it, full stop.
No man is an island.


And a chair isn't a chair until someone sits on it. According to you, at least - according to me, if something was made for the purpose of sitting on it, it's a chair the moment it's made and remains a chair until it's destroyed. You can sit on a table but it doesn't make it a chair. You can even fold half of it upwards to work as a back-rest of sorts, and it's still not a chair. And no naturally occurring rock formation will ever be a chair no matter how much it resembles one - because it wasn't made with the purpose of sitting on it. And if a movie isn't about class struggle, it doesn't magically become it just by you looking at it.
A chair isn't a chair until someone sees that they could sit on it. If I uses a rock as a chair, it is one for all intents and purposes.

Your own definition of "chair" hinges on purpose, but purpose only exists in human minds (and some animals in some cases, but that's not relevant here) the atoms of carbon and hydrogen making up the chair know nothing of purpose, or of "chair". Without a human to call it a chair, it just isn't one. And if that human is looking for fuel for a campfire, then it's not a chair, it's firewood. There is no immanent "chairness" to the object. If I break it then it stops being a chair, but if I bring it back together then it is one again. Yet nothing was added or subtracted from the object to make it "not-a-chair".
Things are just collections of atoms, it is us who who ascribe them purpose, who give them names and sort them out into these names.


Here's a question for you. Can a blind hermit make a painting?
Sure. Why not?


I can stack as many interpretations as you want until there's no contradiction. Minrah didn't see Thor in afterlife. Durkon didn't see Minrah in afterlife. It was all just a figment of his imagination. Durkon didn't talk to Thor in person - he was communicating through whatever's divine equivalent of telepathy. Quiddity is experienced by mortals as colors, and divine telepathy is experienced as a very convincing 5D hallucination - and it had to account for Minrah's presence because that's what Durkon was imagining. Meanwhile, real Minrah went to chaotic evil afterlife and had a 5D hallucination of Loki. Ever since she's become Loki's cleric, she's been tasked by him to pretend to be Thor's cleric instead, as a practical joke of sorts. Thor found out one day and thinks it's funny as heck. So he lets this charade continue and even lends his power sometimes to boost Minrah's credibility (that's how she was able to use Thor's Might through Hammer of Thunderbolts.) If you really believe the story only exists in reader's mind, you are forced to admit this obvious load of bull is as valid as every other interpretation.
But that's no interpretation. Interpretation is about ascribing meaning to the elements in the text, like Nitro~Nina did. What you are doing here is making up elements that straight-up are not in the text and contradict it. That's not an interpretation issue, that's a reading comprehension issue.







Anyway, author or no, I think we can all agree an interpretation can be stronger or weakerI'm literally in an argument with someone who disagrees with that.Do you mean me? Because I don’t disagree with that statement in the least.
Neither do I.

[Metastachydium]

I wonder what récamier was called before Récamier.

My three guesses would be canapé, chaise longue or, mayhaps, divan. Our resident Frenchman may know more about that, though.


I wouldn't have been able to tell you what they were getting at if all I'd done was watch the film.

How about "you totally can piss on hospitality"?


Someone can't ruin a movie after it's done (short of destroying all the existing copies, of course).

Someone can, on the other hand, ruin it for someone else, specifically.


No man is an island.

Except the Isle of Man. That Man is an island.


A chair isn't a chair until someone sees that they could sit on it.

How about Duchamp's urinal? Everyone can, does and did recognize it as a urinal, but I doubt that anyone figured they could use it as one.

[Fyraltari]

My three guesses would be canapé, chaise longue or, mayhaps, divan. Our resident Frenchman may know more about that, though.
What am I, a furniture historian?


How about Duchamp's urinal? Everyone can, does and did recognize it as a urinal, but I doubt that anyone figured they could use it as one.

You could, you totally could. You're not allowed to, though.

[Metastachydium]

What am I, a furniture historian?

A decadent Frenchman! You're supposed to care about that stuff!


You could, you totally could. You're not allowed to, though.

I mean, that's one of the things could, well, means. Also, it's not even connected to plumbing (https://imgur.com/hmbD4KL). It can't really be used for its intended purpose (unless you totally want to piss on hospitality).

