I dont agree with Rich.

[Chaman]

Rich posted:


I don't think I want to live in a world were a parody stick figure comic
beats one of the comic industry's top writers.

So...
I would like to call shenanigans on the owner of this site.

Why? 2 reasons
#1) I dont like the way Rich implies that the fact that this is a parody stick figure comic is a bad thing, deserves less credit because of that or anything like that. AND it has nothing to do with the:
#2) I consider, Rich is one hell of a writer. The way the plot has evolved and his character development amaze me. It often makes me forget this is a stick figure comic in the first place. So what I would like to say is that it is not a shame to lose to Alan Moore, he was a tough opponent. But I like Rich's work better.

that's all folks
just my 2 copper pices.

[VForVaarsuvius]

Eh, he kinda has a point but at the same time it's only a parody because that's what he feels like- If he put his mind to it, like we've seen in TNW, he could easily make something awesome.

\V/

[Kgw]

Alan Moore & Rich Burlew belong to different cattegories. They both do a great job, but comparing them is like judging which is better, a XII century Romanesque church or latest Calatravas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Calatrava)' building. They are uncomparable.

[Mauve Shirt]

Alan Moore & Rich Burlew belong to different cattegories. They both do a great job, but comparing them is like judging which is better, a XII century Romanesque church or latest Calatravas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Calatrava)' building. They are uncomparable.

I'd totally go with the Romanesque church. :P
But I agree about Alan Moore and Rich.

[David Argall]

All depends on the standards used.

I check for an update to OOTS several times a day. I leaf thru something by Moore and drop it into the discard pile. That sort of vote is a pretty strong standard. Taken in mass, it determines whether the writer lives on Park Avenue or Skid Row.

Still, from my limited knowledge and indifferent view of Moore, it seems he is much the superior here. Our writer is unable to make Miko really work as a character. A difficult task to be sure, but Moore seems to have succeeded at far more difficult ones.

It may be disappointing from our view, but it may be the right decision.

[Calinero]

I fail to see how Rich has failed to make Miko work as a character. He made as her an example of how not to play a paladin, and if the countless hate threads that have been spawned are any indication, he has succeeded in making her unlikeable. Yet, at the same time, there are many Miko defenders, showing she is a complex character and more than a cardboard cutout. So, though I don't really like Miko that much, I think she is a very good character. By 'good,' I mean 'interesting.'

[lord of kobolds]

Yes, they are in different categories.
However, I would still prefer oots.

[Evil DM Mark3]

No matter now much I hated Miko as a character, I still feel she worked as one. And I also disagree with Rich, I want to live in a world where the best comic as defined by the competition wins. In this case what had happened is that OotS has been declared not was good as the winner. If it had won it would have been declared better than the winner. But it isn't, it is worse.

[WarriorTribble]

Alan Moore & Rich Burlew belong to different cattegories. They both do a great job, but comparing them is like judging which is better, a XII century Romanesque church or latest Calatravas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Calatrava)' building. They are uncomparable.Oh I dunno, I can totally see Moore doing a D&D parody comic, actually there's very little I can't see Moore doing.

[ManBearPig]

I would like to call shenanigans on the owner of this site.

Get out your broomsticks!

But seriously... I think that Rich might just be showing some modesty here. I know there have been times where I've won something or bested someone at something when I thought that they honestly did a better job then me. But awards are always based on opinion and everyone's opinion is different.

[FujinAkari]

Rich posted:

Where? It would be great if you actually linked us to whatever it is you want us to discuss...

[NerfTW]

Where? It would be great if you actually linked us to whatever it is you want us to discuss...

The very first news item on the news page.

[David Argall]

I fail to see how Rich has failed to make Miko work as a character. He made as her an example of how not to play a paladin, and if the countless hate threads that have been spawned are any indication, he has succeeded in making her unlikeable.
This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
Then we have her romantic aspect. We already have his confession of his failure here. He just couldn't make Miko work. Which is too bad. Celia as Roy's lover is downright insipid compared to what Miko could have been. He was likely wise to give up and use other ideas, but we still have a failure that a superior artist would have avoided.

[SPoD]

Apparently, revising a plan or replacing it with one that you like better now counts as failure, I guess. Never mind that Rich has to write each page and publish it before he writes the next one, robbing him of the ability to actually revise earlier pages that any other author has. If, after writing the last page of Black Dossier, Alan Moore realized that he had changed the story from what it was going to be in the beginning, he can go back and rewrite those pages without anyone ever knowing about it. Rich can't, he's stuck with his first draft every time. He can only revise by adding additional material later that retcons the older stuff.

There's no way to know what another writer, even Alan Moore, would be capable of if the ability to revise was taken away.

----------------------

To the people actually discussing the topic: I don't think Rich is wrong, but not because Alan Moore is an inherently better writer per se. I think Rich should have lost because his nomination in that category was likely the result of people from this site going there and stuffing the ballot box in every category possible, and Original Graphic Novel was just the category that had few enough other nominees for his name to stick. Start of Darkness was an apple competing in the Favourite Orange category.

[SteveMB]

To the people actually discussing the topic: I don't think Rich is wrong, but not because Alan Moore is an inherently better writer per se. I think Rich should have lost because his nomination in that category was likely the result of people from this site going there and stuffing the ballot box in every category possible, and Original Graphic Novel was just the category that had few enough other nominees for his name to stick. Start of Darkness was an apple competing in the Favourite Orange category.

That's hardly unique to any particular case; it's endemic to any contest that takes nominations or votes from the Net. Except in particularly egregious cases, it more or less cancels out.

As for the merits of the vote, it's between two books (not two authors), and I haven't read one of them.

[SPoD]

That's hardly unique to any particular case; it's endemic to any contest that takes nominations or votes from the Net.

Oh, I completely agree, I'm just saying why I believe Rich is correct in agreeing with the results. He didn't make the contest and he didn't solicit nominations (he only solicited votes), so he didn't have any control over the process. I got the impression from his statement that if he had been the person who needed to submit nominations (instead of fans), he would never have submitted to that category. Therefore, he made a statement that he was glad that it all worked out the way he thought it should, since he had no business being in that category to begin with.

Also, your point about the books being the actual competitors is well-taken; Miko doesn't appear in Start of Darkness at all!*



* Writing the preface doesn't count.

[Calinero]

This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
Then we have her romantic aspect. We already have his confession of his failure here. He just couldn't make Miko work. Which is too bad. Celia as Roy's lover is downright insipid compared to what Miko could have been. He was likely wise to give up and use other ideas, but we still have a failure that a superior artist would have avoided.

Was she originally intended to actually be Roy's love interest? I always thought that he had intended their relationship to fail from the beginning, but i have not followed all the threads related to the subject.

What these issues seem to be are not necessarily a failure in character writing, but more a case of the character developing in unexpected directions. Characters taking on a life of their own is generally the mark of a good writer. Plus, as someone else pointed out, Rich is slightly limited by the webcomic medium. If he changes his mind, or sees something he doesn't like, it's already too late to change it.

[SteveMB]

Was she originally intended to actually be Roy's love interest? I always thought that he had intended their relationship to fail from the beginning, but i have not followed all the threads related to the subject.

According to the notes in No Cure For The Paladin Blues, Rich originally had a more "romantic comedy" tone in mind, but quickly realized that it wouldn't work with the overall story he had in mind.

[Remirach]

Was she originally intended to actually be Roy's love interest? I always thought that he had intended their relationship to fail from the beginning, but i have not followed all the threads related to the subject.
The whole bit with the inn was supposed to be "light romantic comedy" in which Roy puts on the gender bending belt in order to get in "girl talk" with Miko which fails. But it's not stated that he was to wind up falling out of love with Miko so dramatically as he did, so the romance plot might have been intended to go on for a while. Couldn't say for sure.

To me it looked like they were all wrong for one another right from the start. His attraction to her was shallow and sexist and had nothing to do with her personality. YMMV, I suppose.


What these issues seem to be are not necessarily a failure in character writing, but more a case of the character developing in unexpected directions. Characters taking on a life of their own is generally the mark of a good writer.

Hear, hear.

[The Giant]

I got the impression from his statement that if he had been the person who needed to submit nominations (instead of fans), he would never have submitted to that category. Therefore, he made a statement that he was glad that it all worked out the way he thought it should, since he had no business being in that category to begin with.

Spod has it right. My point in that News post was relief that the system had worked. Start of Darkness is not really a graphic novel, it is a collection of comic strips, the same as the OOTS compilations. The only difference is that no one had ever seen these ones before. I would have been mildly embarrassed if I had won a contest for which I was uncertain of my qualifications by virtue of the power of the internet. If I had written something I truly considered to be a graphic novel, I would have been happy to kick Alan Moore's ass. I still wouldn't have expected to win, but I wouldn't have been so relieved to not win.

As to the other discussion, I will only say that if the end result of my creative process ends up being something of which I am far prouder than I would have been of the rehashed trivialities that I first set out to write, then I consider that a success in every way. I should feel eminently blessed if I manage to have more such "failures" as Miko in the future.

[SPoD]

According to the notes in No Cure For The Paladin Blues, Rich originally had a more "romantic comedy" tone in mind, but quickly realized that it wouldn't work with the overall story he had in mind.

True, but he never says that they were intended to actually ever BE in a relationship...merely that Roy was going to try to get secrets out of her in the hope of getting into one. I would expect that such an attempt would fail, spectacularly, in the manner that such things usually do in comedy stories. Therefore, the existence of Roy's relationship with Celia was not necessarily mutually exclusive with his original intent for Miko.

Also, I would argue (not so much to you, personally) that the ability to recognize what can and cannot work in a story is a mark of a good author, not a flawed one. David Argall's unspoken supposition is that a sufficiently skilled author can make ANY situation work, and I think that's deeply flawed. A skilled writer identifies what won't work and removes it in favor of something that does, he doesn't try to hamfistedly jam a square peg into a round hole and make the audience swallow it.

EDIT for being ninja'd by the Giant:

Spod has it right.

OK, this is going into my signature. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[NerfTW]

This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
Then we have her romantic aspect. We already have his confession of his failure here. He just couldn't make Miko work. Which is too bad. Celia as Roy's lover is downright insipid compared to what Miko could have been. He was likely wise to give up and use other ideas, but we still have a failure that a superior artist would have avoided.


For starters, Miko is not universally hated. Many people LIKED the character and her path to destruction.

Second, most real writers consider it a measure of how deep a character is by how polarized people's views are on them. A poorly written character will be looked over, but a well written one will invoke a passionate reaction, good or bad.

[Admiral Squish]

real writers consider it a measure of how deep a character is by how polarized people's views are on them. A poorly written character will be looked over, but a well written one will invoke a passionate reaction, good or bad.

I would like to just put this out there: This is the internet. We get passionate over which cereal-mascot would win in a fight, whether Hinata's a better match for Naruto than Sakura, and just how many ways a wizard can win any given fight. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

[Chaman]

Stuff

Wow, I havent read that many threads in here but, it is the first time I get to see the giant posting something different than "new comic is up".

It felt it like a divine intervention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RUvoJ-DLzI)or some... thing like that.

anyway...
I get Rich's point now but... I still wanna see aquaman! maybe he could appear now that our heroes are in dire need or something I dont know...

and about Miko: That is precisely one of the character developments I had in mind in the OP. Miko is one of my favorite characters because... you know: god I hate that bitch!!

[Selene]

Miko was a brilliant character! I really and truly hated her. And I swear I went chaotic evil for a minute cackling at her death. LOL. It takes skill to write someone like that. Hats off to The Giant. :smallcool:

[David Argall]

SoD
Miko doesn't appear in Start of Darkness at all!*

I am not so sure of that. Miss Young Paladin at the goblin village has a distinctly Miko air to her, and may have been intended to be a young Miko until somebody did the math and found it would have made Miko about 50. Of course, as I have mentioned a few times, there are a lot of characters and a limited number of ways to express any differences, so a lot of characters are going to resemble a lot of characters.
Still, there would be a definite appeal of having her there and the flaw in timing might not have been noticed before it was easier to just remove any references to any name than to delete the character or make other changes.




most real writers consider it a measure of how deep a character is by how polarized people's views are on them. A poorly written character will be looked over, but a well written one will invoke a passionate reaction, good or bad.
But relatively rarely both, which is what we have here. And even more rarely unintentionally.



but he never says that they were intended to actually ever BE in a relationship... I would expect that such an attempt would fail, spectacularly, in the manner that such things usually do in comedy stories.
He doesn't categorically say there was intended to be a relationship that would last for the rest of the comic, but that is the easy way to read it. That there would be disastrous "dates" during that is almost a given. They would merely not end the relationship.
But if we assume only a short romance, followed by a long association, we have a rather rare situation. Ex-girlfriends and boyfriends normally drop out of the story, generally quite rapidly. So Miko staying in the plot after all relations with Roy are over is unusual. [Now granted, a 200 strip exit is long, but it does not involve her jumping back into the plot.]


David Argall's unspoken supposition is that a sufficiently skilled author can make ANY situation work,
No, I have said this is a situation I have seen other authors make work. It is by no means easy, and it is very easy to end with a character like Miko that is too hated, but it has been done.


A skilled writer identifies what won't work and removes it in favor of something that does, he doesn't try to hamfistedly jam a square peg into a round hole and make the audience swallow it.
More precisely here, a wise writer identifies what he can't make work and tries to work within his talents. The writer who works with the square peg and round hole may be foolish, or have greater talents.


Rich has to write each page and publish it before he writes the next one, robbing him of the ability to actually revise earlier pages that any other author has. If, after writing the last page of Black Dossier, Alan Moore realized that he had changed the story from what it was going to be in the beginning, he can go back and rewrite those pages without anyone ever knowing about it.
Now the main problem here is the nomination was book [Start of Darkness]vs book, not web comic vs book. I can say with confidence that, without seeing BD, I prefer SoD, but I have been told often enough that mine is the minority taste.

But as to the point itself, I am reminded of another of my favorite comics, Pawn. The artist gave us every one of his efforts on one picture. The last of his 8? 10? efforts was the best, but it was barely better [or different] from his 2nd effort. [Since the result of such perfectionism is that the comic posts on the slow side of a page a month, I am willing to settle for 2nd best.] There is certainly a gain from being able to revise, but it is easy to overstate. Most of the errors discovered and corrected are rather trivial.

[The Extinguisher]

See what you did?
You turned a thread about beating up Alan Moore into a thread about Miko.

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that is not a successful character, your standards are too damn high. What is your successful character? Jesus?*

*Note: That is a literary allusion and not a religious one so don't take it as such people. Please.

[Tharr]

Glad Alan won because he might have flown over to kill Rich because Moore now been reported as raving man by most people.

