OOTS #983 - The Discussion Thread

[hamishspence]

As has been mentioned, the decision to not do something is just as active a decision as one to do something, and therefore just as open to criticism.

No.
There's nothing more to expand on, just no, this is false.

"Teacher, can I be punished for not doing something?"
"No..."
"Good, cos I haven't done my homework."

(Gets punished anyway).

[Doctor West]

I really don't want to get involved in this, but I feel I shouldn't leave it unsaid that my actual mother talked exactly like this supposedly 'forced' line to me as a teenager, because she wanted to make it clear that on the off chance I was gay, she wouldn't judge me for it.

Now could we like.. maybe have ONE comic in which the Giant acknowledges the existence of non-heterosexuals in some way without the forums bursting into flames? Please? This is getting ridiculous. Some of you people are having more trouble accepting an open-minded mother than you are wizards and dragons.

[Cizak]

No.
There's nothing more to expand on, just no, this is false.

Yes.
There's loads that could be expanded on, but just yes, that is true.

[Falbrogna]

Yes.
There's loads that could be expanded on, but just yes, that is true.

I don't know what you guys think authors do but stories aren't something that are born in cold, sterile environments where everything is decided beforehand in a distant analytical fashion. They come from ideas, inspiration, emotions and desires not only to tell a story but also your own. More often than not there's no decision at all, but inspiration and creativity, and it's not uncommon for a character to develop in ways that you yourself wouldn't have expected, all on their own.

Phrases like ""the decision to not do something is just as active a decision as one to do something"" is the reasoning of media witch-hunts, of people condemning authors not for what they put in their works but for their own pretense of what "they should have put in". As if the story was theirs and not of the person writing.
You can criticize a story's execution or themes or inconsistencies, but certainly you can't fault an author for "not putting X and Y" in it. There's no "active decision" at that.

[Nightcanon]

You know the stated reason from the Giant for some recent changes in the comic, and the stated issue that some posters have with the current handling.

I certainly do. it has after all been the basis of some rather repetitive back and forth for the last 20-odd pages. I'm pointing out that, off the top of my head, there are at least 3 potential reasons for Durkon's memory could have Ma Durkon speak this way that are totally independent of the assumption that we're hearing the Giant speak through her, viz:

• She speaks like this because she's a dwarf and in fact all dwarves speak this way (revealing something potentially plot-important about dwarf society)
• She speaks like this because despite being a dwarf in a dwarf society that doesn't usually speak like this, she herself does (revealing something potentially plot-important about Ma Durkon and/or her relationship to dwarf society)
• She doesn't speak like that and Durkon is subtly influencing Durkula's perception of his mother/ dwarf society so that when Durkon gets back to his homeland someone (perhaps Ma Durkon) will recognise Durkula as an imposter.

I'm further offering these as alternative topics for discussion, rather than endlessly criticising on the assumption that we're hearing the Giant speak through Ma Durkon, or repetitive rounds of 'No one speaks like that to children IRL'/ 'I have spoken to my own children like that IRL'.

[Shining Wrath]

Oh yeah, drinking stuff that's at least mildly alcoholic was a great idea historically, IIRC, as it avoided water contamination issues (I believe tea and fresh milk in the areas that had them were common beverages for similar reasons?), but there's a difference between "drinking beer when you need a beverage" and "beer as a major breakfast staple a la orange juice", I'd argue.

It's actually in the Bible - Paul tells Timothy to drink wine to help with a stomach ailment.

[hamishspence]

there's a difference between "drinking beer when you need a beverage" and "beer as a major breakfast staple a la orange juice", I'd argue.

Small beer, rather than ordinary beer, may be what was a standard staple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_beer

[Kantaki]

BACON on popcorn? You've gone too far this time!

I think it sounds interesting enough to try. Then again my favorite pizza-topping are spagetti. At least he didn’t offer Toast (or Pizza) Hawaii.

[kivzirrum]

I think it sounds interesting enough to try. Then again my favorite pizza-topping are spagetti. At least he didn’t offer Toast (or Pizza) Hawaii.

The problem may be a matter of personal taste--afraid I don't like bacon Hawaiian pizza is so good, though.

I was going to add something more on-topic, as well, but I'm looking now and I'm not sure there is a topic that is "on" anymore. So, uh... I guess I'll reiterate my love for Durkon and Sigdi. Go, dwarves!