[Beni-Kujaku]

My three guesses would be canapé, chaise longue or, mayhaps, divan. Our resident Frenchman may know more about that, though.

It was called "My god, who designed that abomination!? It's just not long enough to comfortably lie on and the backrest is just not high enough to comfortably sit! And people sleep in those? Whose idea was that!?". That thing is just an amalgamation of all the worst traits of all sitting devices in history.

(But seriously, it was called a méridienne, after the name of a nap in the middle of the day.)


A decadent Frenchman! You're supposed to care about that stuff!

Decadence? Absolutely. As Nietzsche said, "It is a self-deception of philosophers and moralists to imagine that they escape decadence by opposing it.". Many try their best to avoid being decadent, but France embraces it to the point that our best and most well-known food is just rotten milk and expired grape juice. We're supposed to care about food, luxury and nitpicking (and occasionally surrendering and beheading people, if I'm to believe internet memes), but that's just a cliché that connoisseurs know to be passé.

Also this is a 3.5 forum, you should call him Frenchfolk, we would not want to disappoint the French-feminists (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0729.html).

[H_H_F_F]

I think that a hardcore stance of all meaning being established by intent is a really interesting one.

Let's say we have two directors deciding to make movies.

One of them is a bitter old narcissist with a victim complex and a lot of resentment towards his ex, with very little self awareness and poor control of cinematic language. He wants to make a movie that'd be a reimagined auto-biography, false in details but true in essence.

The other is an aspiring young woman, who wants to direct a movie that'd be an empathetic dive into the worldview of insecure (toxic?) masculinity in the early 21st century. She wants to make a movie that would include no explicit criticism of this worldview, and only affirm it - but be so disorganized, surrealist and discomforting, that the audience will have to question the underlying thought patterns and ideology behind the plot.

They both set out to create their films, and by a cosmic coincidence, they both make the exact same film.

That is, scene by scene, it is directed the same way, has the same lines, shot the same way, acted the same way, by actors who look almost the same, functionally identical. The movies are completely, utterly indistinguishable.

The aspiring young director tries to find a name that would communicate the enclosed state of mind that is required to hold on to these delusions of eternal victimhood. The bitter old man seeks a name that would communicate that the film is artsy and important. They both settle on "the room".


They release their films on the same day, sending them in an envelope to the same film festival. They both forget to include credits, or their name, in the envelope, so they both send a letter to the festival explaining that they're the one who sent "The Room", and explaining in detail their vision, and what the movie is about.

And then every single person involved in both productions dies in a plane crash.

Now, the festival screens both movies, and they're both exactly the same. Indistinguishable, aside from a few different colors in the set design and a slightly different nose shape. They don't know which movie is by which director, so they can't give credit - but anyone is welcome to read about both.


To the person who uses intent as the sole arbiter of meaning, these two identical movies are not the same. They are entirely different movies, different pieces of text with different meanings.

2 people watch identical movies in two different screenings in the festival, at the same time. One is watching "The Room" by Bitter Old Man, the other watching "The Room" by Aspiring Young Director.

It's the exact same piece of text, and the viewers have the exact same thoughts about it, for the same reasons, at the same time. They both write an essay saying "The Room" is a movie about the strange world of insecure masculinity, and the primordial fear of women. The essays are exactly identical, about the same piece of text, published in two different journals.

But according to our theory, one of the viewers is an insightful and talented film critic, and the other is a pretentious hack that "ruins movies" and doesn't know what they're talking about.

And there is no way to tell which is which.

I think that's a fascinating epistemological stance.

[Xirdus]

Do you mean me? Because I don’t disagree with that statement in the least.

I meant Fyraltari.


But nobody disagrees about the story. People disagree about what the story is about. Everybody agrees it's the story of a family movie to the village of Nilbog and the son having to stop the locals (who are actually goblins in disguise) from tricking his relatives into eating their food which would transform them into vegetables for the goblins to consume.