[FoE]

Are we talking about Alan Moore (V for Vendetta, The Watchmen) or are we talking about new-school Alan Moore, who writes squicky porn in the form of graphic novels (Lost Girls)? 'Cause while I don't think Start of Darkness should have beat old-school Alan Moore, I wouldn't have a problem with it laying a lickin' on the new school version. :smalltongue:

OK, I'm joking here, but in all seriousness, what if the category had been for "Comic That You Just Recently Read And Really Enjoyed?" I wouldn't have had a problem with SoD winning then. Moore was nominated for The Black Dossier, not his entire career. Yeah, he did FANTASTIC work in comics, but that doesn't mean we throw trophies at the guy every time he puts pen to paper. I haven't read the Black Dossier, but I did read SoD, and I thought it was great stuff.

[Kinneus]

It's called self-deprecating humor/being humble. It's a good thing.

[NerfTW]

But relatively rarely both, which is what we have here. And even more rarely unintentionally.



Please do just a TINY bit of research. That is actually VERY common, since people have very different views of what they like, only shallow, general themes are going to have a universal appeal.

You just want to declare anything you don't approve of as "wrong", and these "other opinions" couldn't possibly exist, even if the author himself tells you.

That line about leaps of logic and Miko that Roy makes? Applies to you as well.

[David Argall]

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that is not a successful character, your standards are too damn high.
Well, since we are on the net, finding you, if you even exist, makes it difficult to look you in the eye. However, I have been told many a time I have rather low standards.
Now whether we call Miko a successful character depends on the definition we use. Miko was a clear benefit to the strip, and so by that common definition, she has to be deemed quite successful.
However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.
Our writer deems himself satisfied with the final result, and with good reason. But he has most reason to be proud of the patch job turning out well, not that it was superior or equal to what the original plan was. Miko was a major benefit to the strip, but she could have been far more.



Please do just a TINY bit of research. That is actually VERY common,
If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

[Teron]

Scripts are allowed and expected to evolve as they're written. Just off the top of my head, Orson Scott Card wrote in the foreword to Speaker for the Dead that he didn't originally intend Novinha's children to play a significant role (which seems unthinkable if you've read the book). Mr. Burlew thinks the final result is better, as do I. Stop pushing your opinion as fact.

[David Argall]

Stop pushing your opinion as fact.

So why doesn't this demand apply to you? Or not apply since this entire threat can be said to be opinion?

[Morgan Wick]

Of course, as I have mentioned a few times, there are a lot of characters and a limited number of ways to express any differences, so a lot of characters are going to resemble a lot of characters.
On that note, this may have been beaten to death long ago, but over the course of re-reading the Azure City battle, I notice that virtually all the soldiers look exactly like Kazumi and Daigo, possibly another level of in-joke surrounding their existence.

See what you did?
You turned a thread about beating up Alan Moore into a thread about Miko.

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that is not a successful character, your standards are too damn high. What is your successful character? Jesus?*

*Note: That is a literary allusion and not a religious one so don't take it as such people. Please.

The mere fact that you call an allusion to Jesus a literary allusion is likely to offend some people, especially if they think you're implying Jesus was never real.

[DrewDaGreek]

I have to say, the SoD doesn't look much like a bunch of comic strips. It is somewhere between.

I also have to say, despite the format it is a great read.

One part
"Where's sister?" and the following panels.. horrifying, saddening, emotional.. I felt for them.

And Xykon had some great one-liners. "Well, I hate to murder and run, but - oh, wait, no, I love to do that." Classic..

And the little Eugene foreshadowing.. "When you're dead you're never going to look back on your life and say 'Darn, I didn't spend enough time on petty revenge.'"

And Right-Eye's final word.. that just struck me. The set up for that moment was just perfect. One word just resonated everything.



Rich is quite a writer, as much as some people disdain the comic as a literary device, Rich has succeeded admirably.

Keep it up!

[Selene]

However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.

Rich could have forced his original vision on the comic if he'd wanted, regardless of what worked. (See Riley from Buffy.) But every good writer knows that when the characters don't want to do what you want them to do, they're right and you're wrong. The story is always better if you just go with it.


If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

Wade from Sliders. My friends and I hated that little cheerleader brat. But she was apparently very popular. Sabrina Lloyd really nailed the character. Kudos for her acting skills.


And Giant? Humility is all well and good, but sometimes you just have to say "hey, I rocked socks! Go, me!" SoD is one of those times. I get chills just thinking of the end. Just did typing that, actually.

[David Argall]

Wade from Sliders. My friends and I hated that little cheerleader brat. But she was apparently very popular.

Now there are several distinctions here. Wade was one of a band of "castaways". It is more or less mandatory that she stay with the plot. There are enough ways to get rid of her, such as when the actress is fired, but the basic is that the party is forced to stay together.
Miko, by contrast, is somebody the party meets on their travels. It is much easier to dump her. It thus becomes odd that she was intended to stay permanently in the plot if the romance was to be long over. If the romance was supposed to continue, it makes a reason for the lovers to get together now and then.

My picture here is the typical TV/whatever romance. The hero is into this one girl and she gets a lot of space, but once the romance is over, the girl moves offstage, and is rarely seen again. Or the romance remains alive and she continues to get coverage. She does not vanish and re-appear when the romance is gone. Wade rather follows this pattern. It takes several shows for her to leave, but she does, she is almost entirely gone. She does not pop in and out of the picture.

Now for a successful Miko, we might look at the Skipper in Gilligan's Island. He was supposed to scream at Gilligan on a regular basis, with good reason, but Gilligan was to be a highly sympathetic character and however much he deserved yelling at, it was extremely easy to hate the yeller. They had a terrible time getting an actor who could make the Skipper a figure the audience liked.

[Selene]

David, I'm trying really hard to follow you, but... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade. More permanent, since Wade eventually left the show and Alan Hale showed up for all the movie sequels. Wade did come back once as Spock's Brain (snicker), and yes, IIRC, she was supposed to be Quinn's love interest. Then she wasn't, and we got Maggie. Wade fans probably hated Maggie, but I thought she was awesome. LOL.

[SPoD]

However, by the definition of doing what was intended, she was a complete failure. She failed as a romantic interest and as someone the viewer deemed as sympathetic. In effect much of the script of the "movie" had to be rewritten to suit her talents.

"What was intended" was to write a good character who added value to the story. Everything else is secondary, if not tertiary, to that goal, including the exact details of what the character does in the script. Therefore, since the author and most of his audience feel that the character added to the story, it is exactly what was intended, even if it accomplished that goal differently than originally envisioned.

What really makes no sense is that on one hand, you claim that Miko could have been "so much more", and on the other hand, you acknowledge that Rich's first idea was light romantic comedy. In what way is light romantic comedy "so much more" than a compelling tragic character who falls from grace by her own blindness??? It's like you're saying, "Well, Rich wrote King Lear, but man, he COULD have written a sitcom! What a failure!"

[David Argall]

"What was intended" was to write a good character who added value to the story. Everything else is secondary, if not tertiary, to that goal, including the exact details of what the character does in the script. Therefore, since the author and most of his audience feel that the character added to the story, it is exactly what was intended, even if it accomplished that goal differently than originally envisioned.
Now this by definition eliminates the problem, but it is a bad definition as a result.
I buy a lottery ticket, which pays $5. It has added to my net worth. However, if I had used slightly different numbers I could have gained $5000. My lottery ticket is a failure in terms of what it could have achieved.
Now with a lottery ticket, I have [or should have] no grounds for thinking that 123456 will pay any different than 123457.
However, in most activities, I do have an idea about what will pay off the better on average. [Under many lottery systems, 123457 will pay better. The prize is shared by all who select the winning number and people have this tendency to follow patterns, meaning there will be more betting on 123456, and a smaller payout when they win. If you try a lottery that offers you a choice of a number you select vs a number selected at random by the machine, you are better off taking the computer number.] So the fact you do better than break even does not mean you have won.


What really makes no sense is that on one hand, you claim that Miko could have been "so much more", and on the other hand, you acknowledge that Rich's first idea was light romantic comedy. In what way is light romantic comedy "so much more" than a compelling tragic character who falls from grace by her own blindness??? It's like you're saying, "Well, Rich wrote King Lear, but man, he COULD have written a sitcom! What a failure!"
Have you checked the relative pay for sitcom writers vs writers of tragedy? It is impossible to tell at this distance, but my bet is that King Lear was a loss leader, to give the actors pretensions of grandeur that allowed them to soak their patron for money.
I'd say that deeming "King Lear" a failure would be exactly right. I, and likely you and much of the rest of the readers, would not be here if the writer was trying for King Lear. That "King Lear" just doesn't benefit us as much as "As You Like it" [which some feel was named that precisely because Shakespeare felt that sort of "tripe" was what his customers wanted].
There is a lot of elitist nonsense babbling about the superiority of tragedy. It is pretty much just a way to pretend to be superior to the great unwashed. No thank you. I prefer to provide what the customer wants.

[Teron]

So why doesn't this demand apply to you? Or not apply since this entire threat can be said to be opinion?
If you'll point out where I've done it, I'll gladly apologise (and take you more seriously than I do now after what seems little more than an "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort).

[The Extinguisher]

Apparently, Roy is a completle failure as well. He was originally intended to be a wizard, but that didn't work out.

Who knows what other characters have gone through changes? They must be failures as well!

[dps]

David, I'm trying really hard to follow you, but... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade. More permanent, since Wade eventually left the show and Alan Hale showed up for all the movie sequels.

By the end of the show, only one of the original 4 "sliders" was left.

[Sequinox]

Originally Posted by David Argall
If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

Gaius Baltar. Great actor, love-to-hate character. 'Nuff said.

[Kreistor]

Well, as someone that reads both Moore and Burlew, I have to say:

Rich is very correct. Moore is vastly superior as an author. In fact, Watchmen is sitting right here beside me. I pray that the upcoming movie doesn't shred it too badly. Unfortunately, I don't think the youth of today will really understand the relevance of the work compared to it's original release during the (pre-Glasnost) Cold War, while Reagan was still president. It released more than two years before the Wall fell, when no one expected Gorbachev and his perestroika reforms were anything more than window dressing for a Soviet society bent on spreading Communism to all corners of the world: the paranoia of the time and the fear of nuclear annihilation were so much more pervasive than our relatively safe 21st Century. Even after 9/11, the world we live in is so much closer to being a Golden Age, it's hard to conceive that only 20 years have passed. They could have destroyed the world five times over in '87 when I entered University and found the Watchmen for the first time. Our generation was the first to spend its entire lives in fear of ICBM's destroying the world: bombers could be shot down, but ICBM's could not be stopped in any way, even with Star Wars proceeding apace. We all knew what MAD meant, and we weren't thinking of a parody comic book. Mutually Assured Destruction was the only defense against the crazy Soviets, or cowboy Americans, depending on your country of birth. Moore's work spoke of the insanity of the times, the paranoia of the people in power, and the fear that the only way out of the system was too drastic to conceive of.

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact. The Watchmen broke ground, helping to drive the Graphic Novel into mainstream media, and out from under the shadow of the Comic Book Code -- no matter what else Moore has done, at the very least he is deserving of being lumped with Miller and Gaiman as the forces responsible for the resurrection of the comic book as a relevant and mature form of art. OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

[David Argall]

... the Skipper was just as permanent a castaway as Wade.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The skipper [obviously] was not a romantic interest. Wade [& Miko] was. The Skipper-Miko comparison is on the point of audience reaction to an easily hated character. The Skipper was successful in getting the audience to like him, while Miko had a much more varied reaction.


Wade did come back once
Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back, but the picture given of the plans for Miko was that she would be re-appearing a substantial number of times after the plot moved on, maybe every 50-100 strips. By contrast, Wade just had her death scene delayed a year or two.



Gaius Baltar. Great actor, love-to-hate character. 'Nuff said.
The trouble with "Nuff said" is that it often isn't. Here I can't be sure, but you seem to have misunderstood the question. The request was for cases of the secondary character in a romance who stays in the plot as a secondary character after the romance is over. Gaius Baltar might qualify as a Miko type [hard to say from 2nd hand sources], but he is the major figure in the romance. Number 6 is possible here, but the description of the plot leaves me wondering if it really had one, as opposed to a bunch of dramatic moments loosely tied to each other.



Apparently, Roy is a completle failure as well. He was originally intended to be a wizard, but that didn't work out.
We lack information on that. Miko was changed because she was not working. We have no information as to why Roy the wizard became Roy the fighter. Roy the wiz likely was working fine, but Roy the intelligent fighter just appealed more.

[Calinero]

I would rather not get drawn into a Miko debate (Gods know there are enough of them,) so I'll just give my opinion:

Whether or not Miko was originally intended to fulfill the role she did, she ended up making a great contribution to the story. If she was originally intended to do this, then kudos to Rich. If she was originally intended to be a shallow love interest, I fail to see how it could have been much of a better subplot than the one she did receive. If Celia's subplots so far are anything to go by, Miko lucked out. If her transformation to a misguided fanatic was an accident, or unplanned, then let's just call it one of those lucky quirks that help writers out sometimes. I doubt there are many successful people out there who can claim they've never made a lucky mistake before. Miko might just be one of those mistakes. Kind of like the ice cream cone. Except with more flame threads.

[The Extinguisher]

Well, as someone that reads both Moore and Burlew, I have to say:

Rich is very correct. Moore is vastly superior as an author. In fact, Watchmen is sitting right here beside me. I pray that the upcoming movie doesn't shred it too badly. Unfortunately, I don't think the youth of today will really understand the relevance of the work compared to it's original release during the (pre-Glasnost) Cold War, while Reagan was still president. It released more than two years before the Wall fell, when no one expected Gorbachev and his perestroika reforms were anything more than window dressing for a Soviet society bent on spreading Communism to all corners of the world: the paranoia of the time and the fear of nuclear annihilation were so much more pervasive than our relatively safe 21st Century. Even after 9/11, the world we live in is so much closer to being a Golden Age, it's hard to conceive that only 20 years have passed. They could have destroyed the world five times over in '87 when I entered University and found the Watchmen for the first time. Our generation was the first to spend its entire lives in fear of ICBM's destroying the world: bombers could be shot down, but ICBM's could not be stopped in any way, even with Star Wars proceeding apace. We all knew what MAD meant, and we weren't thinking of a parody comic book. Mutually Assured Destruction was the only defense against the crazy Soviets, or cowboy Americans, depending on your country of birth. Moore's work spoke of the insanity of the times, the paranoia of the people in power, and the fear that the only way out of the system was too drastic to conceive of.

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact. The Watchmen broke ground, helping to drive the Graphic Novel into mainstream media, and out from under the shadow of the Comic Book Code -- no matter what else Moore has done, at the very least he is deserving of being lumped with Miller and Gaiman as the forces responsible for the resurrection of the comic book as a relevant and mature form of art. OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

Except that it wasn't Moore vs. Burlew. It was The Black Dossier vs. Start of Darkness. Now, I haven't read either, but if Shakespeare was to right complete crap, should it be proclaimed good because Shakespeare wrote it.

Rich writes excellent characters and storylines. It's a bit malicious to call it a sitcom. I won't deny that Moore is an excellent writer, but you're hardly being fair to Rich here.