[Serpentine]

I don't know what you guys think authors do but stories aren't something that are born in cold, sterile environments where everything is decided beforehand in a distant analytical fashion. They come from ideas, inspiration, emotions and desires not only to tell a story but also your own. More often than not there's no decision at all, but inspiration and creativity, and it's not uncommon for a character to develop in ways that you yourself wouldn't have expected, all on their own.

Phrases like ""the decision to not do something is just as active a decision as one to do something"" is the reasoning of witch-hunts, of people condemning authors not for what they put in their works but for their own perception of what "they should have put in". As if the story was theirs and not of the person writing.
It's one of the worst attitudes and it's been plaguing authors for ages.

That you fundamentally believe, to the point of not even considering a possible alternative, that including non-SWM characters is something that an author actively does but including SWM characters involves an intrinsic lack of action is exactly my point. You are providing a further example of how our societies and the media view straight white men as the default, the starting point, the norm. Including a character that is anything but a straight white man requires conscious decision, having a character that is a straight white man is "no decision at all". That is exactly the problem that I have been talking about. And that is exactly why the Giant's approach and his inclusion of things like those two teeny-tiny ickle bitty naturally-flowing (to at least a significant number of people) words is so important: because it's establishing a new norm where people maybe shouldn't assume that their kids will end up with someone of one sex or the other because they could end up with anyone and that's totally fine, and where a gay black female ship captain isn't anything notable or unusual or in need of any internal explaining or justification or external "pressure" because why wouldn't she be there? It is exactly as legitimate to expect creators to stop and think, "is it really necessary to the plot for this character to be straight, white and male? Is there an actual reason why this person would only consider the possibility of their son marrying a girl?" as it is to expect them to think "is it really necessary to the plot for this character to be gay, black and/or female? Is there an actual reason why this person would consider the possibility of their son marrying a girl or a boy?" If you think it's a reasonable expectation for the second one, it's reasonable for the first one. If it's not reasonable for the first, it's not reasonable for the second either.

And although you do touch on it in your talk of authors not writing in a vacuum, you are also missing the point that authors are both a reflection of their social environments and a contributor to them. Almost all media and our societies views SWM as the default human beings, so, as you say, most authors just don't think about the possibility of a character being anything else unless it is of necessity to the plot that they be so. That is not, in itself, the fault of any individual creator, and it is not necessary that any one creator be attacked for it (and literally no one here is doing that, by the way). But it is a problem when every creator is doing it. It is totally legitimate to look at an individual creation in that context, to critique its homogeny, and to critique the homogeny of the media in general.
And when a creator like Rich Burlew is able to recognise that "SWM as default" paradigm and how it has shaped his own work, and take active steps to break out of that indoctrination himself, weaken its influence by eating away at the pervasive passive homogeny, and pave the way for future creators to not fall into that easy rut by demonstrating that other paths are exactly as legitimate, that requires - demands, even - acknowledgement, praise, and dissemination; at least until such time as such things are as commonplace as straight white men are now.

So yeah, Rich. Unless any of them ever actually manage to include some constructive criticism,* forget the people whinging about your efforts at incorporating greater diversity. You're doing pretty great, and I believe you are actively helping to make our media in general that teensy bit better. Thanks.

* and "it read as clunky" could be constructive, except that at least as many people found it not even the littlest bit clunky or odd so it's clearly a personal issue with the reader more than the words themselves in this case.

[Kantaki]

The problem may be a matter of personal taste--afraid I don't like bacon Hawaiian pizza is so good, though.

I was going to add something more on-topic, as well, but I'm looking now and I'm not sure there is a topic that is "on" anymore. So, uh... I guess I'll reiterate my love for Durkon and Sigdi. Go, dwarves!

Well if you like pizza hawaii you can eat it but I don’t like it. Can‘t argue about taste.
The topic? Well we talked about snacks, so there are still the question why you should use regenerate instead of taking a mecha-limp as a replacement and the mystery of the priests of Odin‘s monopole on high level spells and how it relates to Sigdis missing arm.

[Falbrogna]

That you fundamentally believe, to the point of not even considering a possible alternative, that including non-SWM

I never once mentioned SWM. Please do not strumentalize my post to imply things I didn't say.
Whether society is "wrong" or "right" has never been my argument, I merely confuted the ridiculous statement that things that exist and don't exist stand on the same level of critique.