But suppose someone DID disagree it's about goblins tricking a family into eating bad food. Considering a story only exists in viewer's mind, would you even be in a position to call them wrong?


Someone can't ruin a movie after it's done (short of destroying all the existing copies, of course).

The experience can be ruined, though. As you said, no man is an island. What other people say about a movie influence their own experience of a movie. Especially when they hear it before watching the movie. Consider Pokemon anime. You can watch it "blind" and see a tale about a young boy on a journey to become a #1 in his sports discipline of choice through the power of friendship. Or you can first read some blog post about how Pokemon fights are essentially dog fights and everybody in that world is cheering on it rather than be horrified by the cruelty, and the entire show becomes very creepy. Or you hear someone point out how the 10 year old Ash never aged throughout the 5 or 6 or however many annual championships he participated in, and it becomes creepy in a different way. It's good that there are people pointing these things out. But that it wasn't the intended message at all should still be kept in mind when interpreting it. From what I understand, you postulate that the intended message doesn't matter whatsoever when interpreting a work.


Not commentary, expression. Comedy movies speak to what the filmmakers believe to be what their audience believes about the individuals/groups being mocked. If a successful comedy movie relies on the stereotypes I suggested, that speaks to these stereotypes being accepted by the public and reinforces them. It is a snapshot of how the creatives behind the project see their environment.

All true. But that's all independent from the meaning of the movie itself. It's good to notice such things, as it helps put the movie in the right context. But if the movie wasn't made to be about class struggle, it still isn't about class struggle, even if there are some elements that would strongly imply there is some class struggle going on in background.



A chair isn't a chair until someone sees that they could sit on it. If I uses a rock as a chair, it is one for all intents and purposes.

A rock is a rock. It's always been a rock and it'll always be a rock, no matter what you do with it. Just like the hundred tree stumps I sat on as a kid, your rock will never be a chair. Save for melting it and molding the material into a chair, at which points it becomes a chair, even if the creator dies before the process finishes and there ends up nobody ever looking at it and thinking "yup, it's a chair".



Your own definition of "chair" hinges on purpose, but purpose only exists in human minds (and some animals in some cases, but that's not relevant here) the atoms of carbon and hydrogen making up the chair know nothing of purpose, or of "chair". Without a human to call it a chair, it just isn't one.

Here we're in agreement. What we disagree about is WHO and WHEN makes the call. For me, it's the author the moment they make the item. For you, it's everyone in every moment and it's not a contradiction if they disagree.

Consider this scenario. Thousands of years ago there was a lost civilization with some religion. They made a type of trinket that was their holy symbol. Fast forward to today and during archaeological excavation they discover those trinkets. Because we know nothing about that lost civilization, we fail to identify those trinkets as holy symbols. So right now, are they holy symbols or not? According to you, they stopped being holy symbols the moment last person who remembered that they are died. According to me, they're still are holy symbols, we just don't know they are.


Sure. Why not?

Because nobody would ever see that painting (I guess I forgot to specify nobody ever visits that hermit). You said it yourself that a painting isn't a painting until someone sees it. The natural consequence is that a blind person cannot create visual works of art without at least one other, sighted person observing the work. They can keep putting paint on canvas all they want, and it will never be art because one crucial element - the receiver experiencing it - is missing.




But that's no interpretation. Interpretation is about ascribing meaning to the elements in the text, like Nitro~Nina did. What you are doing here is making up elements that straight-up are not in the text and contradict it. That's not an interpretation issue, that's a reading comprehension issue.

Contradictions aside (I said I can keep refining my explanation until there are no contradictions. So while you can reject any particular explanation on the basis of a contradiction, you cannot reject the base idea that Minrah is a cleric of Loki based on a contradiction in a hasty and incomplete explanation I wrote (it's incomplete exactly because it has a contradiction)).

Minrah never said she's transgender. She never showed anything that would indicate she's transgender. Quite literally, Minrah being transgender is a made up element that straight up is not in the text. At which point does making up new elements stop being "lying about text" as you previously put it, and becomes "ascribing meaning to elements in the text"?