We lack information on that. Miko was changed because she was not working. We have no information as to why Roy the wizard became Roy the fighter. Roy the wiz likely was working fine, but Roy the intelligent fighter just appealed more.

Because Roy couldn't be the deadpan snarker and the smart guy wizard. He must be a failure then, by your accounts.

[SPoD]

When it comes down to it, Alan Moore will be spoken of as one of the founders of the modern comic book style and script, while Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact.

This is where you lose me. You should stick to the works, not the authors.

You have no idea what Rich Burlew will be remembered; he's in his 30's now and OOTS is only set to run for a few more years. He could have 40 more years of writing fiction in him, and it is more than possible that one or more of those works yet-to-come could trump (or at least challenge) "Watchmen".

Given that the post we are discussing specifically mentions an interest in writing traditional comics, we shouldn't judge Rich Burlew's value as a writer based on what he started with. For all we know, Rich's "Aquaman" idea is as ground-breaking as Moore's take on "Swamp Thing" (a D-list horror character before Moore took him on), which could in turn lead to Rich writing his own comic book magnum opus someday.

And if none of that convinces you, allow me to point out that Alan Moore began his career writing a weekly newspaper comic strip called "Maxwell the Magic Cat", which he wrote from 1979 to 1986--longer than Rich has written OOTS. One's first work does not necessarily say much about the future possibilities. Rich says that stick figure parody comics shouldn't beat Alan Moore; nowhere does he state that he intends to write stick figure parody comics for the rest of his career!

[Selene]

@dps: Don't get me started on the horror that was 5th season. LOL.


You are mixing apples and oranges here. The skipper [obviously] was not a romantic interest. Wade [& Miko] was. The Skipper-Miko comparison is on the point of audience reaction to an easily hated character. The Skipper was successful in getting the audience to like him, while Miko had a much more varied reaction.

Well, the Skipper was your analogy, not mine. Now you're saying you made an invalid analogy? *headscratch*


Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back,

Ok, first, let me say that I find your posts entertaining, and enjoy reading them, and that I have absolutely nothing against you, so please don't take this the wrong way. I'm just having an amusing observation here. Which is that I am really not sure that you have any leg to stand on while claiming someone else is picky. I mean comparing the merits of comedy vs. tragedy on the fact that sitcom writers in the 21st century make more money than Shakespeare did? How picky is that?? How much do you think Shakespeare made for his comedies? How much do you think the writers of CSI make? All that said, I don't mind being called picky. I've been called a whole lot worse. LOL.

Anyhow, Wade was sent off to a breeder camp. We could have tried to rescue her (I'm glad we didn't, since I hated her a lot). But given that she left the show at the end of the 3rd season, and it only lasted two more seasons, I'm thinking one appearance is a fairly significant number. How many times did anyone else who left come back?

[David Argall]

if Shakespeare was to right complete crap, should it be proclaimed good because Shakespeare wrote it.
Shakespeare did write some complete crap, quite a bit of it actually, and it is often proclaimed as good because Shakespeare wrote it. Check with any Shakespeare scholar [tho they may not agree on what the crap was.]


Rich writes excellent characters and storylines. It's a bit malicious to call it a sitcom.
Well, it doesn't really meet the definition of sitcom unless we stretch it to cover just about all comedy, but under the definitions that rank types of stories, our strip and sitcoms get about the same ranking.
And sitcoms can have excellent characters and storylines.


Because Roy couldn't be the deadpan snarker and the smart guy wizard.
Do you have a source for this? Or just speculating?



Whether or not Miko was originally intended to fulfill the role she did, she ended up making a great contribution to the story. If she was originally intended to be a shallow love interest, I fail to see how it could have been much of a better subplot than the one she did receive.
Well, to start with, she is now gone from the rest of the story. Had she stayed in, her likely appearances might well have doubled, which already suggests a larger contribution.



If Celia's subplots so far are anything to go by, Miko lucked out.
Celia's romantic role does suggest romance is not our writer's strong point. However, in potential [which is what we are discussing here] Miko is much better suited to romantic comedy than Celia because she has more conflict with Roy. Celia and Roy have a nice [and rather dull] evening ending with a kiss [and...]. Miko and Roy can have all sorts of flareups and problems before that kiss [and not to mention some more flareups when they wake in the morning]
So we see an improvement in the plot if we could have kept Miko romantic.
For future plot, we have to make a lot of guessing, but there are a variety of possible uses of considerable utility. So her future utility could have been quite high.



Well, the Skipper was your analogy, not mine. Now you're saying you made an invalid analogy?
No, I am saying it was an analogy on a different point. The Skipper deomonstrated that a Miko character can be liked. Wade is an attempt to demonstrate that ex-lovers can stay in the story.



Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
Yes, once. It is being a shade picky since there really weren't that many chances for Wade to come back,

I am really not sure that you have any leg to stand on while claiming someone else is picky.
You may be misreading again. I am saying here that I am being picky.


I mean comparing the merits of comedy vs. tragedy on the fact that sitcom writers in the 21st century make more money than Shakespeare did?
No such comparison was made. The question was King Lear vs As you like it in the case of Shakespeare, with the point being that the title of As you like it suggests this is what the audience wanted, and paid for, and that things like King Lear were for ego satisfaction and social climbing.


How much do you think the writers of CSI make?
When we talk of comedy vs tragedy, CSI is a comedy. [The ancient distinction is that in comedy, the hero wins. In tragedy, the hero loses.]


given that she left the show at the end of the 3rd season, and it only lasted two more seasons, I'm thinking one appearance is a fairly significant number.
One is significant when somebody says never. Beyond that, one is an accident and no more than potentially meaningful.

[Sc00by]

All kinds of stuff Including:
Our writer deems himself satisfied with the final result, and with good reason. But he has most reason to be proud of the patch job turning out well, not that it was superior or equal to what the original plan was. Miko was a major benefit to the strip, but she could have been far more.

Because of the author notes in a book you are privy to the creation process of a character. If those notes didn't exist you wouldn't know that that character was originally created to have a different role in the story.

When you read a book you have no idea how the characters developed during the writing process. Just because, in this instance, you can see how the author changed his mind on how a character was to be utilised after the initial character creation it doesn't devalue the characters eventual contribution or the abilities of the creator.

There are plenty of characters out there who became more, or less, or sometimes something completely different to how they were conceived, but are still great, well written, characters. Sometimes we are privileged to have comments from the creators showing how the character developed, sometimes we can just see it over the course of story. Sometimes the changes happen before we meet the character and we're never any the wiser. All the characters are equally valid and all their creators are equally talented*, all that changes is our perception due to access to information.

*for the sake of this argument.

On topic. I see Rich's point, but if the 'public' at large felt that Start of darkness belonged in the same category as The Black Dossier then he should be (as he was) suitably flattered! And if he then happened to win then more power to his elbow! A 1st endeavour has as much right to be considered excellent as the 36th product of a prolific writer. In this instance what has gone before is irrelevant. Though I can imagine the feelings of 'unworthyness'* that would go through anyone's mind when put in a position to best someone they consider an 'icon' of their field.

*yay! Made up word!

[Finn Solomon]

I don't agree with him either, on a number of things, but in this one case I do agree with him. I also wouldn't want to live in a world where he beat Alan Moore.

[Superglucose]

OotS is a bit of fluff that can't say anything about society or even reality, even if Rich tried. At best, it's a sitcom in a fantasy setting and as serious as blowing bubbles in the wind.

Sooo many things wrong here. First... OotS may be mostly what you call 'fluff' but there's still a strong undertone of doing the right thing regardless of the possible consequences (notice how Hinjo stayed as long as he could, Haley went back for Roy, and O'Chul's actions with MitD). Not to mention the huge rants about redemption and what good actually is (see everything that has to do with Miko). Saying that OotS can't say anything about society or reality even if Rich tried is... plain wrong.

Second, since when is it necessary for something to be 'deep' in order for it to be 'enjoyable.' My least favorite part of the Narnia series is getting smacked in the face repeatedly with a Jesus allegory in the shape of a lion. I love the stories, I just get sick of "Oh by the way, GOD!"

Great Gatsby is hailed as one of the deepest and most meaningful books ever written, alongside The Sun Also Rises. Both books were painful to read and I've not met more than three people who enjoyed either. Are they great books because of how deep they are? Do they deserve prizes?

It doesn't matter how 'deep' your book is, if it's poorly written and contains metric tones of plot holes no one is going to read it. And if no one reads your book, no one takes meaning from it.

Plot and enjoyability > depth.

Thirdly, demonstrate how what Moore won for had more depth than SoD. As I recall, Watchmen was not what was being put up against SoD, therefore Watchmen has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this competition.

I think Rich has a point that SoD wasn't really a graphic novel, and therefore shouldn't have won, but I also think he sells himself a little bit short. Yes, it's not a 'graphic novel' but he didn't say that. What he said was,


Which is a GOOD thing; I don't think I want to live in a world were a parody stick figure comic beats one of the comic industry's top writers.

That statement I completely disagree with. XKCD is consistently deeper and more intelligently thought out than literally every other webcomic or comic I have ever seen. In addition, it is consistently funnier than the rest. Guess what? It's all in stick figures and still manages to be amazing!

Parody stick figure comic can be funnier and more plot intensive than something one of the comic industry's top writers makes. If Rich had said instead something along the lines of "I don't think SoD was a graphic novel, and I don't think it deserved to win in that category" I would be able to say that he's right. But his 'stick figure comic parody' is one of the best comics out there, internet or in print. SoD is one of the greatest compilations of drawings ever made, and not because the drawing artwork is so work-intensive but because the writing is amazing and the art fits it perfectly.

Rich, maybe you didn't think you deserved that category, but don't sell out OotS as art. OotS is art, better art than almost every other shmuck with a webcomic can manage. Why? Because it is, as you said, a "parody stick figure comic." It does what it does, and it does it well. Be proud.

[Red XIV]

With regard to the Miko sub-issue, I'm at a loss to see how she would've been a better character and contributed more to the story had she just been a love interest for Roy, instead of being a true character in her own right, with a character arc that's about her, rather than being about Roy.

Besides, given how their personalities meshed (or more accurately, didn't) from the first time they met, I can't imagine that Rich ever intended for any romance between Roy and Miko to be of the successful variety. He practically beat us over the head with their incompatibility and the fact that Roy's attraction was on a purely physical level.

[SmartAlec]

So we see an improvement in the plot if we could have kept Miko romantic.

Hang on, hang on.

Firstly you try to establish that romance is not Rich's strong point.

Then you try to claim that potentially, having Miko as a continuing romantic subplot can only improve the plot.

You don't seem to give any thought to the idea that having Miko as a continuing romantic subplot could actually have been to the detriment of the plot, which seems odd considering you claim romantic writing is not Rich's strong point.

It is possible Miko worked better as a strawman antagonist in this story than she ever could as a sympathetic antagonist, or as a romantic interest. It is also possible that Moore could have made her a better strawman antagonist than a sympathetic antagonist or romantic interest, too, so we might concievably have gotten the best deal here.

[David Argall]

Because of the author notes in a book you are privy to the creation process of a character. If those notes didn't exist you wouldn't know that that character was originally created to have a different role in the story.
Perhaps not. I would, however, be aware of a dissatisfaction with the character and how it could have been more.


Just because, in this instance, you can see how the author changed his mind on how a character was to be utilised after the initial character creation it doesn't devalue the characters eventual contribution or the abilities of the creator.
Nor does it change whether a distinctly different continuation would have been better.


All the characters are equally valid and all their creators are equally talented*, all that changes is our perception due to access to information.
Not at all. Now we can say that our inside information is irrelevant. It speaks to author intention, not to result. But that does not mean that even a very successful character can not be a failure. Our knowledge in the case of Miko merely makes it easier to discuss what happened and could have happened.



I also wouldn't want to live in a world where he beat Alan Moore.
I'd take my chances myself. As others have suggested, the more "serious" works of fiction are often just posturing and no more guiding or improving than the lighter fare. Their chief advantage is frequently that one can claim to read them and get a social advantage over the common crowd. A world without such pretension is likely impossible, but it is not apparent that it is inferior.



With regard to the Miko sub-issue, I'm at a loss to see how she would've been a better character and contributed more to the story had she just been a love interest for Roy,
For starters, she would not have been "just" a love interest. From the start, she was opposition to the party, opposition that was not based on "I am evil", but on principles that Roy accepts for the most part.
And at this point, she is effectively out of the story. 464 makes it about impossible for her to return. So we are missing out on her appearing in 50-100 future comics.


instead of being a true character in her own right, with a character arc that's about her, rather than being about Roy.
This is the story of the OOTS, Roy in particular. Character arcs about side characters are a diversion for the most part. Often enough forgivably so, but being a true character in her own right with her own character arc is not a virtue of note. She could be a very important character and never be seen except in reach of Roy.


Besides, given how their personalities meshed (or more accurately, didn't)
So what makes you think they should mesh? People who agree with each other are dull. Look at the OOTS. We probably have more disagreement than agreement among them, and even more so among what is pictured.
No, our Miko-Roy personalities should clash, and as much as possible.


from the first time they met, I can't imagine that Rich ever intended for any romance between Roy and Miko to be of the successful variety.
That depends on your definition of successful. A Miko-Roy romance should not be allowed to happily ever after until the final fade-out. But it can be highly successful for our purposes if they are constantly yelling and fighting as they approach and retreat from each other. Roy trying to constantly seduce an uninterested Miko [who might vary at times from violently objecting to almost willing, or even eager when for some reason Roy can't or won't] could fill ten thousand pages, far beyond what will be done here.

[Eric]

This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.

a) Rich can't control us, we come at the conclusions WE decide on based on our past histories, our interpretation and so on

b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to happen? AFAIT all she was was the epitome of Nerf Playing in a Paladin.

What did do well is her descent into madness (figuring that the OOTS MUST be in league and bending everything she found to fit that, getting nuttier and nuttier with time). 'course you didn't like that, which may be why you see it as Rich's failure and why you see Miko as having been "intended" to be treated as you said (though this may be more complicity: you thought we should think of her like that and when we didn't, you'd rather Rich was wrong than we are right).

People found her obnoxious, righteous and a huge pain in the arse. So did her compatriots. When she went down, we thought "Good riddance" but her pathos when she's lying there STILL thinking she'd done good and was going to get back to being a paladin (and then, touchingly, worrying only then about seeing her horse again) was well recieved. At least I didn't hear anyone saying "Good, grind her down!" or similar dissing. Didn't stop her being nuttier than a fruitcake and maybe you don't understand that either: we can feel sympathy that some huge PITA has their comeuppance but we can still call them a huge PITA.

[Eric]

To me it looked like they were all wrong for one another right from the start. His attraction to her was shallow and sexist and had nothing to do with her personality. YMMV, I suppose.


You say this like it's wrong, somehow?

