This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Jahkaivah: Was discussed elsewhere, but was Dominic Deegan really the trope namer of Real Men Wear Pink? The saying is in far too broad circulation for this is seem likely.
Mr Death: As far as this wiki's concerned, it probably is, but I agree that it's a fairly widely used term. For that matter, it's not like it's hard to come up with, so I'd chalk it up to parallel evolution.
Fawkes: It may not have created the concept, but it appears to have inspired the trope.
Drive By Editor: If it helps, a Trope Namer isn't the same thing as a Ur-Example, Trope Maker, or Trope Codifier. Shows which are Trope Namers are just lucky enough that a consensus here on TV Tropes decided to name a trope article after something from said show. A Trope Codifier is a show which employs a trope it didn't actually create, but other authors/industries take from the show as if it was the prime example. A Trope Maker is the first well-known use of a trope, while the Ur-Example is the first known use period.
Killersquid: Thinking of adding Did Not Do The Research for a few things, mainly these 2: [1]
Hand-made Soaps. In a world with no machines, Hand-made should not have to be added, it then becomes redundant. [2] Beers aging. I know that certain beers age, but it is not likely this is the special kind that gets older after it ages...for 20 YEARS!
Mr Death: A. She doesn't specify "hand made soaps." She says that soaps were among the homemade goods there. B. Who says there's no machines? Just because they have magic doesn't mean there isn't any sort of industry. C. As has been pointed out, there are beers that age, and...well, the last part of your sentence doesn't make any sense. As far as I know, something doesn't have to be "special" to get older after it ages.
Twin Bird: Wow...was this written by John Solomon? Don't you think this is a little harsh for the comic entry? Maybe you don't like it, but it kind of seems like the equivalent to adding "Torchwood sucks" to the end of every paragraph of its entry (and God knows a few of the tropers think it deserves it).
Oracle Hunter: Well, I'm working through the comic bit by bit. The "story summary" is, of course, waaay too brief at the moment (and indeed, a bit curt). I plan to expand it once I have time to scour the archives. The reason it seems harsh at the moment is that Mookie really does become anvilicious at times, and those times are the easiest targets. By all means throw in good points if you have them - this *is* a Wiki after all.
Mister Six: We are not wikipedia, so there's nothing wrong with editorialising.
Ruthie A: I just Archive Binged it, and the Moral Dissonance wasn't really obvious to me...It's not listed in the article, so maybe you guys could point it out to me? (I'm not saying it isn't there, I just didn't notice it...Sometimes I don't notice these things.)
Oracle Hunter: Moral Dissonance is kind of hard to spot. It'll take me awhile to assemble a full index of strips, but take a look at the "Ecstasy and Evil" Arc re: Amelia Sturtz. Celesto puts it nicely here. Szark is given a "Get Out of Jail Free" Card and a chance at redemption while his wife, who arguably did more social good, is not only murdered, but the murderer is given a pat on the back by Amelia's own sister.
SAMAS: To be fair, however, Amelia did try to get pretty much everybody involved to kill each other.
Ruthie A: Okay, I see that now, thanks. I kind of keep expecting Szark to die when I was reading through the comic, because, generally, Redemption Equals Death and all.
Gattsuru : Celesto's fate is kinda questionable, as well. His kill count included a thug, a chaos magic-wielding mass murderer, and yet the leafling and acibek (the latter of which had already attempted to "get rid of" said mass murderer) have him tossed into a hoary netherworld worse than hell from which there can be no return. He was a right bastard, betraying someone who saved his life, but Stunt gets away with that sorta stuff more often than that.
Twin Bird: However, these are different actions by different characters - Klo Tark "kills" Celesto not for any of the people he did kill, but for trying to kill Dominic. Not to mention that he's implied to be the champion of law. If I recall correctly, Luna's always hated Szark, as well...not to mention that "her own sister" is a bit of a weak defense for Luna.
Mr Death: And I wouldn't say Luna gave him a "pat on the back." She simply said she forgave him, and understood why he did it. A "pat on the back," would've been, "Great! I've wanted to strangle that bitch for years!" which Luna admittedly probably did feel on some level, but she wasn't congratulating Bumper for it.