[Serpentine]

Mhm. Good talk.


Hey guys, how cool is it that Rich managed to incorporate so much inclusiveness into those two little words? Neat how far the little things can go, huh? I wonder if maybe Durkon's mum might not have been bisexual too, or... Do we know anything about Durkon's father? I might just be forgetting.

[Kantaki]

Mhm. Good talk.


Hey guys, how cool is it that Rich managed to incorporate so much inclusiveness into those two little words? Neat how far the little things can go, huh? I wonder if maybe Durkon's mum might not have been bisexual too, or... Do we know anything about Durkon's father? I might just be forgetting.

If it turns out that Durkon has two moms (And is not explicitly adopted.) all I will say is MAGIC IS AMAZING. But I don‘t want to imagine how the forum looks after such a reveal...

[Cizak]

-snip-

Hey, look at that, there was stuff to expand on! How about that.

And in the spirit of how your responses usually go:

Mhm. Good talk.

--

Hey guys, how cool is it that Rich managed to incorporate so much inclusiveness into those two little words? Neat how far the little things can go, huh? I wonder if maybe Durkon's mum might not have been bisexual too, or... Do we know anything about Durkon's father? I might just be forgetting.

It's super cool, and I'm very happy he's actively choosing to do things like that.
We do know he loved to stare at the sky for hours, and that he's pretty definitivly dead (with the way Sigdi talks about him). Other than that, I can't remember anything else.

[Serpentine]

Eh, there's plenty of real-world lesbians who have biological children. Plenty of ways it can happen (even without going into the darkest option): not realising their sexuality until later in life, homoflexibility, donors (or whatever the other version of surrogacy is)...

edit: Ah, yes. It's possible she's just talking about a good friend, but that's probably not likely. Bisexuality's still an option, though, or just the person open-mindedness or a non-homophobic society as has already been covered.

edit to address unseen edit:

I merely confuted the ridiculous statement that things that exist and don't exist are on the same level of critique.

A character exists. Their race, gender and sexuality exist. What those things are is "on the same level of critique" no matter what they are.

[Nightcanon]

I wonder if maybe Durkon's mum might not have been bisexual too, or... Do we know anything about Durkon's father? I might just be forgetting.

Durkon mentions his Ma and Grandpappy in 305, and his Pappy in 333; the combination suggests to me that Pappy Durkon is already dead, but was still a person of significance to D. Ma Durkon could be Bi, or some other person in their community could be, explaining her careful use of language.

[Serpentine]

Durkon mentions his Ma and Grandpappy in 305, and his Pappy in 333; the combination suggests to me that Pappy Durkon is already dead, but was still a person of significance to D. Ma Durkon could be Bi, or some other person in their community could be, explaining her careful use of language.

Yeah, I'd consider it much more likely that she's bi, personally open to non-straight sexualities, or part of a society that's open to non-straight sexualities.

[PlaygroundPixie]

That sounds awfully bigoted - sure the person has done no wrong and has no control over who they are but wipe them all out anyway regardless of their behaviour because their very existence is offensive to me.

Erm, no. Because their very existence required killing a person and stopping their departure to the afterlife and the only way to free their host is to kill them.

A person being black has literally no more impact on anyone around them than if they were white; a person being gay has literally no more impact on anyone around them than if they were straight; a person being a woman has literally no more impact on anyone around them than if they were a man. A vampire, by their nature, involves an ongoing crime of false imprisonment against a person that cannot be resolved without their death.

A Black Dragon could theoretically be reformed and live a blameless life. A vampire will always be committing a crime, because of the nature of their construction; a justifiable crime, theoretically, in my opinion, but a crime all the same.

So to be clear - it is alright for good people to engage in soul trapping to extend there own life* - but only if the victims are evil?
*Haley would disagree.
But an evil vampire doing the exact same thing is an unholy monster to be killed on sight, and a good vampire made from a good person should be killed on sight.

Not entirely; it is my opinion that it could be a net benefit in such an instance that would be worth sufficient consideration that we shouldn't take any hasty actions.

An Evil vampire tends to be unjustified in keeping around, for simple reason that Evil vampires tend to create a lot of dead people around them. Good vampires tend to be worth more consideration, because they are powerful beings that can accomplish a lot of Good things for those around them; destroying them carelessly may cause more harm than good.