:smallfrown::smalleek:

[Eric]

Well, as someone that reads both Moore and Burlew, I have to say:

Rich is very correct. Moore is vastly superior as an author. In fact, Watchmen is sitting right here beside me.

<very long and DEFINITELY REUQUIRED SNIP>

OotS will, as a parody, never really be recognized as any more than glorified fanfic.

Congrats to Moore.

And Laurel and Hardy was just hackneyed slapstick? Midsummer Nights Dream just one long knob gag? Jeez, get out into the sunlight, dude.

Yes, Watchmen is a cracking story. It does get bogged down in quite a few places, though. And that work wasn't being voted on here. Whereas SoD had some *cracking* moments (as good as any in Watchmen):



Xykon's one-liners (Groucho couldn't have done much better).

Bad Coffee.

Xykon's summing up with Dorukan (All you need is enough power)

"You'll never look back and think I didn't get enough revenge"

Right-eye's end.

Bitch vs Butch



Watchtower had more, but then again, it was a longer comic and you find me a better bit of prose more succinctly and powerfully put than the last point made about SoD. Heck, the last two contain everything you need to be emotionally manipulated for these characters.

Overall? SoD was pretty light. But it did get some great, even classic segments out.

[Red XIV]

And at this point, she is effectively out of the story. 464 makes it about impossible for her to return. So we are missing out on her appearing in 50-100 future comics.
I, on the other hand, contend that appearing in 500 future chapters as Roy's love interest wouldn't have given Miko as much impact on the story as the role she actually had gave her.

Though actually, even if a romance between Roy and Miko had happened, everything from her encounter with Zykon onward would've played out almost exactly the same, aside from obviously the dialogue between her and Roy changing in their battle. Miko killing Shojo and destroying the Gate are absolutely necessary events; without those things happening, the story ends at about chapter 462 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0462.html).

[MyrddinDerwydd]

[Snip real world bit that was completely unnecessary]
Rich Burlew will just be a forgotten webcomic artist with no lasting impact.

Just go away. Anyone that is this jaded about a comic that they read needs to go take a vacation and a big giant optimism pill.:smallannoyed: It's all well and good to say that someone clearly more experienced and well-funded than Rich is better, but it says a lot about the quality of his work that we (excluding Kreistor apparently) all took the time to vote for him.

[Remirach]

You say this like it's wrong, somehow?

:smallfrown::smalleek:

Mm? I'm not sure where your problem with my statement comes from. I didn't think less of Roy for desiring a woman or wanting to follow up on that. I DID think less of him for turning into a total sexist around Miko, calling her "sweetie" and "honey" (when he didn't even KNOW her and she was not interested in being flirtatious) and a jerk around his allies on her behalf. He didn't even extend to her the kind of courtesy he would toward Haley. He showed no respect for her personality, only her figure, and little INTEREST in developing an appreciation for her actual character. The scratched plot at the inn sounds like a lame attempt for him to learn just enough to talk his way into her pants.

Basically a huge turn-off, and not a solid basis for any kind of relationship, or even a fling.

[David Argall]

a) Rich can't control us, we come at the conclusions WE decide on based on our past histories, our interpretation and so on
He wasn't trying to. He was, and is, in control of the characters, and was trying to select those characters and actions we would react to in certain ways. In the case of Miko, he found himself unable to do that.


b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to happen?
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."


What did do well is her descent into madness 'course you didn't like that, which may be why you see it as Rich's failure
Who says I don't like it? It is pretty good stuff really. I merely say it can be better.



and why you see Miko as having been "intended" to be treated as you said (though this may be more complicity: you thought we should think of her like that and when we didn't, you'd rather Rich was wrong than we are right).
Now when you ascribe motives other than the facts, you open yourself up to the same charges. Do you wish to confess to a irrational hatred of Miko? And thus an eagerness to approve of any plot, no matter how inferior, so long as it got rid of Miko?
Or would you rather stick to the facts and avoid ad hominem attacks?


At least I didn't hear anyone saying "Good, grind her down!" or similar dissing.
You apparently weren't listening too closely.



Firstly you try to establish that romance is not Rich's strong point.

Then you try to claim that potentially, having Miko as a continuing romantic subplot can only improve the plot.
I am on record praising our writer for acknowledging that he was failing with Miko, and making revisions accordingly. No, I have not said that the romance could have "only" have improved the plot. I did and do say it could have, quite easily and greatly.



It is possible Miko worked better as a strawman antagonist in this story than she ever could as a sympathetic antagonist, or as a romantic interest.
That is quite impossible. For one thing, you are comparing the imperfect reality with the possible perfect. That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded.



I, on the other hand, contend that appearing in 500 future chapters as Roy's love interest wouldn't have given Miko as much impact on the story as the role she actually had gave her.

Though actually, even if a romance between Roy and Miko had happened, everything from her encounter with Zykon onward would've played out almost exactly the same, aside from obviously the dialogue between her and Roy changing in their battle. Miko killing Shojo and destroying the Gate are absolutely necessary events; without those things happening, the story ends at about chapter 462.

You are confusing character with plot here. These events were fixed in advance. If Miko does not do them, somebody else will. The Miko contribution here is the difference between her doing it and, say, O-Chul doing it. Equally a future Miko-Roy romance has to be compared with the Celia-Roy romance, which has been a benefit to the strip, but hardly the wonderful comedy that Miko-Roy could have been.

[Eakin]

If it is common, you should be able to provide some examples with little trouble. Claims something is common is easy to make.

OK! Check the Tvtropes entry for Ensemble Darkhorse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnsembleDarkhorse). A bunch of these characters are ones that got retooled or became the center of attention because the creators thought they were more popular that way. Whether or not you think that's a good standard for changing a character's status is one thing, but there's no question that creators aren't averse to changing their story from what they originally intended. Otherwise we'd never have had characters like the Fonz, Urkel, Frasier, or even the freakin' Daleks!

[Paragon Badger]

Basically a huge turn-off, and not a solid basis for any kind of relationship, or even a fling.

You'd be surprised how little mutual respect is required for two people to hook up. :smalltongue:

[Red XIV]

You are confusing character with plot here. These events were fixed in advance. If Miko does not do them, somebody else will. The Miko contribution here is the difference between her doing it and, say, O-Chul doing it. Equally a future Miko-Roy romance has to be compared with the Celia-Roy romance, which has been a benefit to the strip, but hardly the wonderful comedy that Miko-Roy could have been.
I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.

Also, Miko was the perfect choice for moving the plot in its required direction by killing Shojo, and later destroying the Gate. Her exteme zealousness and inclination toward jumping to conclusions make her believable as Shojo's killer in the way no other paladin character in OOTS would be. Sure, another character could've been created with those same traits, but he or she wouldn't be somebody we'd already gotten to know over the course of many chapters. Miko was exactly that, and thus we actually gave a damn about her (though usually in a negative sense). Her doing the deed produces a reaction of momentary shock that she'd go so far as to violate her paladin oath, followed by recognition that it's entirely in-character for her. If it had been O-Chul, as you suggested as an alternative...he was barely a character at that point and had only even been given a name one strip earlier. The reader reaction would've instead been along the lines of "who the hell is this guy, and why hasn't Roy killed him yet?"

[Eric]

David, you said:

"> How do you know what was supposed to hapen
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

But how does that make this (and I quote) happen?

"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her. "

?

How did you draw the connection between "dialogue... ruder .. than expected" to "not want anything serious to happen to her"? That quote from Rich DOES tell you what he meant to happen, but that isn't what you said he meant to happen. How'd you make the connection?

[Eric]

You'd be surprised how little mutual respect is required for two people to hook up. :smalltongue:

Aye, "lovely personality" IS wanted, but a woman (just as a man) doesn't find out about the personality unless

a) it's wrapped in a lovely body
b) forced to get to know

Not that this is wrong in any sense, but it does make the old trope about women not being worried about looks as much as men wearying at best.

PS Remirach, I was poking fun at the fact that I'm a man and insinuated that these traits were *exactly* what women wanted. Passed a building site? See! I suspect more men got it as a joke because we know there's a tendency to admire the package but we're both allowed socially to be so (even if we're looked down on for it) and we're comfortable at having faults.

[Selene]

Sooo many things wrong here. First... OotS may be mostly what you call 'fluff' but there's still a strong undertone of doing the right thing regardless of the possible consequences (notice how Hinjo stayed as long as he could, Haley went back for Roy, and O'Chul's actions with MitD). Not to mention the huge rants about redemption and what good actually is (see everything that has to do with Miko). Saying that OotS can't say anything about society or reality even if Rich tried is... plain wrong.

Second, since when is it necessary for something to be 'deep' in order for it to be 'enjoyable.' My least favorite part of the Narnia series is getting smacked in the face repeatedly with a Jesus allegory in the shape of a lion. I love the stories, I just get sick of "Oh by the way, GOD!"

Great Gatsby is hailed as one of the deepest and most meaningful books ever written, alongside The Sun Also Rises. Both books were painful to read and I've not met more than three people who enjoyed either. Are they great books because of how deep they are? Do they deserve prizes?

I'm just going to sit back and applaud every word of this.


I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.

Any more than that would have turned them into Sam & Diane from Cheers.

[lord of kobolds]

Rich, I would still vote for you.
I have never read alan moore, but i don't need to.
You have a gift. you take the most ridiculous character ideas possible and make them seem like real people. that is talent like i have never seen before.
As to it being a stick figure parody, so what? If anything, it means you are even greater for being able to tell such a great story in a media usually reserved for lazy doodles.
Again I will say, good job.

[SmartAlec]

That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded.

... nope; you've lost me.

What point are you trying to make here? Can you spell it out in plain english? All I'm getting from this is "This thing here could have been better if only the author was capable of perfection". That's... obvious. You can say that equally about Moore.

[David Argall]

OK! Check the Tvtropes entry for Ensemble Darkhorse (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnsembleDarkhorse). A bunch of these characters are ones that got retooled or became the center of attention because the creators thought they were more popular that way. Whether or not you think that's a good standard for changing a character's status is one thing, but there's no question that creators aren't averse to changing their story from what they originally intended. Otherwise we'd never have had characters like the Fonz, Urkel, Frasier, or even the freakin' Daleks!
You may be misunderstanding the discussion. [Not hard to do when there is a series of quotes going back several posts] The original exchange was...

Originally Posted by NerfTW
most real writers consider it a measure of how deep a character is by how polarized people's views are on them. A poorly written character will be looked over, but a well written one will invoke a passionate reaction, good or bad.

DCA: But relatively rarely both, which is what we have here. And even more rarely unintentionally.

So we were discussing audience reactions to characters, in particular where the reaction was bitterly divided as with Miko, not altering characters to suit audience reaction.



I contend that the comedy value of a Miko/Roy hookup would fill 10 strips, tops, before it would either get repetitive or end in a break-up to avoid that repetitiveness.



Any more than that would have turned them into Sam & Diane from Cheers.
I presume you are joking here since the two filled up 5 seasons and would have filled up more except that the acresss quit despite offers of record pay. So they would argue that a rocky Roy-Miko romance could fill lots of strips very amusingly.

Also...
See Archie Comics. Archie has been chasing Veronica for 60+ years and a kazillion pages. He still sells.
See Belkar. He has been described as a one-trick pony. It is going fine after 253/314 pages.
See just about any tv sitcom involving romance. They don't get cancelled because the romance has become repetitive.
See... Oh just about anything.
The potential way exceeds the available space, much less 10 strips [which you could fill on their first date].



Miko was the perfect choice for moving the plot in its required direction by killing Shojo, and later destroying the Gate. If it had been O-Chul, as you suggested as an alternative...he was barely a character at that point and had only even been given a name one strip earlier. The reader reaction would've instead been along the lines of "who the hell is this guy, and why hasn't Roy killed him yet?"

Now Miko does work well here, but you are viewing bumps in the road as high mountains. O-Chul was hardly known at that point? So we write a strip for him, maybe when he delays Roy's entry, in which he expresses the desired attitude.

An alternate idea would be to delete 464. On its own it is excellent, but it is a dead end. Miko can't be used again without harming it. Remove it and Miko can take over O-Chul's role since then quite well. [Those interested in character development might find Miko learning tolerance from MitD quite interesting.]



you said:

"> How do you know what was supposed to hapen
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

But how does that make this (and I quote) happen?

"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her. "

How did you draw the connection between "dialogue... ruder .. than expected" to "not want anything serious to happen to her"? That quote from Rich DOES tell you what he meant to happen, but that isn't what you said he meant to happen. How'd you make the connection?
I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?"

Now why would the writer want less rude dialogue for Miko? The answer would be that Miko was to be likable in some degree. Not a necessarily major degree, but still.. Having granted her a little sympathy, we then have limits on what we want happening to her.

One comic asked for a definition of just what was funny gave an example like this...
A dignified, very dignified, perhaps overly, man is making a triumphant entrance to the ballroom and is at the top of the stairs when he stumbles a bit. There are a few giggles. He glares at them and continues, and trips, to more giggles. He recovers his balance, and falls, to laughs. He halfway recovers and falls even flatter, to greater laughter.
Now he falls all the way down the stairs, managing a complete cartwheel in the process. He is taking one of the great pratfalls of history and the audience responds with gales of laughter. He finishes up sliding halfway across the ballroom. And dies.

It stopped being funny, right?

Such was the intent with Miko. She was to be annoying enough that we wanted her to stumble, but our writer just could not keep her soft enough that people didn't cheer her death too. The statements just kept coming out too harsh.

[batsofchaos]

The 1987 novel Misery by Stephen King, which was a critical and financial success, would have by your definition a failed character serving as the protagonist. His original intention for the ending was for Paul to finish his story, and then be killed by Annie. This was detailed in King's book "On Writing." To paraphrase the situation, he had envisioned the ending as such: When the book was finished Annie was planning on binding it using cured leather made from the pig. In the end the book would be sitting on her coffee table, bound in pink leather, with the authors remains being fed to the pig. As the story was written, King found the character of Paul was a lot more resourceful than originally planned and in fact managed to escape his gruesome fate. The character was intended to die in Annie's house, but ended up escaping because of his resourcefulness.

In fact, 90% of all of Stephen Kings works would be littered with 'failed' endeavors since he relies on defining characters and situations and then letting the characters define the plot, often in a way that was different than what King had set out to do. There is no defined method of plot resolution and writers should be encouraged to use what works. Suppositions that Rich failed by listening to his character's voice is faulty.

Additionally, the assertion that Miko could have been so much more is fundamentally flawed. "Had Miko been written perfectly as a romantic interest it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overvealous antagonist" is not a valid argument, because there is no way to prove it. There's no such thing as writing perfectly, number one because writing is subjective and there's no such thing in the field and number two because even if there were it would be impossible for a human being to write it. An equally valid argument would be "Had Miko been written perfectly as an overzealous antagonist, it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overzealous antagonist." While technically true in both accounts (as well as any number of accounts, including "Had Miko been written perfectly as an incontinent gerbil, it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overzealous antagonist."), it serves no value in furthering the argument.

