OOTS #1177 - The Discussion Thread

[The Pilgrim]

The pine thing I think is to do with the look of a pine cone. And apple is probably just the taste. They really don't taste like rhubarb, pairs or other English fruit.

Like someone said earlier, "apple" used to mean "fruit" (Old English æppel "apple; any kind of fruit; fruit in general,"). A pineapple is the fruit that looks sort of like a pine cone. It's a logical name.

So, basically:
When pinneapples were discovered by Europeans, the english world for "Pine Cone" was "Pineapple". They called pineapples that way because they resembled pine cones, who were called pineapples back then.

The etymology is the same in Spanish. I'd say the english got it from us as we discovered pineapples before them, but I'm uncertain.

Ananas comes from the native guarani world for the fruit. Some french dude who lived in the middle of the XVI century, for some reason thougth it was a good idea to found a french colony in Brazil in blatant violation of the Treaty of Tordesillas. A french missionary who lived there learnt the world from the natives while studying the local flora. After the colony got burnt to the ground by the portuguese, he got back to Paris and wrote a book about his exploits, and so the word was introduced to the french language. From there it spread to many european languages. (By the way, the portuguese word for pineapple, "abacaxi", also comes from guarani, meaning "plant that cuts").

And now we are a bit more cultured and will never be able to eat a pineapple again without thinking about this thread.

[Fyraltari]

Elasmotherium? It had slightly longer legs than regular rhinos - but would still have looked much more like a (very furry) rhino than like a horned horse IMO.

Sorry, I forgot a "do" in my post. It's easier to think of a horned horse when seeing Elasmotherium than when seeing a rhino. Because of the fur.

It should also be noted that the criterion for "horse-like" seems to have been runs on all four in ancient times. This observation based solely on "swamp horse" hippopotamus.

[Jasdoif]

You make an excellent case for revolting against morning DJs.

What if morning DJs are already revolting?

[Tvtyrant]

I had a big ass issue with multiverse theory because to me the word "universe" meant "everything that is", so having several would be nonsensical. Then I realised it didn't bother me in the slightest that atoms can be dismantled in smaller parts despite the etymology of the word explicitly indicating they shouldn't, and now I'm cured of my prescriptivism.

I'm being facetious, I was comparimg pineapple to other bad English names like unicorn and camelopard. As Peelee said, Rhinos aren't always even mono horned.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No, but I'd expect all unicorns to have one. "Two-horned horned-noses" and "one-horned horned-noses" make sense. "Two-horned one-horn" doesn't.

Because it was not uncommon for artists to simplify their life and not have to deal with perspective by having the horns be behind one another. So a creature with two horns was represented as having a single one. And the Greeks, not having seen the original, might have seen this and called it monoceros.

Thus spoke Asimov, anyway, on an essay about the creation of unicorns.

Grey Wolf

[Fish]

I had a big ass issue with multiverse theory because to me the word "universe" meant "everything that is", so having several would be nonsensical. Then I realised it didn't bother me in the slightest that atoms can be dismantled in smaller parts despite the etymology of the word explicitly indicating they shouldn't, and now I'm cured of my prescriptivism.

If you ever need to remind yourself against prescriptivism, open a book on semantics sometime and look into quantifiers such as “every,” “all,” “some,” and so on. Even in regular language, “every” doesn’t always mean “every last one in the cosmos.” Quantifiers have a scope (which is sometimes maddeningly vague). “Every student passed the exam,” for instance, clearly delimits the scope to those students who (possibly recently) took the exam, but not all beings now or ever described as students throughout all of past time.

[Peelee]

So, basically:
When pinneapples were discovered by Europeans, the english world for "Pine Cone" was "Pineapple". They called pineapples that way because they resembled pine cones, who were called pineapples back then.

I remember that. Now, a pineapple cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Anyway, the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

What if morning DJs are already revolting?

Like they've got faces made for radio or something?

[Yirggzmb]

I guess this strip goes into the "Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped" section, under "necessary reminder that Evil-aligned gods and characters are still self-centered a-holes at heart and don't deserve to be held up as being cool".

Seriously, there seems to be this trend among popular media, in recent years, to worship a-holes and villains above the heroes and positive role models. I find it unhealthy on many levels, but I digress.

I think it's important to note that it's totally possible to find the villains cool and fun to watch, but still acknowledge that they are evil. Darth Vader is cool and confident, but he's definitely the bad guy. Loki in the Avengers is hilarious and dangerous at the same time, and it's fun to wonder what he's plotting, but you still want the heroes to overcome and win.

Bad guys always get the best costumes and the coolest lines. And I think to some extent they almost have to start out better/cooler/stronger/smarter than the heroes, because that way the heroes can't just curb stomp them. They need to be something to be overcome, and that leads to a lot of characters that are bad people but fun to watch.

[Jasdoif]

Too much to bet, the next comic might be IFCC offering something to Hel?