An Evil person has usually (but not always) done more harm to their communities than good, and so is of less societal value than a similarly-capable Good person, so their use is of less impact on the society; and, as evil souls in D&D are usually tortured after their death, keeping them in dormancy as part of a vampire is actually a kindness to them as compared to what would normally happen.

I would also argue in favor of a Good vampire who was formed from someone who had been less useful than the vampire during their life; an ordinary Good vampire would usually be more useful than, say, the town drunk, wouldn't you agree?

This is very alignmentist of you - you are dehumanising Evil people and discounting their suffering as less than that of a good persons and their very right to exist as lower.
Assuming a standard distribution of alignment that would be one third of the population you have written off.

...I'm not really sure I see the problem? Evil characters have favored their own existence over the greater good in most instances. They give back less to the community, and often cause active harm to it. In certain instances this can be justified (say, a genius alchemist who found a way to create half-priced Cure Light Wounds potions for the world - regardless of how selfish or cruel they are, their net contributions will almost certainly be positive for the world, even if they're Jack the Ripper in their free time), but on average they will be worth less than the average Good person.

By contrast, the average black person is worth the same as the average white person, the average gay person is worth the same as the average straight person, and the average woman is worth the same as the average man - these are meaningless distinctions that only serve to distract us. Forming judgments based on these only ensures that we waste useful human capital for no good reason.

2. Dwarf society is more relaxed about the possibility of homosexuality in children than elements of contemporary Earth society

This is almost certainly true, based on how no mention of sexual preference has been treated as remarkable in the comic up to this point.

(And also because I really don't imagine the Giant including hate crimes in his work, even off-screen - unlike our own world .)

[Falbrogna]

Hey, look at that, there was stuff to expand on! How about that.

I hoped I wouldn't have to expand on how thoughtcrime and condemning people for the *absence* of things is a fundamentally flawed reasoning :shrug:

Or how writing and storytelling isn't a cold analytical decision-making process.

[Kantaki]

Durkon mentions his Ma and Grandpappy in 305, and his Pappy in 333; the combination suggests to me that Pappy Durkon is already dead, but was still a person of significance to D. Ma Durkon could be Bi, or some other person in their community could be, explaining her careful use of language.

Right, so its is not a option anymore. Could have been interesting. @Serpentine: But that are all mundane solutions thats boring . I should have written „two biological mommies” then my point would have been clearer.

[Serpentine]

This debate about vampires reminds me of Yeerks from Animorphs. It's a pretty big question, too.

I hoped I wouldn't have to expand on how thoughtcrime and condemning people for the *absence* of things is a fundamentally flawed reasoning :shrug:

As I've just said, it's only an "absence" if you consider straight white men to be the default and minorities an optional extra. It's what such-and-such a character that's going to exist anyway is at least as much as whether bonus characters should be added. If it makes no difference at all to the plot, why not make a character gay or Inuit or female rather than straight, white and male? If it takes more thought and decision-making to make a character a non-minority than to make it a minority, then that is a problem in itself that creators like the Giant are helping to solve, even with little touches like this.

[hamishspence]

If it takes more thought and decision-making to make a character a non-minority than to make it a minority, then that is a problem in itself that creators like the Giant are helping to solve, even with little touches like this.

The Giant went into a bit more detail here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=205

[Serpentine]

The Giant went into a bit more detail here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=205

Yeah, I've read that before. And it's part of why I like the Giant* and his work so much.

I hope that he takes people complaining about this aspect of his work as a sign that he's going in the right direction, not something that will wear him down.


*I originally wrote "Rich" but that felt super presumptuous, while "Mr Burlew" seemed too formal. Interesting.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think this could also be regarded as an ownership issue - Durkon died and his body and mind became the possessions of a vampire spirit.

As such Durkon is not the owner of the body anymore.

Personally, I think that the High Priest of Hel's possession of Durkon's body does not actually make Durkon no longer the owner of his body. What Hel and the High Priest of Hel have done strikes as more like theft than legal occupation. So, for example, casting Resurrection on the body would bring back Durkon.

[Cizak]

*I originally wrote "Rich" but that felt super presumptuous, while "Mr Burlew" seemed too formal. Interesting.

That is interesting, because I've been thinking about that before. I'm from Sweden, where you are on a first name basis with pretty much everyone, but I know that's not the case in the US. Using "The Giant" or just "Giant" often seems to be a pretty safe bet.