[The Giant]

Good gods, this is ridiculous. I came back to this thread to see whether there was any comment on my previous post, and look at this (mostly off-topic) mess.

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate. No one else was ever considered for this role, and this role was assigned to her from before her first appearance in #200. It was the entire narrative purpose of her character. Of course, I couldn't SAY that in the notes to Paladin Blues, because none of that had happened yet. There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

Please, if you're going to bash my writing, do so for what I actually wrote, not some concocted dream of what you think I should have written. There were never going to be 500+ strips of romantic comedy, just two dozen or so before the character started down the slippery slope of self-righteousness to her endpoint in the rubble of Azure City.

(Also, Sam and Diane were the epitome of tortured drawn-out will-they-or-won't-they clichés and Shelley Long was right to put it out of its misery when she did. I can't think of anything I would be less interested in writing than that.)

[Pie Guy]

I fail to see how Rich has failed to make Miko work as a character. He made as her an example of how not to play a paladin, and if the countless hate threads that have been spawned are any indication, he has succeeded in making her unlikeable. Yet, at the same time, there are many Miko defenders, showing she is a complex character and more than a cardboard cutout. So, though I don't really like Miko that much, I think she is a very good character. By 'good,' I mean 'interesting.'

No, she's a cardboard cutout. But she's as interesting as Belkar. Not as funny though.

[Aaron L]

Can't a guy be modest around here?

[Dragonus45]

This is one of the aspects of his failure with her. She was supposed to be likably unlikable. The venom expressed shows he failed at that. People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
Then we have her romantic aspect. We already have his confession of his failure here. He just couldn't make Miko work. Which is too bad. Celia as Roy's lover is downright insipid compared to what Miko could have been. He was likely wise to give up and use other ideas, but we still have a failure that a superior artist would have avoided.


It's a Draco in Leather Pants no matter how hard you try someone is going to like the person you want them to hate.

[Wish]

Alan Moore or Rich, well I don't really feel this topic much. Moore is older rich is younger, maybe we should draw a big bag o' gold for the writers and a long rainbow and a leprocorn for the original poster.

I go with Rich, because its contemporary, its light hearted, and its a breath of fresh air for the hobby.

yar!

[Scalenex]

I read this forum because I was curious. Any threads with criticism on Rich tend to get locked or deleted. I find that the gist of the criticism is Rich is too modest. And a giant tangent on Miko. If we throw in something o V's gender, Haley's secret, and/or Sabine's specific creature type, this will have half of the forum in one thread!

[Selene]

Good gods, this is ridiculous. I came back to this thread to see whether there was any comment on my previous post, and look at this (mostly off-topic) mess.

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate. No one else was ever considered for this role, and this role was assigned to her from before her first appearance in #200. It was the entire narrative purpose of her character. Of course, I couldn't SAY that in the notes to Paladin Blues, because none of that had happened yet. There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

Please, if you're going to bash my writing, do so for what I actually wrote, not some concocted dream of what you think I should have written. There were never going to be 500+ strips of romantic comedy, just two dozen or so before the character started down the slippery slope of self-righteousness to her endpoint in the rubble of Azure City.

(Also, Sam and Diane were the epitome of tortured drawn-out will-they-or-won't-they clichés and Shelley Long was right to put it out of its misery when she did. I can't think of anything I would be less interested in writing than that.)

I love you, man. :smallcool:

[Remirach]

People sure do seem to get worked up over authors not accommodating their own "shipping" preferences. See also: Harry/Hermione and accompanying fallout.

@Eric: ah, see, I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not, so I went over my own post to see if there was something that might be misconstrued. Yet I seem only to put my foot further into my mouth the more I say, so I'll just--

[David Argall]

The 1987 novel Misery by Stephen King, which was a critical and financial success, would have by your definition a failed character serving as the protagonist. His original intention for the ending was ...
You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character. Thus we can talk of a failure of Miko when our writer is unable to get the desired tone.


In fact, 90% of all of Stephen Kings works would be littered with 'failed' endeavors since he relies on defining characters and situations and then letting the characters define the plot, often in a way that was different than what King had set out to do.
Under such a system, you pretty much can't have a failed character. Rather you have the danger of a failed plot.


"Had Miko been written perfectly as a romantic interest it would have been better than the not-perfect reality as an overvealous antagonist"
You seem to be misquoting me here. I presume you are refering to the exchange...
Originally Posted by SmartAlec
It is possible Miko worked better as a strawman antagonist in this story than she ever could as a sympathetic antagonist, or as a romantic interest.

"That is quite impossible. For one thing, you are comparing the imperfect reality with the possible perfect. That our writer would not have succeeded with a sympathetic antagonist or a romantic interest is quite possible. But it was also possible he could have succeeded."


is not a valid argument, because there is no way to prove it.
The actual argument was valid. It pointed out the previous argument was trying to insist the merely imperfect would exceed the perfect.

[Kgw]

I rather enjoy of every one's work (Moore's and Rich's), than start wondering who's better. I might not like every twist & turn of them -I don't quite understand some stories of Moore, and I am definitely lost with D&D jokes in OOTS- but I still enjoy the overall result.

[Eric]

You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character.

That isn't the definition of a failed character.

It may be YOUR definition.

Or are all authors failed storytellers because a book is NEVER one original version: the original vision has NEVER been realised (apart from such weighty classics as "The Hungry Caterpillar" and "The Cat In The Hat" or "See Spot Run").

[Eric]

OK, so let's clear something up: This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. ...

Nah, nah, nah. You're wrong. David has already told us what you intended and HE IS RIGHT!!! How the heck do you know better than him how Rich Burlew thinks???

:smallwink:

[Eric]

I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?"



And to reiterate a point you've made on previous topics when people have tried to show you that you may, in certain instances, not be 100% validly correct:

"You are assuming actions not in evidence".

You know you've used them. So swallow it.

[SPoD]

You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character.

Except the author just told us, in this thread, that the true narrative purpose of Miko was to slide into insanity, kill Shojo, destroy the gate--that the romantic comedy aspect he originally thought of (and that you are clinging to as the author's "original intention") was only ever intended as a method of introducing the character, not its true purpose. By your own definition, then, Miko was a success. She fulfilled her narrative purpose in the story very well, because her purpose was not ever intended to be what you thought it was intended to be.

Essentially, the text you are using as your source for why Miko was a failed character only includes half the story, on purpose, because he couldn't reveal more at the time. The author has come here and told you that you are interpreting this incorrectly, and yet still, you argue it! Is it so difficult to admit, in this one situation, that you didn't have all the facts and therefore came to the wrong conclusion?

[PaladinFreak]

OK David. Let's get something straight. The author of the comic has come to this thread and specifically said that the character worked AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, and therefor you were basing your conclusions on false speculation.

What more to you want?

Honestly. I want to know what it will take for you to accept that your theory is incorrect.

[David Argall]

That isn't the definition of a failed character.
So what is the definition?
A problem here may be that you are confusing a sign of a failed character with the definition. A change to the character, or story, can be a sign something was wrong. But an unchanged character is fully capable of being a failure too.


Or are all authors failed storytellers because a book is NEVER one original version: the original vision has NEVER been realised (apart from such weighty classics as "The Hungry Caterpillar" and "The Cat In The Hat" or "See Spot Run").
Well, except in the sense that nothing mortal can ever be perfect, the original vision has been realized a great many times. [Not having that much access to the original vision, I can't say how successful the examples are in achieving it, but "See Spot Run" drew widespread criticism, and can be judged a failure under many definitions, the notable exception being selling books to schoolboards.]
One quite famous example of a failed successful book would be Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, which is still required reading [possibly for the standard reason that nobody would read it otherwise], but about which the author lamented "I aimed for the heart and hit the stomach."
A tale we would be hard put to call a failure would be "The Lady or the Tiger", which can still inspire debate, and which allowed the author to dine out for the rest of his life as he refused to reveal the ending.


Essentially, the text you are using as your source for why Miko was a failed character only includes half the story, on purpose, because he couldn't reveal more at the time. The author has come here and told you that you are interpreting this incorrectly, and yet still, you argue it!
No, I have merely corrected a misunderstanding of the definition of a failed character, not challenged or corrected the writer on any point.


Is it so difficult to admit, in this one situation, that you didn't have all the facts and therefore came to the wrong conclusion?
I prefer not to take such an out if I can avoid it.
To a minor extent I can. The writer does not deny his admission of failure with Miko. He merely classifies it as a minor failing on a minor part of her, getting an A instead of that A+ [tho it is worth arguing that as a result of the failing, he finds a better continuation and thus changes from A to A+.] It's a position with considerable justice. Once we posit the affair was to be brief, it is hard to assign much weight to it.
So why was I wrong about the intent of the length of the liason? One reason would be that brief romantic episodes are generally the province of characters who are only briefly there. The girl usually vanishes with the breakup. When she doesn't, it is often a sign she will be part of a continuing romance, which is very frequently a quite rocky one, and which can be very good comedy. [Note here that we had a great deal more fun with Haley-Elan than with Roy-Celia and precisely because it was more difficult for the characters to get into bed. Roy-Miko, we can thus see, had the potential to be fantastic.]
The use of "recurring" didn't help. While that includes characters that merely appear in a later scene, it is easy to think this means a later book, which fits in nicely with a continuing romance.
But I suppose it comes down to that I would have liked such a romance, and still deem it the superior continuation. But given the rather limited finances I supply to the strip, I suspect that is not a very powerful argument.

[neriana]

The writer does not deny his admission of failure with Miko.

What? Rich didn't fail with Miko. He did not admit he failed with Miko, because he didn't fail with Miko. He did what he always intended to do with her. If he'd wanted a romance between Roy and Miko, he would have written one. Characters don't actually have wills of their own, you know.

[Remirach]

But I suppose it comes down to that I would have liked such a romance, and still deem it the superior continuation.
Which is again the argument of Harry/Hermione shippers.

[David Argall]

What? Rich didn't fail with Miko. He did not admit he failed with Miko, because he didn't fail with Miko. He did what he always intended to do with her. If he'd wanted a romance between Roy and Miko, he would have written one. Characters don't actually have wills of their own, you know.
But he did want a romance, or rather a romance scene, and was unable to produce it. Definite failure. His explanation is that the failure was a minor one, of little importance in the total view of the character [and it quite possibly improved the character and story as a result.]



Which is again the argument of Harry/Hermione shippers.

It also seems to be, in reverse, the argument of the anti-Miko/Roy shippers.

[Remirach]

It also seems to be, in reverse, the argument of the anti-Miko/Roy shippers. Not really, they aren't arguing that their interpretation of things would have been the "superior continuation." I brought up H and H in part because it's an area in which I tend to empathize with you, and you're basically making the same kind of spectacle of yourself that I saw fans of the H/Hr pairing do back when book 6 came out. It was a pretty damn embarrassing time to be a shipper, let me tell you. Your comment about the limited finances you provide to the comic smacks heavily of the people who actually tried to petition the author to change what she'd been intending to do from day one. It's quite one thing to wish something had happened and another to go on about how things are a "failure" because something you specifically wanted didn't happen.

[Eric]

So you believed Rich when he said "This was meant to be a romance" in a note in the cartoon but insist he's lying when he says that Miko was always supposed to fall because of her irrational zeal?

You're only reason for connecting "dialogue came out ruder than I expected" to "we were supposed to laugh at her pratfalls not hate her and wish her harm" was "well, it wasn't said it WASN'T that way".

[Scrubbed]

[Selene]

Thor's Lightning would come in handy about now.

Also, I thought this was fun: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0313.html

[David Argall]

Not really, they aren't arguing that their interpretation of things would have been the "superior continuation."
I'm too lazy to look examples up, but do you really want to contend that the anti-Miko crowd was not using all sorts of terms, such as dumb, silly, etc, that amount to saying "superior continuation"? [or more technically saying that any continuation that implied a long term relationship was inferior?]



It's quite one thing to wish something had happened and another to go on about how things are a "failure" because something you specifically wanted didn't happen.
No such claim has been made. My claims of failure have been based on author intent [not always correctly understood of course], not on my preferences.



So you believed Rich when he said "This was meant to be a romance" in a note in the cartoon but insist he's lying when he says that Miko was always supposed to fall because of her irrational zeal?
Now where do I say that?
[On a somewhat different point, where is that definition of "failed character", I asked you to supply?]


You're only reason for connecting "dialogue came out ruder than I expected" to "we were supposed to laugh at her pratfalls not hate her and wish her harm" was "well, it wasn't said it WASN'T that way".
Please supply some supporting arguments for your logic[?]. While one can argue that there is not a tight fit between A & B and thus there is room for alternate conclusions, A does support B here, and thus is a good deal more than merely saying there is nothing against it.
But to add something for it, consider 464. That is to be a tragic moment. We are to feel sorry for Miko. She is even given a silly "see my horse" line to invoke sympathy.
Now consider how much harder it is to invoke that sympathy if we don't enter the scene with sympathy. It just works so much better if we go in saying "Maybe she deserved it, but it's still too bad."
Now our story is heavily scripted, and so Miko should be written for sympathy right from the start. And this was what was attempted.

[lord of kobolds]

Okay, I think we should get back to the original topic here.
I agree with Rich that he should not be in the same category as Alan Moore, but only to the extent that the categories are flawed. There should be seperate awards for comedy, action, and drama. There is really no way to compare OotS with The Black Dossier. They are both trying to entertain the reader, but in drastically different ways. That is like comparing Shakespeare to a Broadway Musical.

[David Argall]

That is like comparing Shakespeare to a Broadway Musical.

A substantial amount of Shakespeare was the 1600 equivalent of a Broadway musical.

[Teron]

But he did want a romance, or rather a romance scene, and was unable to produce it. Definite failure. His explanation is that the failure was a minor one, of little importance in the total view of the character [and it quite possibly improved the character and story as a result.]
You're just making **** up. Mr. Burlew said, and I quote:


There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture.
Emphasis mine, in an attempt to overcome your selective reading skills.

[The Boyce]

There is no such thing as a failed character. This whole argument seems to stem from you saying: "Our writer is unable to make Miko really work as a character."

This statement, while I can not say it is wrong as it is an opinion not a fact, it seems as close to wrong as an opinion can be. Your arguments for this appear to have two main basis-in-plural-form.

1. That people both loved and hated Miko while she was supposed to be generally liked.

2. The whole no romantic comedy thing.

2 has been dealt with by the Giant himself so I think needs no further consideration. Instead we must look at 1.

If we assume that if anyone views a character in a light different than what may be the author's intention then almost all characters ever written could be considered to have failed. Because there will always be people who look at things differently than the author expected.

For instance let's take the movie Bambi. I think it's generally accepted that the hunter who shot Bambi's mother is a bad person. I'm sure there are plenty of hunters who find nothing wrong with the shooter. Does this make him a failed character? No.

