Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

[Bootman]

Yes the big questions should make sense, no they don't have to have big answers, or any answers. Sometimes raising the question and discarding some obviously wrong answers is enough for a work.

You’re very right, I was getting a bit too piffy and cute here. What I mean to say is that if he’s asking big questions then the answers should make sense as well as the questions as you said. Some things don’t have answers. I think Star Trek TNG has lots of episodes with no clear right answer, but when all the characters tend to be true to their established skills and personalities the story can stand on it’s own AND we get to discuss these big issues ourselves.

I think there's also a group of people who seemingly want to defend Roy or Durkon's moral fiber -- there's this idea that Roy & Durkon are the heroes, so them getting called out in any way, shape, or form somehow invalidates their heroics. It doesn't. Hell, the comic doesn't even really accuse either of them of a moral failing here. It just asks them to take a second and think about something (goblinoid history) in a new light, and maybe let that insight inform their behavior going forward.

Before I address the other points you've presented, I'd just like the clarify if you were referring to a group including me here? I could understand if you were I just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings either way.

Eh, "extremely manipulative" is putting it strongly, I'd say. I still think you're reading too much into it. This feels like nothing more than somebody calling a close friend on their BS: Roy made an excuse, and Durkon pushed on it, maybe getting a little too snarky but hey, they're good friends, he's allowed to do that. Roy isn't on trial here: Durkon's just throwing shade because he had a crappy conversation with his god, he's had Implosion attempted on him today, and (most importantly) it's the final panel of the update and there needs to be a punchline!

As someone else recently said, I also think this exchange won't feel so harsh when it has another strip coming after it. Gary Larson once talked about a controversial Far Side comic he drew called "Tethercat", where several dogs bat a cat around a tetherball pole. People got mad, and he wondered why, when Tom & Jerry cartoon violence has been on the air for decades. But the thing about Tom & Jerry is that it's transient: you watch Jerry crush Tom with an anvil, and then he walks it off and is back to chasing Jerry thirty seconds later. But if you set down the newspaper with "Tethercat" in it, go for a walk, and come back an hour later, those dogs are still playing Tethercat. There are also some good arguments to be made about punching down vs. punching up, but even in that regard you can argue that Durkon is almost always punching UP! (#shortjokes)



Much of which I'd credit to you. Thank you for your incredibly polite discourse throughout!

I agree that most of the factors of Durkon’s response include what you said, I just feel it ends up coming across manipulative. For example if I told you “Elan saved a murderer”, without understanding the context of Nale and the situation at the time, this could be interpreted a lot of way and it certainly wouldn’t be evidence for why Elan should save every murderer, or that he’s somewhat biased if he doesn’t save a Goblin murderer.

Similar things could be done with “Belkar apologized for hitting somebody”, “Varsuvius abandoned his lover for years”, “Haley attempted to break a known thief and rebel out of prison”. These all have varying degrees of applicability and their inaccuracy would be determined by the conclusion we’re trying to draw from them, like if you wanted to say “Belkar should be nice to Goblins because he was nice to Durkon that time” it would obviously be inaccurate.

So when Roy says it’s hard to negotiate mid fight, and Durkon points out a fight against what he thought was his best friend, in a specific circumstance that could be resolved non-violently, where Roy was in fact losing and nearly died because he was trying to talk, it ceases to be a defense that defeats Roy’s argument, yet Roy admits defeat regardless.

Could it also be that newspapers have different audiences, or that Farside has a different established tone and style to Tom and Jerry? I agree it’s possible it won’t seem as harsh as things move on, lots of people here seem to think it’s just a light nudge (others think it’s pointing out Roy’s racism / bias which they believe exists as well). Personally? I don’t know which way it will go, and you could absolutely be right on the money with it.

I’d also like to point out that your short joke was both character accurate to Durkon and funny and that’s why it worked. Durkon punches up, and he’s short. Love it.

And lastly thank you my friend for appreciating it. But everybody else, you included, is certainly worth crediting too. Keep up the excellent work and if you choose to continue discussing this with me, keep throwing things at me that require a page and a half to appropriately respond to hahaha.