(Just in case, I AM NOT SAYING Minrah isn't transgender. She very much may be. It's totally fine to believe she is, I see no problem with that whatsoever. I'm just pointing out the flaw in Fyraltari's argument.)

For example, the talk with Belkar. Minrah, in line with her good alignment, could be making a speech to convince Belkar to strive for being a better man. Alternatively, in line with her chaotic alignment as a cleric of Loki, she could be making that speech to convince Belkar that life isn't predetermined and always being a murderhobo in the past doesn't mean he must always be a murderhobo in the future. Thanks to Hilgya, we know that Loki's doctrine is very big on that self-determination thing. It might be said she's also increasing the amount of chaos in the world by changing Belkar from predictable mass murderer into an UNpredictable mass murderer. Here, I just ascribed new meaning to the elements already in the text. I have a very good reason to reject that ascription (that's not what Giant meant at all, EOT). But what's your reason?

[Ruck]

Heh, this kinda gets at why I find The Room so fascinating. It's not just that it's badly made; it's just how unwittingly revealing it is. Tommy Wiseau apparently has no idea how human relationships function. I think he was clearly hurt by some woman in his past, but he seems to have no idea what really happened there or why, and so he writes a story about how she just inexplicably started cheating on him despite him being such a great guy. (Another unintentionally revealing note about the film is that everyone says Johnny is such a great guy, but we see him act like not a great guy quite a bit-- most notably when he roughly shoves Lisa onto the couch.) He has what is effectively an alien understanding of human relationships, which is where much of the unintentional comedy comes from. And because he doesn't understand what really happened in the relationship and his perspective is so self-centered, the entire story ends up being a nonsensical tale of betrayal that's just endlessly self-pitying, right down to the ending straight out of a teenager's diary.

Bad movies are a dime a dozen; an auteur work that's so badly made it inadvertently reveals so much about its creator is truly special.

Aside, Tommy Wiseau always makes me think of Ford Prefect. Specifically, the story about how he tried to choose a name that would be inconspicuous and landed on "Ford Prefect." I feel like if aliens tried to design "sexy movie star," it might come out like Tommy Wiseau. "Well, long hair can be sexy, muscles are sexy, vampires are really in right now..." which, you know, those are all there, but the sum of the parts is decidedly different than the intended result.

[Metastachydium]

It was called "My god, who designed that abomination!? It's just not long enough to comfortably lie on and the backrest is just not high enough to comfortably sit! And people sleep in those? Whose idea was that!?". That thing is just an amalgamation of all the worst traits of all sitting devices in history.

(But seriously, it was called a méridienne, after the name of a nap in the middle of the day.)

Permit me to recommend that you never go anywhere near those classy closet-beds the Low Countries had a thing for in the 16/17th century, then. Especially if you have claustrophobia as well.

(And good to know, thanks.)


rotten milk

Okay, that stuff is bad enough when you don't try to underscore how disgusting it really is!


but that's just a cliché that connoisseurs know to be passé.

Well played, Frenchpersonfolkx, well played.

[Fyraltari]

A decadent Frenchman! You're supposed to care about that stuff!
Decadent? In this economy, you think I can afford to be decadent? If I save for a while, I can be yearent at most. Maybe.



I mean, that's one of the things could, well, means. Also, it's not even connected to plumbing (https://imgur.com/hmbD4KL). It can't really be used for its intended purpose (unless you totally want to piss on hospitality).
Okay, but it still looks enough like a functionnal urinal that we can interpret it as one.

[littlebum2002]

I mean, that's one of the things could, well, means. Also, it's not even connected to plumbing (https://imgur.com/hmbD4KL). It can't really be used for its intended purpose (unless you totally want to piss on hospitality).

I mean to be fair, it doesn't HAVE to be connected to plumbing to be used as a urinal. I know I've seen a video "prank" (probably from Jackass) of someone going to the bathroom on a display toilet at a hardware store.

[skim172]

I'm sure Minrah has something going on, but I don't think it'll turn out to be plot-consequential. Maybe it'll be something that gets revealed in the commentary in the book.