Let's consider Draco Malfoy next, because why not. He appears as an antagonist throughout most of the series and as such it can be assumed that he is supposed to be disliked, however given the number of people who were fan(all-inclusive gender term)s that such was not the case.Does this mean he failed as a character. I submit to you the hypothesis of no.

[David Argall]

There is no such thing as a failed character.
Flatly nonsense. We can debate whether and how much Miko was a failed character, but the category quite obviously exists.

A character in a work of fiction is a message(s) to the viewer, and like any other type of message can fail to get thru for any number of reasons. The author might be wanting to say "X is not a crime", but if his readers end up cheering the execution of the hero for doing that crime, the character has clearly failed to convey the message in a convincing manner. There are all sorts of ways a character can fail, but fail they do and literature is full of cases.


1. That people both loved and hated Miko while she was supposed to be generally liked.

If we assume that if anyone views a character in a light different than what may be the author's intention then almost all characters ever written could be considered to have failed. Because there will always be people who look at things differently than the author expected.
Such is the routine burden of mortality. But it does not prevent us from saying, with reasonable accuracy, that X fails and Y succeeds.
And since the character is a message, disagreement about what that message was is a sign of a failed character. The more bitter and wide the disagreement, the more we speak of a failed character.


For instance let's take the movie Bambi. I think it's generally accepted that the hunter who shot Bambi's mother is a bad person.
It's been a good 50 years since I saw it, but I don't believe we ever see that person, or any other humans. In effect, he is not a person at all, but simply a threat or menace. To call him evil is to call a storm or flood evil.


I'm sure there are plenty of hunters who find nothing wrong with the shooter. Does this make him a failed character? No.
He is not a failed character because he delivers his message, of being a threat that must be evaded.


Let's consider Draco Malfoy next, because why not. He appears as an antagonist throughout most of the series and as such it can be assumed that he is supposed to be disliked, however given the number of people who were fan(all-inclusive gender term)s that such was not the case.Does this mean he failed as a character. I submit to you the hypothesis of no.
A hypothesis needs proof. It may not be stated and left there. So how is Draco a successful character? And why would he not be deemed more successful if people were not arguing over him?

Now my knowledge of the Harry Potter books is 2nd or 3rd hand, and limited, but there are several grounds for deeming Draco a failure. Notably the very fact that some people like him, despite the author's intent to make him entirely unlikable. [She blames the movie star for this.] And I have run into a couple of reviews that labeled him her least successful major character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall
But he did want a romance, or rather a romance scene, and was unable to produce it. Definite failure. His explanation is that the failure was a minor one, of little importance in the total view of the character [and it quite possibly improved the character and story as a result.]



You're just making **** up. Mr. Burlew said, and I quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Giant
There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture.


Emphasis mine, in an attempt to overcome your selective reading skills.

You might want to make some effort to overcome my limited understanding of your claim.
Now it would seem that you have in mind something like because there was to be no relationship, there was no romance. But this is clearly false. The romance was to have been nipped in the bud and a total failure, but the plan was that there was to be a romance scene. It just would not come to a longer term relationship.
I see no inconsistency between the writer's statement and mine.

[VanBuren]

For the record, I loved reading the Great Gatsby.

[NerfTW]

Why do I keep taking Mr. Argall off my ignore list? :smallconfused:

[PaladinFreak]

You might want to make some effort to overcome my limited understanding of your claim.
Now it would seem that you have in mind something like because there was to be no relationship, there was no romance. But this is clearly false. The romance was to have been nipped in the bud and a total failure, but the plan was that there was to be a romance scene. It just would not come to a longer term relationship.
I see no inconsistency between the writer's statement and mine.

No. As I read the authors qoute, there was no intention of there being, as you put it, "A romance scene." As I read it, Mr. Burlew was categorically denying that there had ever been any intention for any sort of actual romance.


Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. ... ... There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture.

To me, this does not imply any romantic scenes intended. And on top of this, arguing that the character is a failure because the tone of the original sequence was intended to be slightly different is blatently irrational.


You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character. Thus we can talk of a failure of Miko when our writer is unable to get the desired tone.

This does not make sense to me. You repeatedly ask another person to define "Failed Character" when you define it yourself not a page earlier.

On another note, under the definition of "Failed Character" you gave, Miko is not a failed character at all. Miko was not even changed from her original purpose.
I guess you could argue that the author failed to get the originally desired tone, but the author himself has specifically stated that the "Failure" (if you wish to describe it as such) was insignificant even to the development of Miko herself.
I guess that if you consider that to be the failure of a character, then yes, Miko is a failed character. However, if that is indeed what defines a failed character, than most every character ever created is a failure.

If you, in the light of these statements by the author (and your own definitions of failure) still consider Miko as such, then this argument has passed the point of usefulness.

[David Argall]

No. As I read the authors qoute, there was no intention of there being, as you put it, "A romance scene." As I read it, Mr. Burlew was categorically denying that there had ever been any intention for any sort of actual romance.
NCPB "Originally the inn sequence was conceived as light romantic comedy." "So instead of the inn sequence being the story of how Roy tried to woo Miko and failed..." Etc. So yes, the plan was for a romantic scene. The recent posting merely tells us the planned outcome of that scene, which was the failure of Roy's attempt at romance.


arguing that the character is a failure because the tone of the original sequence was intended to be slightly different is blatently irrational.
Now the fact that Miko was planned to exit at 464 does make it hard to call her a complete failure. However, there are still points to criticize her about. A small change of tone can be a major difference. Such we can see with Miko. We see her as annoying, but sympathetic, her death becomes tragic. We see her as annoying and not sympathetic, her death is "good riddance". So that small difference in tone clearly hurts the character. Since a number of people still saw it as tragic, we can argue it is not serious enough to deem her a failure, but it is clearly hard to see her as sympathetic and so calling her a failure is hardly blatently irrational. Arguable, but not irrational.


You repeatedly ask another person to define "Failed Character" when you define it yourself not a page earlier.
And my [incomplete] definition was challenged as incorrect, so of course I ask the challenger to provide a better definition.


On another note, under the definition of "Failed Character" you gave, Miko is not a failed character at all. Miko was not even changed from her original purpose.
As I mentioned, there are several ways a character can be a failure. In the case of Miko, one way would be NCPB "I ended up often alienating the very people who most agreed with my actual views."


I guess you could argue that the author failed to get the originally desired tone, but the author himself has specifically stated that the "Failure" (if you wish to describe it as such) was insignificant even to the development of Miko herself.
Our author is the best source of information about what he was intending, but he is not necessarily the best judge of the result. One less subjective standard is the disagreement over Miko. A character is supposed to be a picture, a message to us. So if there is disagreement over the character, the message is not getting thru and the character is flawed.


I guess that if you consider that to be the failure of a character, then yes, Miko is a failed character. However, if that is indeed what defines a failed character, than most every character ever created is a failure.
Given I have not called any other character failed, that is rather obviously rhetorical exaggeration.

[factotum]

A character is supposed to be a picture, a message to us. So if there is disagreement over the character, the message is not getting thru and the character is flawed.


I don't follow that logic at all. Characters can be created to inspire debate among the readership, after all. Additionally, much of the Miko debate stems from overly-narrow readings of what Lawful and Good are supposed to represent...

[Selene]

Disagreement and controversy don't denote failure. They sell books. Just ask Dan Brown.

David, could you please provide some context for your second spoiler? I'm having trouble understanding the intent behind that sentence on its own. (Can't check it myself, as I only own the prequel books.)

[Eric]

Argyll asks:

On a somewhat different point, where is that definition of "failed character", I asked you to supply?]

I quote:

"Quote:
> Originally Posted by Eric
> That isn't the definition of a failed character.
So what is the definition? "

Well, that's odd. 'cos theentire quote that would be expected here is:

> That isn't the definition of a failed character.
> It may be YOUR definition.

You've made up a definition that cannot apply unless all characters are a failure. But nowhere did you cite why your idea is the definition. You are the one making a claim. Support it.


You also say:

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Eric
> So you believed Rich when he said "This was meant to be a romance" in a > note in the cartoon but insist he's lying when he says that Miko was
> always supposed to fall because of her irrational zeal?
Now where do I say that?


And I quote:

"You seem to be misunderstanding what a failed character is. It is not one that has merely changed from what was originally planned, but by failing to achieve the purposes the character has in mind for the character. Thus we can talk of a failure of Miko when our writer is unable to get the desired tone."


cf (from the giant)

"This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed."

So your point about failure is, by author statement incorrect. Yet you still refuse to let the bone alone. Why? You believed him when he said "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..." but don't listen to him here.

And you again,

"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
> Quote: Originally Posted by Eric
> b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to
> happen?
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

"> Quote: Originally Posted by Eric How'd you make the connection?
I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?""

your first point of "proof" does not follow from the defense of it. Your restatement of asking how you made the connection is "how do I not". This is not an answer.

Yet you still harp on:

"But he did want a romance, or rather a romance scene, and was unable to produce it. "

This does not make a failure. Except by your uncited definition of "fail" that would place all the works in the world as a failure. A definition this wide is no definition.

Instead you use non-sequitors, partial quotes and restatement to make your "case". If this is your definition of logic, I'll stick with the "logic" that you seem to be unable to find.

[David Argall]

Argyll asks:

On a somewhat different point, where is that definition of "failed character", I asked you to supply?]

I quote:

"Quote:
> Originally Posted by Eric
> That isn't the definition of a failed character.
So what is the definition? "

Well, that's odd. 'cos theentire quote that would be expected here is:

> That isn't the definition of a failed character.
> It may be YOUR definition.

You've made up a definition that cannot apply unless all characters are a failure. But nowhere did you cite why your idea is the definition. You are the one making a claim. Support it.
You still are not answering the question.
If the definition I used was incorrect, what is the correct definition?


cf (from the giant)

"This mythological notion that Miko was originally intended to be the indefinite romantic interest for Roy is pure fantasy and unfounded speculation. Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed."

So your point about failure is, by author statement incorrect.
You confuse what is said and what is not said.
The writer says that the romance is to be confined to one scene and nothing much was changed thereafter. Thus there were no hundred future romance scenes that had to be scrapped.
This still allows at least two ways the character might be described as a failure.

1. Those hundred scenes should have been on the boards. The shoving of a woman into the story for the hero to chase may be a much derided cliche, but there are reasons for cliches. They become so because they so well speak to our needs and desires. "Shakespeare? Aw, he's not much. All he did was string together a whole bunch of cliches."
Compared to the actual Roy-Celia, a Roy-Miko relationship has got to be way superior comedy material. An unsympathetic Miko makes this distinctly harder to pull off. But Roy-Celia was not one of the high points of the strip.
NCPB "My original concept...was that Miko would be a sexy female paladin who roy wanted, but wanted nothing to do with Roy...I think she's a lot more interesting as she is, even if the original plan might have been more popular. Actually I'm reasonably certain posting pages from the phone book might have been more popular."
However, such romance is much a matter of audience demand, and with a harsh Miko, there wasn't all that much demand. Which in turn tends to shield Miko from any charge of character failure on this line of thought.

2. Purely as written, Miko does not work as desired. I have mentioned
464, which requires we be sympathetic to Miko. And we have the basic disagreements among the audience about her, a sign of the message not getting thru.


You believed him when he said "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..." but don't listen to him here.
I listen, and hear no inconsistency. Can you explain what you think is inconsistent instead of just claiming there is an inconsistency?



"People were supposed to cheer when she took a pratfall, but still not want anything serious to happen to her.
> Quote: Originally Posted by Eric
> b) Can you read minds? How do you know this was what was supposed to
> happen?
Because we are told this. "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected...There was no way to undo..."

"> Quote: Originally Posted by Eric How'd you make the connection?
I am inclined to answer "how do you don't?""

your first point of "proof" does not follow from the defense of it. Your restatement of asking how you made the connection is "how do I not". This is not an answer.
I gave 23 more lines of explanation, which you ignore to attack a casual comment. Would you care to explain what was wrong with my more substantial points?


Yet you still harp on:

"But he did want a romance, or rather a romance scene, and was unable to produce it. "

This does not make a failure.
That would seem to be flatly a failure. He wanted something and could not get it. You can argue it is a trivial or irrelevant failure, but failure it most definitely is.



Disagreement and controversy don't denote failure. They sell books.
Which is true if your goal is to sell books. But I have already mentioned The Jungle, a massive best seller of its day, and which its author deemed a failure. While our writer wants to sell books, Miko was not designed to do that.



could you please provide some context for your second spoiler? I'm having trouble understanding the intent behind that sentence on its own. (Can't check it myself, as I only own the prequel books.)

It seems self-explanatory, but NSPB what would you think of a play if, instead of laughing at the villain's antics, the audience started throwing fruit at the villain for those antics? We can say the audience is taking things way too seriously, but it is some flaw in the actor/writer that is causing that. And in NSPB, our writer is bemoaning that those who ought to be pounding him on the back and saying what a good job of nailing those irritating paladin types he had done were instead yelling and screaming as if she were real.
And if, like me, you end up posting much on these boards, you will likely have to shell out for the strip books in order to handle points like this.



Characters can be created to inspire debate among the readership, after all.
Of course, but that is their message when that is intended. More important here, Miko wasn't intended to inspire debate, at least of the types she did.


Additionally, much of the Miko debate stems from overly-narrow readings of what Lawful and Good are supposed to represent...
You seem to be confusing cause and effect.
People did not make poor readings of Lawful and Good and decide Miko was wrong. They decided Moko was wrong and then made the poor readings.
I went back and read the original postings about her appearance. There was no "Wait, no paladin would Kill Samantha, or attack the party like this. Something is wrong." Instead there were comments about awesome, etc. It was only after people started saying "I hate Miko" that there were claims her behavior was unpaladinlike.

[Selene]

I am fully aware that The Jungle did not fulfill its author's intent, and instead shone an unintentional spotlight on the meat industry, leading to stricter regulations and tighter controls. IMO it is not an appropriate analogy. The author of The Jungle was disappointed with the reception of his book. Going by what Rich has said in this very thread, the thing he is disappointed with is the misinterpretation of his intentions. So (IMO) it was his comments on Miko that were a failure, and not the character herself.

Also, that was interpretation, rather than context. I wanted to know what else Rich actually said. Apparently "could you please provide some context" was an ambiguous request, and I apologize. And yes, in all likelihood, I will buy the two books I don't own yet in order to support Rich and his work.

[Trazoi]

Also, that was interpretation, rather than context. I wanted to know what else Rich actually said. Apparently "could you please provide some context" was an ambiguous request, and I apologize. And yes, in all likelihood, I will buy the two books I don't own yet in order to support Rich and his work.

If you mean you want to know what Rich wrote about Miko in No Cure for the Paladin Blues, I can summarise for you. This is all paraphrased from Rich's commentary:

(Spoilered in case you haven't read up to Strip 300 or so and for some reason are viewing the forum!)