What sort of offer did you have in mind? All I've come up with is "Have your vampire(s) do something for us and we'll give you the souls in our inbox", which seems quite slim.

[Peelee]

What sort of offer did you have in mind? All I've come up with is "Have your vampire(s) do something for us and we'll give you the souls in our inbox", which seems quite slim.

Could they even do that much? It seems to me the souls in their inboxes probably aren't theirs to trade any more than the Blue Cross remittances in my inbox are mine to take.

[Jasdoif]

What sort of offer did you have in mind? All I've come up with is "Have your vampire(s) do something for us and we'll give you the souls in our inbox", which seems quite slim.

Could they even do that much?

It does seem like a slim chance of them having rights over slim pickings, doesn't it?

[Peelee]

It does seem like a slim chance of them having rights over slim pickings, doesn't it?

Ah, what the hell, slim's my middle name.

I'm Murtaugh and you're Riggs, right?

[D.One]

And I think to some extent they almost have to start out better/cooler/stronger/smarter than the heroes, because that way the heroes can't just curb stomp them. They need to be something to be overcome, and that leads to a lot of characters that are bad people but fun to watch.

I'll just say... Saitama. (Ok, I now, he's a parody, but still)

[Rogar Demonblud]

It should also be noted that the criterion for "horse-like" seems to have been runs on all four in ancient times. This observation based solely on "swamp horse" hippopotamus.

River horse. Potamos is "river", hence "Mesopotamia" (between rivers).

[Fyraltari]

River horse. Potamos is "river", hence "Mesopotamia" (between rivers).

Rivers are just fast moving swamps, I say!

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds familiar.

For those who cannot compartmentalize, attempting to understand those who can may be very difficult.

[Jasdoif]

Ah, what the hell, slim's my middle name.

I'm not sure what else the IFCC would have to offer Hel; soul splices have a complication in that the soul in a vampire is imprisoned.

Will Loki not to turn. Power of positive thinking.

[KorvinStarmast]

What if morning DJs are already revolting?

They move to late night and then to Sirius radio (HS as an example)

And the Greeks, not having seen the original, might have seen this and called it monoceros.
Thus spoke Asimov, anyway, on an essay about the creation of unicorns.

I seem to recall Peter S. Beagle's "The Last Unicorn" story also referring to a monoceros, but it's been nearly 40 years since I read it.

@Jasdoif: as I read the IFCC, Hel may be part of the problem, not part of the solution, even though their real target is the good gods.

[The Pilgrim]

River horse. Potamos is "river", hence "Mesopotamia" (between rivers).

So, if you get caught between two rivers, you can say you have been Mesopotamed?

[Squire Doodad]

So, if you get caught between two rivers, you can say you have been Mesopotamed?

Just be wary of the Mesopotamus.

[RatElemental]

He doesn't sacrifice her. If the plan succeeds the world won't end so there's no more risk of her starving to death between worlds and no further risk of the snarl escaping and killing everyone including Hel. So it's for her own good, really.
True, it would keep her malnourished and miserable. But Loki didn't get her in that position to lock away the snarl. So no sacrifice there.

The only thing he is now sacrificing is her scheme to grab supreme power. If the plan fails and the world end's without her plot succeeding it might kill her, but risking her life is not the same as sacrificing her.
So it's not that he doesn't want her to die in vain - he doesn't want her to die period.

If the thing with the dark one works and this world lasts indefinitely, there's no telling how far downwards Hel will spiral if she went from 'able to survive the time between worlds' to 'maybe not able to do that' in just a thousand years.

[Squire Doodad]

If the thing with the dark one works and this world lasts indefinitely, there's no telling how far downwards Hel will spiral if she went from 'able to survive the time between worlds' to 'maybe not able to do that' in just a thousand years.

The calendar OotS uses is based on some great kingdom's founding, it doesn't correspond to the world's founding or the technology level accurately (think Chrono Trigger's Guardia calendar being based on Guardia's founding).

The calendar is 1184~5 years old, but the world itself is probably a couple thousand years old based on Thor's comments.

Regardless, unless the bet is broken she will die one way or another (bet being broken includes smashing this world and immediately building a new one)

[Rogar Demonblud]

The (Northern) calendar dates from the founding of That Kingdom. No idea how things are numbered for South and West.

[Squire Doodad]

The (Northern) calendar dates from the founding of That Kingdom. No idea how things are numbered for South and West.

True. The South has their own calendar (though possibly the same year give or take a few months), and the Western continent probably changes calendars every couple empires.

[TheNecrocomicon]

What do you mean, recent? Ain’t nobody reading Jonhattan Harker. Tell people ‘‘Professor Aronax’’ and you get blank stares, but when you say ‘‘Captain Nemo’’ you get ‘‘Oh, the cool submarine dude’’.

Villains have been more popular than heroes pretty much ever since villains were allowed to be characters rather than plot devices.

I'm not saying it's never been done in works of fiction before, just that there's been a trend in popular media lately (i.e. last decade or two) glorifying "dark and edgy" and it's been overdone to the point that there seem to be works where every character of any prominence is just varying shades of "evil a-hole".