But some fun speculation on what social morality hangups that fantasy dwarven society might have - rather than transgenderism, I'm gonna say that the most prohibited "thing" for a dwarf to be into would probably be ... elf-ophilia.

Specifically, sylvan elf-ophilia. Combines the greatest taboos of all - elves AND trees.

[brian 333]

The obvious answer is that she is a teetotaler. Someone else suggested that way back when she was new.

But, you do you.

[Metastachydium]

sylvan elf-ophilia

The correct term would be hyloxotikophilia. (Yes, I do know you didn't ask.)

[H_H_F_F]

The correct term would be hyloxotikophilia. (Yes, I do know you didn't ask.)

I am continually impressed by your absolute commitment to the whole "I'm a plant" thing.

[Xirdus]

The obvious answer is that she is a teetotaler.

Durkon was exiled because of a vague prophecy. You think dwarves would let a teetotaler live among them?

[Ruck]

The obvious answer
I don't see with how little we're given how any answer is "obvious."

[Liquor Box]

The Giant stated that he won't joke on the argument. Minrah would be the opposite, a positive character taken seriously, and with remarkable discretion.
It's just head-canon. There are vibes of the argument, not straight-up evidences.
I'd leave it this way. It's nice, it's relatable. No need to spoil it.

I think this post (#137) in the same thread was more explicit that the Giant would not attempt to write a trans character:



But this thread has also proven beyond any doubt I might have had that I simply do not have the sensitivity required to write about (or even loosely adjacent to) these topics. That sometimes I can't see parallels with real world issues until someone smacks me in the face with them, nine years later. That the people here claiming that surely I am a good enough author to be capable of writing trans characters with proper deference are, in fact, highly deluded about my general skill level.
... I would rather people be mad at me for not including representation of a group than hurt because I did.

[Metastachydium]

I am continually impressed by your absolute commitment to the whole "I'm a plant" thing.

Why, thank you! But, you see, what else could I do? Not be a plant?

[Laurentio III]

Why, thank you! But, you see, what else could I do? Not be a plant?
In Italy, the verb that means "to stop doing a thing" can be "Piantare" (literally "To plant"), as in "Make something definitive and rooted, not moving it anymore".
So, if you were italian, you could "plant to be a plant". ("Stop being a plant")

[Metastachydium]

In Italy, the verb that means "to stop doing a thing" can be "Piantare" (literally "To plant"), as in "Make something definitive and rooted, not moving it anymore".
So, if you were italian, you could "plant to be a plant". ("Stop being a plant")

Intriguing. But do tell me: if I plant being a plant, can I still be a plant or do I have to plant-plant the act of planting before I can resume being a plant?

[Laurentio III]

Intriguing. But do tell me: if I plant being a plant, can I still be a plant or do I have to plant-plant the act of planting before I can resume being a plant?
Plantly the second. When you plant, it's rooted in ground. No getting bark.

[Lemarc]

Someone can't ruin a movie after it's done (short of destroying all the existing copies, of course).

If that were entirely true then spoiler tags wouldn't be a thing;

[Peelee]

Except the Isle of Man. That Man is an island.

One of the most underrated jokes in This Is Spinal Tap is how they played the Isle of Lucy once.

[Squire Doodad]

Back to the OP for a sec - if you think Minrah is trans, go for it. The scenes fit the scenario you are describing very well, and it works well enough for both Minrah's character and some underlying themes. Someone mentioned the Giant not wanting to make front-and-center jokes on this kind of topic earlier in the thread? But either way, Minrah being trans as a background thing could easily have been intended. Whether or not it is or isn't the intended interpretation, a headcanon about it goes smoothly. As they say, "You do you, kid."

I think the conclusion was that Minrah's "people only know the new you" is in the context of Guard->Cleric, and some people joked that the thing Minrah didn't want Durkon to hear was that she was a gardening hobbyist.
Personally I feel the gardener bit is a humorous and sound explanation, it fits with the Giant's humor and the overall tone and themes of the book, but of course it's portrayed vaguely enough that it could really be anything. If the takeaway you got is that Minrah is talking about coming out of the closet, that works just fine.