Miko was planned from near the very beginning of OotS, in part at least to tell a bunch of great paladin and Lawful Good jokes and observations.
The original idea for Miko was a sexy female paladin that Roy wanted but had nothing to do with Roy, but obviously this Miko wasn't the one made it into the comic.
...and Rich prefers the Miko we got to the one he originally planned, even if fandom would have preferred the original :smallwink:
The Miko we did get was improved in not being just a romantic foil but also a direct callenge to his authority as leader of the OOTS (challenging his "manhood" on multiple levels.
The inn sequence was originally conceived as light romantic comedy, with Roy using the belt of gender changing to learn more about Miko with "girl talk". However Rich decided that "light romantic comedy" was not what Miko was about. Roy and Miko were clearly incompatible and her dialogue came out ruder and harsher than Rich expected; he saw Miko evolve into a far harsher person.
Since Rich couldn't undo the rudeness apparent in Miko's character, he changed the story to one we got where instead of Roy failing to woo Miko, we got one where Roy realised Miko wasn't worth pursuing



Personally I don't see any of this as evidence of "failure". I don't know of any significant creative project that didn't go under some revision while in draft form, and I regard the inn sequence we did get to be superior to the draft one described in the book.

(Spoiled again if for some reason you haven't read the inn sequence yet...)


In fact, if Rich did go with the original sequence, we wouldn't have had the whole assassin's plot, and Roy wouldn't have put on the belt as an act to save Elan. I felt that this act of personal sacrifice was a big part of the improvement of Roy's character, and is a better result than potential light romantic comedy.

[Mauve Shirt]

Why is she "failed" just because she changed? If that's the case, then most of the characters I've written about are "failed". Dammit.

[The Extinguisher]

Compared to the actual Roy-Celia, a Roy-Miko relationship has got to be way superior comedy material. An unsympathetic Miko makes this distinctly harder to pull off. But Roy-Celia was not one of the high points of the strip.

In your opinion.

The way I see it, you think she is a failed character because the Giant didn't put together who you shipped.

[David Argall]

Why is she "failed" just because she changed? If that's the case, then most of the characters I've written about are "failed". Dammit.

You are confusing cause and effect. She changed [or more precisely our writer couldn't change her in the way needed and so the inn scene had to change from romance to action] because she had failed.
Now in a number of cases, we as outsiders deduct from the change that a failure had happened. That is a suspicion that may or may not be well founded. However, here the fact of failure is confessed. What is not is that the failure was more than trivial, or that it had negative consequences for the strip.

[Calamity]

. A character is supposed to be a picture, a message to us. So if there is disagreement over the character, the message is not getting thru and the character is flawed.

What? How is that true? People are complex. Fact. The reason we all have different friends and enemies is because there is disagreement over a person (e.g. one person thinks that another person interesting and another thinks the same person is boring).

So are you trying to tell me that creating a complex character makes that character a failure?

[David Argall]

What? How is that true?
How is it not?


People are complex. Fact. The reason we all have different friends and enemies is because there is disagreement over a person (e.g. one person thinks that another person interesting and another thinks the same person is boring).

Which is irrelevant to our fictional story. When you make friends, or enemies, you are not trying to tell a story, or create "interesting" situations. In fact you are likely trying to avoid both. There is no moral to your "story".
By contrast, our fictional character is a story. The moral[s] of the story can vary widely. They can even be things like the truth is uncertain, or that all is meaningless chance and fate, rather than our choice. They are rarely stated directly. But it/they are there. Our story is not a set of random events with no connection. Rather there is a theme, a moral.
The author is trying to tell you something by presenting the character. When you don't get the message [or don't agree with it], the author, and the character, has failed, perhaps seriously, perhaps trivially. But he has failed.
So when we have vigorous disagreement over a character, we have default proof of character failure.


So are you trying to tell me that creating a complex character makes that character a failure?
No.
It is simply easier to do so, just as it is easier to knock down a high house of cards than a low one.

[The Extinguisher]

No. That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen in regard to literary analysis. And I've read "Death of the Author".

Any good character should inspire debate.

[Mauve Shirt]

Yeah, Rich's message from Miko was "Don't play a paladin like this."

[Selene]

Thanks, Trazoi. :smallsmile:

As for characters sparking disagreement, check out this old thread I ran across a few minutes ago. http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=55&threadid=729

The thread title is "Who's the best female literary character of all time?"
There are a lot of disagreement-sparking failures listed there. Jane Eyre and Emma Bovary provoked some venom, for example. And there's a big long debate over whether or not it's creepy to include Lolita.

Personally, I'm leaning toward voting for Willow Rosenberg.

[David Argall]

No. That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen in regard to literary analysis. And I've read "Death of the Author".

Any good character should inspire debate.

So you are saying that Miko was our author's best character, and probably only good one?

You seem to be confused about two different definitions of controversial here.

In a sexually repressed society, making the heroine a slut, and a figure to sympathize with, would be controversial. Her meaning in the story is quite clear, and agreed upon. She is a statement that a bad girl is not necessarily a bad girl, which much of society disagrees with.

Miko is not controversial in this sense, because we don't even agree on what she is saying, or how it is being said. That is where much of our controversy about her is mired.

You may also be confusing cause and effect. People argue over everything, particularly the things that interest them. So the good character that attracts our attention also attracts our arguments. These arguments are not the result of being a good character, but of people being people.

[Eric]

You still are not answering the question.
If the definition I used was incorrect, what is the correct definition?

If I were to assert that trolling is posting too much on a thread and when you responded with "no it isn't" would you require me to show where that definition came from?

Because unless I give where this definition comes from, no matter what you say about what "trolling" means, I can just say "that's just one definition, this is another".

We need you to show why your definition of failure is correct. Citation, it's called.

Or will you stop posting because you're trolling (as in posting too much on this thread)?

[Eric]

You are confusing cause and effect. She changed [or more precisely our writer couldn't change her in the way needed and so the inn scene had to change from romance to action] because she had failed.

The writer DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE it.

Difference.

Came up with an idea (I wonder if I can get some action between these two) and the result (nah, too rude for a webcomic that children read) then predicated a new idea (drop this, it isn't central and just makes problems when Miko turns psyco as I already wanted her to).

When you go into town and you decide to walk a different way into town, have you failed in your task of getting into town? No, because you now have got into town. The route wasn't the aim, the destination was.

Rich's aim was for Miko to go more and more psychotic to the aim of having her kill Shojo. And rather than get a romance going, didn't. However, Miko STILL managed to go psycho and did still kill Shojo. The aim was still fulfilled.

If a romance had gone on, it would, at that point, have to have stopped. So the path wasn't germain to the aim of this character.

No matter how much you deny being wrong, you are.

[David Argall]

If I were to assert that trolling is posting too much on a thread and when you responded with "no it isn't" would you require me to show where that definition came from?
Providing supporting information is routinely a good idea.
Which reminds me. What is your definition of a failed character?


Because unless I give where this definition comes from, no matter what you say about what "trolling" means, I can just say "that's just one definition, this is another".
Which seems to be a reason why you should supply that definition.


We need you to show why your definition of failure is correct. Citation, it's called.
That's called trying to prove a negative. It is simply much easier to prove a definition is wrong, which is what you assert, and thus need to prove.
A citation, by the way, is only one of many ways to attempt to prove something, and by no means the best. It can have the advantage of being quick and easy, but at best it borders on argument from authority, when it is not blatently guilty of that fallacy.


Or will you stop posting because you're trolling (as in posting too much on this thread)?
I would respond by noting the standard definitions of trolling are like "Posting derogatory messages about sensitive subjects on newsgroups and chat rooms to bait users into responding."
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=trolling&i=53181,00.asp that other definitions are similar, and they do not mention the number of posts.

And I am expecting the same from you, that you explain what is wrong with my definition and/or supply an alternate definition.
So what is your definition of a failed character?



The writer DID NOT WANT TO CHANGE it.
and then he changed it. That seems a default case for failure. How serious a failure is not so clear, but flatly a failure.


When you go into town and you decide to walk a different way into town, have you failed in your task of getting into town? No, because you now have got into town. The route wasn't the aim, the destination was.
Now you seem to dodge the basic definition of failure here. You decide. it seems a matter of indifference which way you go. But failure involves difficulty. You want to do A, but can't. If you can get to town by either A or B, you can't fail. But when you can't get to town by A [which you prefer] and must use B, we have failure. It is a minor failure in terms of the larger goal of getting to town at all, but it is still failure.


Rich's aim was for Miko to go more and more psychotic to the aim of having her kill Shojo. And rather than get a romance going, didn't. However, Miko STILL managed to go psycho and did still kill Shojo. The aim was still fulfilled.

Now on the small scale, our writer wanted to get a romance going, and failed to manage it. It's not a matter of merely didn't. It's a mountain climber who only got halfway before turning back. That he intended only a very brief romance has no bearing here, just as we are not really concerned with whether the mountail climber was 500 feet up a thousand foot climb or 5000 feet up a 10,000 foot climb. Both failed.

Nor was our author's aim "for Miko to go more and more psychotic to the aim of having her kill Shojo." That is merely what happened. It is hard to know his precise aim [which is part of the reason to deem the character a failure], but part of it was to explain why she did, to make it seem "reasonable" [We can easily disagree with the action, but even when we are surprised by it, we are not surprised enough to say "this would never happen"].
The author is also trying to form our attitude towards Miko. Was her death tragic? or a tragedy it didn't happen sooner? It seems clear enough that the writer wants her to be tragic, but a quite large percentage of the audience didn't see it that way. Here again we see character failure since many people did not get the message.


If a romance had gone on, it would, at that point, have to have stopped.
It might have been a convenient point to stop it, but the hero helping his lover-assassin escape would have been a possible alternative.

[Eric]

Providing supporting information is routinely a good idea.

So please provide supporting information for your definition.

Or stop trolling.

(Please note that I have given my definition of what counts as failed in my original response.)

PS: OFFS

"Nor was our author's aim "for Miko to go more and more psychotic to the aim of having her kill Shojo." "

And I quote from the person who writes the freaking comic:

"Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate."

Looks like she's gonna kill Shojo to me.

[Selene]

and then he changed it. That seems a default case for failure. How serious a failure is not so clear, but flatly a failure.

I think one of us is misinterpreting Eric, because I thought he meant Rich didn't want to change it as in he didn't want to change the harsher version of Miko back to the boring version. Because he certainly could have. "Oh, I'm sorry I spoke that way to you and your companions. I was in a bad mood, because..." insert excuse here. "I'm afraid you're not seeing me at my best." Simple. Changed. Anyway, Eric, please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you.



It might have been a convenient point to stop it, but the hero helping his lover-assassin escape would have been a possible alternative.

To paraphrase the deva, helping your lover-assassin escape rightful justice is not an act that screams "Lawful."

[Eric]

I think one of us is misinterpreting Eric, because I thought he meant Rich didn't want to change it as in he didn't want to change the harsher version of Miko back to the boring version. Because he certainly could have. "Oh, I'm sorry I spoke that way to you and your companions. I was in a bad mood, because..." insert excuse here. "I'm afraid you're not seeing me at my best." Simple. Changed. Anyway, Eric, please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you.

That's not wrong.

However, you're still taking as read Argyl's uncited contention that having a draft character dialogue seem incorrect and changing it for something else is any definition of "failure".

LoTR was rewritten dozens of times in a major way. Is it a failure? ALL movies have sections taken out or redone in post. Are they ALL failures? Any definition that would have everything fit under it is not a definition.

And it still remains merely his definition because it has no citation. A definition that only he thinks is right. Occam's razor comes in and says that the simplest solution is that he's wrong.

Unfortunately, Argyl loves to troll.

[The Extinguisher]

So you are saying that Miko was our author's best character, and probably only good one?

I'd definitely say she was his best character. She embodied the tragic hero, and added completly new tone to the previously light-hearted story.

But she's not the only good one. Basing just off of what I said, every other character has had debate about them.
But please, let's not argue definitions. That just wastes everybody's time.

[David Argall]

So please provide supporting information for your definition.
A failed character is, almost tautologically, a character who fails to get the writer's message to the reader. This of course means that the character's success or failure within the story has no definite connection to its success or failure as part of the story. In a tale of the punishment crime, the criminal must fail to succeed.
Rather, the success is to be measured by how well and convincingly the character conveys the message to the audience. The character can fail in any of a number of ways. It can be off- or anti- message. It can be unconvincing [tho since most speakers have limited success in convincing their audience, convincing is often defined as the view the author is pushing is not rejected out of hand].


(Please note that I have given my definition of what counts as failed in my original response.)
Since I fail to find there what you are calling a definition here, I will note that it will be no problem for you to repeat that "definition".



"Nor was our author's aim "for Miko to go more and more psychotic to the aim of having her kill Shojo." "

And I quote from the person who writes the freaking comic:

"Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate."

Looks like she's gonna kill Shojo to me.
Quite true. She was going to kill Shojo, but that is not the aim here. That is simply what was going to happen. The writer's aim is to explain why she did it. We might say that Miko goes more and more psychotic with the aim of explaining to us why she kills Shojo.



I think one of us is misinterpreting Eric, because I thought he meant Rich didn't want to change it as in he didn't want to change the harsher version of Miko back to the boring version.
NCPB "Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected... There was no way to undo some of her rudeness from previous strips..." So no, it was not a matter of want, but of being "forced" to.
[I'm still cheap enough to regret buying the book for just the additions and author comments, but I have to admit I am getting quite a lot of use of that.]


Because he certainly could have. "Oh, I'm sorry I spoke that way to you and your companions. I was in a bad mood, because..." insert excuse here. "I'm afraid you're not seeing me at my best." Simple. Changed.
Not so simple really. "I was on the rag" would only cover a couple of days.
More seriously, this sort of thing comes at a cost. You are more or less saying to the reader "ignore the last X pages" which is a failure in itself. Then it seems questionable that he could have managed it. He had already failed to capture Miko as he had wanted to. Why should he think he could do better on the second try?
Then you are detracting from the character. Miko is not meant to be flexible. Quite the contrary, she is very unbending. She would be a much different Miko if she could apologize for anything. Our writer failed to get the Miko he wanted, but he was wise to abandon that goal and work well with the Miko he got.



To paraphrase the deva, helping your lover-assassin escape rightful justice is not an act that screams "Lawful."
Which is not a serious concern. The theme here has not been Roy as the perfect picture of Law. A much more likely theme is the value of loyalty to friends and companions. [Roy is criticized for leaving Elan, and praised for not letting Miko kill Belkar.] So a rescue of Miko, his lover under this possible storyline, would be entirely consistent.



But please, let's not argue definitions. That just wastes everybody's time.
No, it saves time, great bushels of it sometimes. Two can yell endlessly "Her hair is red." "No, it is rose." We need hardly compare definitions to know both are right. But if we don't compare definitions, we can never settle the point.
In other cases we may find one or both are wrong, but again, without the definitions, we really don't know what they are claiming, and can't tell who, if either, is right or wrong.

[Eric]

A failed character is, almost tautologically, a character who fails to get the writer's message to the reader.