I think it's important to note that it's totally possible to find the villains cool and fun to watch, but still acknowledge that they are evil. Darth Vader is cool and confident, but he's definitely the bad guy. Loki in the Avengers is hilarious and dangerous at the same time, and it's fun to wonder what he's plotting, but you still want the heroes to overcome and win.

Bad guys always get the best costumes and the coolest lines. And I think to some extent they almost have to start out better/cooler/stronger/smarter than the heroes, because that way the heroes can't just curb stomp them. They need to be something to be overcome, and that leads to a lot of characters that are bad people but fun to watch.

Even then, Vader never really eclipsed Luke, Leia, Han and the rest. There were awesome heroes matched up against a badass villain. Same deal with Loki vs. Avengers, it was the first time in the MCU there had been that much of a crossover. That said, the MCU overdid Loki to the point that his adoring fandom started to excuse his every move just because he was pretty and charismatic (sounds a lot like Tarquin, really).

IMO, the trend just seems to be overdone now to the point that Infinity War was

Spoiler

Show

basically nothing but Thanos nigh-effortlessly curbstomping everybody for nearly three hours straight, even though yes, I know it was all intended as setup for Endgame.

For those who cannot compartmentalize, attempting to understand those who can may be very difficult.

Exactly my point; fans and works of fiction are failing to compartmentalize and letting "OMG so cool!" override the understanding that villainous characters are hateful a-holes at heart. I have to say I'm glad that the Giant is capable of making characters compelling while still inescapably demonstrating that being evil is not actually a cool thing.

[Squire Doodad]

IMO, the trend just seems to be overdone now to the point that Infinity War was

Spoiler

Show

basically nothing but Thanos nigh-effortlessly curbstomping everybody for nearly three hours straight, even though yes, I know it was all intended as setup for Endgame.

Infinity War was less Infinity War (that is to say, the war over the Infinity Stones), and more

Spoiler: Pleasant Fun Times

Show

Thanos Semi-cidal murder time

[Fyraltari]

I'm not saying it's never been done in works of fiction before, just that there's been a trend in popular media lately (i.e. last decade or two) glorifying "dark and edgy" and it's been overdone to the point that there seem to be works where every character of any prominence is just varying shades of "evil a-hole".

Sure...
This seems more like a cyclic thing to me, the public gets bored of shiny-perfect heroes and so starts favoring anti-heroes and gritty settings, the popularity of which spawns more and more cynical works until the public find those dim and cliché and starts reading more and more idealistic works, rinse, repeat and adjust for current socio-political mood.

IMO, the trend just seems to be overdone now to the point that Infinity War was

Spoiler

Show

basically nothing but Thanos nigh-effortlessly curbstomping everybody for nearly three hours straight, even though yes, I know it was all intended as setup for Endgame.

Well he is the movies's (vilain) protagonist, so it only makes sense.

[Cheese Wizard]

So, um... I don't recall the bet that Loki and Hel were discussing. Can someone enlighten me, perhaps a quick summary or a reference to the particular strip(s) in question?

(and I registered just to ask about that!)

[TheNecrocomicon]

Sure...
This seems more like a cyclic thing to me, the public gets bored of shiny-perfect heroes and so starts favoring anti-heroes and gritty settings, the popularity of which spawns more and more cynical works until the public find those dim and cliché and starts reading more and more idealistic works, rinse, repeat and adjust for current socio-political mood.

...

Well he is the movie's (villain) protagonist, so it only makes sense.

The heroes don't have to be "shiny-perfect", the difference is that they've lately either been made disproportionately crappy jerkass nominal-protagonists or sometimes just non-existent to focus on these tropes instead.

As for a cycle, it's been a pretty prolonged swing of "dark and edgy" one-upmanship for a while now, which pretty much dates straight back to the cultural shock of 9/11, at least in the Western context.

If a hero did what Thanos did in Infinity War, they would have been labelled a Mary Sue far and wide and the movie would have been lambasted as an utterly boring snoozefest. But no, the fandom reaction seems to be "he's so cool" and excusing his "kill half of everything" genocidal plan for some warped idea of environmental protection as a result.

Anyways, like I first said, I digress. Back to dozens of pages of debate over random OotS plot minutiae?

[Squire Doodad]

So, um... I don't recall the bet that Loki and Hel were discussing. Can someone enlighten me, perhaps a quick summary or a reference to the particular strip(s) in question?

(and I registered just to ask about that!)

Welcome to the forums!

The bet is essentially between Hel and Thor, as brokered by Loki, though it arguably applies to all gods due to affecting all dwarves.

Hel loses the ability to make clerics among the living, but gets default access to all dwarven souls. There is an exception for those who die with honor.

Thor gains and loses nothing, but needs to compare how many souls he has versus the amount Hel gets, and then the one with more souls wins something (possibly a portion of the souls obtained).