[Falbrogna]

As I've just said, it's only an "absence" if you consider straight white men to be the default and minorities an optional extra. It's what such-and-such a character is at least as much as whether bonus characters should be added. If it makes no difference at all to the plot, why not make a character gay or Inuit or female rather than straight, white and male?

Dunno, it's up to the author. But whether he does it or not (because he didn't feel like it, or did not think of, or chose not to, or didn't want to, or didn't feel was fitting to include in his story) this eventual absence is not for you* to criticize.
There's no "active decision" in not having minorities because there's no activity at all, for one reason or the other it didn't happen and the only thing you* should do about it is to respect the author's fictional world.

You* can't criticize a work of art for not doing what you wanted.

*in general

[Lvl45DM!]

I hoped I wouldn't have to expand on how thoughtcrime and condemning people for the *absence* of things is a fundamentally flawed reasoning :shrug:

Or how writing and storytelling isn't a cold analytical decision-making process.

Do you write?
Just curious. (No seriously Im just curious. It doesnt actually affect what I do or don't think of you)
I write. And its really not that hard to go back and tweak things, hell I've done it as a DM.
You write your story. At the end you realize that there are no gays, no blacks or no whatevers. You can go back and change things. Making a character gay can be as simple as adding 1 line of dialogue. Making a character black can be as simple as changing two words in the description of the character on page.
I wrote a story for a friend as a present. I realized at the end that there were no gays or non whites. I went back and changed the main character to a black bisexual male and his buddy to a transgender man. Took me 20 minutes.

And you don't really know what thoughtcrime is. Thoughtcrime is punishing people for just thinking something. Writing a story without gays, when there is no good reason to not have gays, isnt a thoughtcrime. Its a 'crime' (not really a crime but an action that isn't good) of negligence at best. But a parent not feeding their kid is also guilty of a (real) crime of negligence. Lies of omission, crimes of negligence, not doing enough...these are all actions that are condemnable. If I see someone bleeding to death and walk by Im guilty of a (not literal, though it depends on where you live) 'crime' (again read "Bad action").

[PlaygroundPixie]

Dunno, it's up to the author. But whether he does it or not (because he didn't feel like it, or did not think of, or chose not to, or didn't want to, or didn't feel was fitting to include in his story) this eventual absence is not for you* to criticize.
There's no "active decision" in not having minorities because there's no activity at all, for one reason or the other it didn't happen and the only thing you* should do about it is to respect the author's fictional world.

You* can't criticize a work of art for not doing what you wanted.

*in general

To make an earlier point of mine a second time (apologies for repeating myself)...

If a major plot point could have been resolved with an obvious minor action, should the reader not question why this action was avoided? It's questioning something that was omitted from the story, but people often ask such questions when they are applicable, in my experience.

In regards to your third sentence, though, there was an active decision; to make the character white. It may not have been given much thought, but a positive* action was taken that excluded a different possibility.

*"Positive" in the sense that "something was done", to differentiate it from a "negative" action like "I chose not to kill that person"; not "positive" as in "a good thing was done". (For the record, I consider it a pretty value-neutral decision)

[Serpentine]

Dunno, it's up to the author. But whether he does it or not (because he didn't feel like it, or did not think of, or chose not to, or didn't want to, or didn't feel was fitting to include in his story) this eventual absence is not for you* to criticize.
There's no "active decision" in not having minorities because there's no activity at all, for one reason or the other it didn't happen and the only thing you* should do about it is to respect the author's fictional world.

You* can't criticize a work of art for not doing what you wanted.

*in general

I have already explained several times why deciding to make a character a non-minority is exactly as much a thing that is done and therefore subject to criticism as deciding to make that same character a minority; why your assumption that making a character a non-minority is an absence of something while making that same character a minority is an active presence of something is in itself an example of the issue of "defaultness" I'm talking about; and why, if it is less an "active" decision for an individual author to make that character a non-minority than it is to make it a minority, that is in itself an issue that needs to be addressed and that the Giant is explicitly working to address by doing things like he has here.
You're more than welcome to drone on about why you're allowed to criticise two little words in this work, but we "can't criticise" whole character choices across the entire media, but I'd prefer to move on to more interesting subjects now. Like how vampires are like Yeerks and whether horrible things have a right to exist.