Tautologically, a failed character is one that failed. So your use of big words not confuse me.

Now you say here now that a failed character is one that failed to get the writers message to the reader.

Well Roy and Miko Bumping Uglies (sorry, Smiting Evil) wasn't Rich's message to the reader. It was always about how would the Azure City gate fail to end the story early. Rich has stated that time and again this was Miko's requirement. It's reason for being written.

See, now we have your definition laid down, we can dissect what you mean.

If any personal message was meant it was how badly a munchin mindset could kill a paladin as it's definition of "Righteous Warrior For Good". O'Chul seems so far to be purely to show how a paladin played with sensitivity can produce what I think everyone can agree is the epitome of Paladin.

If your maintennance that Miko's requirement was to give the Hero a Love Interest (damn, that's gotta be a trope), in what way would there be any "message" for her character to deliver? If she was only for that, there would be no message, no way to impart that message and therefore, by this new, nailed-down definition must necessarily fail. Even if written for that trope perfectly.

I think early one one of the others pointed out the shallowness of "Miko/Roy love interest" and it's been attempted to be driven through your thick skull a couple of times since then. It didn't seem to work.

[katkin]

I do agree with Rich

*waits to be jumped on by people arguing that OOTs is as good as Moore*

*realises that the thread has got so far off topic that no-one actually cares about the original debate anymore*

Oh yeah, Miko isn't a failed character. She plays her role in the plot. It's a writer's prerogative to do whatever they like with a character. And it looks like Rich started out with a plan for Miko. And frankly she does it pretty darn well!

Now I'm going to get killed....:smallamused:

[David Argall]

Now you say here now that a failed character is one that failed to get the writers message to the reader.

Well Roy and Miko Bumping Uglies (sorry, Smiting Evil) wasn't Rich's message to the reader.
True, in the sense that Roy wasn't supposed to succeed.
False in the sense that his attempt and failure wasn't intended to be part of the picture of Miko


It was always about how would the Azure City gate fail to end the story early.
There were a kazillion ways to do that, O-Chul being the most obvious. Destroying the Gate is merely something Miko does. Her theme is more why she did.


Rich has stated that time and again this was Miko's requirement. It's reason for being written.
He has said, once I believe, that she was put down to kill Shojo and destroy the Gate from the start. But this is not the theme of Miko. We might consider that to be how she came to do those actions.


See, now we have your definition laid down, we can dissect what you mean.
That reminds me. Where is your definition?


If any personal message was meant it was how badly a munchin mindset could kill a paladin as it's definition of "Righteous Warrior For Good".
"Munchkin" is hardly the term to apply to Miko. In terms of sheer power, Roy beats her up. In terms of known feats and abilities, she seems to have several that are subpar.
Now if we accept your use of the term as just a flawed attempt to insult that undermines your argument, the statement is not too far off. Our writer has a bias against paladins that roleplay like paladins should. So we can accept Miko as a possible attempt to attack that style of play.

However, the presence of one theme to a character does not mean there are not others. The more complexity that is attempted the more chance of failure of course, but such characters are preferred as more real among other things. Here the descent into madness is a related, but different, theme.


If your maintennance that Miko's requirement was to give the Hero a Love Interest (damn, that's gotta be a trope), in what way would there be any "message" for her character to deliver?
You are confusing here the requirement with a requirement. Miko can have a love scene without necessarily interfering with other duties.
However the abandonment of the love scene was largely merely indicative of the character failure. Miko was turning out too harsh for the love scene, and for her role in general.
We look at 464. Miko is supposed to be one of the good guys, someone to feel sorry for. [We have her asking a silly question about her horse, a good line for evoking sympathy for her, but up until then we have no evidence she thought her horse was anything but a tool. {A quite valuable one, and she regarded herself as no more than a tool too, but there is no sign of a personal relationship.} The presence of the line is rather a shout-out that the author has done poorly in explaining the character to us, and must rely on cheap emotion to get the desired response.] But a large number of people are just not able to see her as such. Something was wrong with the character and it extends back to the early 200s.


If she was only for that,
So who says she was only for that?


I think early one one of the others...
Am I correct in translating this as "I think every one of the others..." This would seem to be incorrect, but at least it makes sense.


pointed out the shallowness of "Miko/Roy love interest"
So?
Even if we assume this to be true, it does not prevent it from being potential comedy gold. Nor does it seem to cause any other problems.



Oh yeah, Miko isn't a failed character. She plays her role in the plot. It's a writer's prerogative to do whatever they like with a character.

This definition says there can be no such thing as a failed character, which should be obvious nonsense.


And it looks like Rich started out with a plan for Miko. And frankly she does it pretty darn well!
See above. Our writer had to both change his plan, and the final result is questionable.

[Red XIV]

Our writer has a bias against paladins that roleplay like paladins should. So we can accept Miko as a possible attempt to attack that style of play.
No, it's more like he has a bias against the perception that Miko is the way paladins should be played.

[Selene]

That's not wrong.

However, you're still taking as read Argyl's uncited contention that having a draft character dialogue seem incorrect and changing it for something else is any definition of "failure".

LoTR was rewritten dozens of times in a major way. Is it a failure? ALL movies have sections taken out or redone in post. Are they ALL failures? Any definition that would have everything fit under it is not a definition.

And it still remains merely his definition because it has no citation. A definition that only he thinks is right. Occam's razor comes in and says that the simplest solution is that he's wrong.

Unfortunately, Argyl loves to troll.

Yikes! Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I agree with his definition. Revision and re-imagining are very important tools for any writer. I'm a Constant Reader of Stephen King, and I'm very familiar with his idea that the characters tell the story and the author is just along for the ride. :smallwink: Also I just finished reading Tolkien's Unfinished Tales and both Lost Tales books, coincidentally. They made me decide I needed to re-read The Silmarillion for comparison, so that's what I'm reading now.



Which is not a serious concern. The theme here has not been Roy as the perfect picture of Law. A much more likely theme is the value of loyalty to friends and companions. [Roy is criticized for leaving Elan, and praised for not letting Miko kill Belkar.] So a rescue of Miko, his lover under this possible storyline, would be entirely consistent.

I bet the deva would disagree with you there. Leaving Elan = not lawful, and not all that good. More like petty and spiteful. And Roy, being a lawful good person, realized this, was horrified at his behavior, and went back for him.

"I went to Fighter College because I wanted to help people. To protect the weak and -- The weak. Oh, gods. Elan!" -Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0162.html)

Hinjo was actually the one who stopped her from killing Belkar, if you mean just after she fell. And I don't see where the deva spoke to Roy about it. But anyway, standing aside while one person kills another = not lawful, and definitely not good.

"Because we have the rule of law in this city, and the rule of law says that you don't get to kill people because they happen to do something wrong." -Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)

Helping a regicide to escape justice is unlikely to be good, and is definitely not lawful. Roy got into the lawful good afterlife, because he's been *trying* to be lawful good all along. There is just no way he could claim that if he ran off with his fallen paladin murderess girlfriend, with whose actions he did not agree.

"All that matters to me right now is that you just killed the only other person who was actively trying to fix this stupid end-of-the-world thing." -Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

So yes, since Roy always tries to do the lawful thing, it would have been totally out of character to help Miko escape.

Also, all paladins should be just played just like O-Chul. Because he's awesome like that. :smallcool:

[David Argall]

I bet the deva would disagree with you there. Leaving Elan = not lawful, and not all that good.
The deva might or might not agree with me. She just wouldn't consider my point at all important.
The problem is that you are missing the point of my argument. We are not asking here "What is the LG thing to do in this situation?" Rather we are asking "What action would show loyalty to friends and companions?" Whether it was good, lawful, or any combination of any alignments is simply not to the point.
We are positing a situation where Roy has managed to maintain/create good relations with Miko. [To keep close to the actual story, we might assume they break up and make up several times.] Now we come to the death of Shojo and we ask what would a Roy who really wants to help and protect his friends, even ones who don't deserve that help, do? Given his willingness to rescue Belkar from a richly deserved death, it would seem such a Roy might well go to Miko's assistance [tho it might be harder to decide if he would merely try to make sure she had a good lawyer or would slice and dice any who got in the way of her escape].



Hinjo was actually the one who stopped her from killing Belkar, if you mean just after she fell.
I didn't. Miko was also trying to kill Belkar just after the trial.



And I don't see where the deva spoke to Roy about it.
The deva spoke to Roy about some unknown number of things off camera. So we can draw few conclusions from anything that is not mentioned.


So yes, since Roy always tries to do the lawful thing,
But no, he doesn't. Breaking jail was not lawful. Roy makes no appeal to lawful standards in rescuing Belkar... The Deva says Roy is very marginally lawful, indeed probably NG except that he tries to be LG.


it would have been totally out of character to help Miko escape.
In the actual story, yes, because he had rejected her as a member of the party. But we are discussing here a situation where he would likely consider her a member of the party [tho the rest of the party might disagree].

[Eric]

Argyll, you're wrong.

You are the only person who thinks that the reason for Miko was to be a love interest for Roy (Celia has managed that anyway, and her inclusion in the Haley half of the OOTS seems to be a much better dynamic because she's not an adventurer and she gives a "real life" view on the apparent immorality of D&D adventurer life).

If you're the ONLY person with a thought, that may not be wrong. However, you are projecting that thought onto the author. There is where "wrong" comes in. You are telling Rich what he thinks and what his aims were. Rich knows and it's not a matter of opinion, because it's not your opinion, it's Rich.

The entire aim for the character was to kill Shojo. Just like the aim is to get to the shops. The path doesn't matter: you don't fail because you went a different way and your character didn't fail because you decided not to take the story a particular way.

Why do you insist that she's a failure?

[katkin]

This definition says there can be no such thing as a failed character, which should be obvious nonsense.


See above. Our writer had to both change his plan, and the final result is questionable.

Wow, David Argall argued with something I posted... does that mean I'm an intiated OOTS forumer?

I think so:smallbiggrin:

[Althrun]

Hey guys, what's going on i- :smalleek:*steamrolled by walls 'o text*

Cleric!

[David Argall]

You are the only person who thinks that the reason for Miko was to be a love interest for Roy
You are confusing "a" and "the" here. Miko had several purposes in the text, one of which was to be a love interest for Roy. And that she was to a very limited extent. She would have been more of one, but our writer found he was failing at that and so cut it short.



(Celia has managed that anyway, and her inclusion in the Haley half of the OOTS seems to be a much better dynamic because she's not an adventurer and she gives a "real life" view on the apparent immorality of D&D adventurer life).
You are mixing apples and oranges here. We can get Celia into the Haley party any number of ways. The romance provided a nice hook, but there were nice alternatives, and her utility on the trip is thus not a benefit of the romance. We largely have to compare romance with romance, and we do not mark the Roy-Celia romance as a prime part of the strip. It of course is hard to compare with the merely possible, but Miko-Roy could have been a howling laugh and a superiority to Roy-Celia seems rather a given.



If you're the ONLY person with a thought, that may not be wrong. However, you are projecting that thought onto the author. There is where "wrong" comes in. You are telling Rich what he thinks and what his aims were. Rich knows and it's not a matter of opinion, because it's not your opinion, it's Rich.
Now you might explain where and how I have done this. As far as I can tell, you have not shown where I have contradicted the writer on his personal thoughts.
However projecting thoughts onto others is a routine part of life. Any time we look at a character in fiction, we start projecting thoughts, just as we do when we meet people. We say people are lying, and may add whether that is a conscious or unconscious. This requires we project thoughts. We don't have to to say they are incorrect, but lie involves their thoughts and requires we project thoughts.
We see a boy looking at a girl, and start projecting thoughts, which may lead to hostile action if we suspect the boy to be straying. We talk to a salesman, and if we are wise, we project the thought that he is trying to con us. We ... project thoughts constantly and routinely.
You need to show where I have done this incorrectly. We all project thoughts about the writer on a routine basis, so when am I doing so incorrectly?



The entire aim for the character was to kill Shojo.
She did that in one strip. So why are there 60 or so leading up to that?
She didn't have that as a mission in strip 200, or even at 400. Asked any time during that period about the possibility she might kill Shojo and she would have rejected the idea out of hand. So what is she doing showing up so often in these strips? We could have just had her appear when she kills Shojo if that is her entire purpose.
The obvious answer is that killing Shojo is not her entire aim, or even close to it. Rather the aim is to explain why she killed Shojo and to say why it was/was not justified. [Nor can we call that her entire aim. She served several other aims along the way, including getting the party to Azure City, and being a temporary love interest for Roy.]



your character didn't fail because you decided not to take the story a particular way.
It doesn't necessarily fail, but it can fail for that reason among many others.



Why do you insist that she's a failure?
The essential point seems to be that she is not [sufficiently] a sympathetic character and she is intended to.
The presence of all the yelling is a sign something is wrong. As has been noted, Xykon goes around leveling cities, and he doesn't get near the same criticism.
Now it has been noted that good characters are often the center of disputes, but in these cases, the character came first, often years first since the dispute often shows up first in scholarly journals. Ignoring cases such as where she comes out of the show saying "He's dreamy" and he says "He's gay." [and where they are in fact agreeing about the character], the dispute doesn't start untill well after the event. By contrast, the hate Miko campaign started early, not with her naming, but not long after. We are simply not in agreement on how to view her, in contrast to just about every other character in the story. Her message is not getting thru.

Oh yes, if you think my definition of failed character is wrong, what is your definition?

[Eric]

You are confusing "a" and "the" here. Miko had several purposes in the text, one of which was to be a love interest for Roy. And that she was to a very limited extent. She would have been more of one, but our writer found he was failing at that and so cut it short.
...
The essential point seems to be that she is not [sufficiently] a sympathetic character and she is intended to.

YOU think she HAD to have been more of a love interest. YOU think she wasn't sufficiently sympathetic a character. YOU think that her reason for existing was to be Roy's girl.

The AUTHOR says her reason for existing is to go ape and kill Shojo. The AUTHOR says that the only romance that was intended was for Roy to show his myscogynistic side and fail to bump uglies with Miko. The AUTHOR says that she was the epitome of a BADLY PLAYED PALADIN.

Since it is the AUTHOR who creates the intent of a character, and your newly nailed down definition of a failed character is one that doesn't fulfill the reqirements intended for the character, such requirements are defined BY that author, NOT by a single member of his audience. And on that basis of intent, and with your definition of "failed" Miko did not fail. She succeeded:

1) Butt of Roy's bd attempt to pull her
2) Rebuffed Roy's clumsy and inproper advances
3) Goes and kills Shojo
4) Gets to killing Shojo in a manner that progresses naturally from the character

Succeeded on 1, 2, 3 and 4.

YOU think it was

1) Be Roy's Girlfriend

You know what? You aren't the author.

If you think that is what should have happened, write your own story. But you'd better not change your mind about where you're goingpart way through, or you've failed

[Forum Staff]

This thread has been wildly off-topic for several pages.