SAMAS: I don't think the situation between Melna and Stonewater counts as Rape Is Love anymore. The trope is about how the rape itself is the catalyst, while in there case, it was more of a complication. Hell, she broke his jaw first thing the next morning and ran off, which pretty much averted it right there. When they met again years later, she started falling for him because she saw the type of person he had grown into.
Oracle Hunter: No, this is actual the archetypal depiction of Rape Is Love. Stonewater acted out of pure motivations (to save Melna from death) and it was, ultimately, that selfless action that causes Melna to associate Stonewater with her father - and thus fall in love with her rapist. Plus, the rape was how the two characters were introduced.
- arguably, neither character has changed much over the years. Both were effectively exiled from their tribes... and aside from Melna's man-hating (quickly resolved) neither had changed much. In that sense Stonewater didn't "grow into" anything - he was always good.
- I'll pull some strips together on this point later
SAMAS: No, in Rape Is Love, the act itself is a big part of the situation as well. It goes beyond falling in love with your rapist, but is also about the act itself being the catalyst. Or, as the article put it: "Surprise sex you didn't know you wanted".
Melna's case, as shown here, is closer to Loving a Shadow more than Rape Is Love. The rape is a complication in the matter, not a catalyst, and doesn't carry the *ahem* "positive" connotations that make the trope so Squicky.
Roland: I agree. The Rape itself is not viewed as anything positive. It was necessary insofar as it prevented Melna's immediate death, but not positive and not an act of love. Stonewater is traumatized by it, Melna is traumatized by it, and they never look upon it as anything but awful.
Melna falls for Stonewater because of who he presently is, not because of the rape.
Oracle Hunter: Hmmm... point taken. Melna is certainly Loving a Shadow, particularly since it doesn't look like Stonewater actually has feelings for Melna. Still, it seems a shame to leave this event off the page. Which trope does Mookie's use of (child) rape cover?
Drow Lord: My guess is Shoot the Dog. And finally someone expressed the objection I've had since noticing the DD entry in that trope page...
Caswin: Removing
- Which... doesn't actually make sense considering that in the strip, Heaven is a real place. One assumes that innocent children would go there.
Roland: As for Strawman Political, I don't think that exists in DD. Sure, loads of Card-Carrying Villain characters and execrable human beings, but no one is ever presented as a strawman conservative or liberal- simply Corrupt Corporate Executives. The traits being reduced to strawmen are unpleasant and villainous ones to begin with. Racism is generally seen as an evil trait.
So yes, it's Anvilicious, but not a Strawman Political.
Willy Four Eyes: In that case, would that make them Villains By Default?
Roland: Nah, they don't belong to evil groups or professions- they simply are people with evil traits. If they're anything it's what they're currently marked as Card Carrying Villains.
Sci Vo: Please don't use a bullet point to position a reply under someone else's comment on a Discussion page. It makes it hard to tell what was said by whom.
Oracle Hunter (re Strawman Political): A Strawman Political need not be 'just' either Liberal or Conservative - it is true whenever an author creates a "straw man" (a weak caricature that is easy to knock down) for a position or class. For instance, the peasants of Lynn's Brook were strawmen for the viewpoint of "the common man" - stupid, intolerant, and quick to anger - as opposed to a more cosmopolitan outlook, like good ol' Dominic.
Oracle Hunter: I don't think Jacob is a Serial Killer. He certainly is brutal and creepy, but he doesn't just run around killing people for no reason. If anything, he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist (remember "The Living Zombie?") with a dash of Mad Scientist.
Roland: Jacob is all Mad Scientist and no Well-Intentioned Extremist. WIE requires a 'good' aim; Jacob just wants power.
Willy Four Eyes: Editing and revising the following snippet:
- Rape Is Love - Melna was raped by Stonewater (as a child!) to save her life, but after meeting him again some years later, she realized that she loves him. Oh dear. For those who agree with John Solomon about this comic, easily the biggest Wall Banger moment of the series.
- Surely it has stiff competition from Super-Greg for being the biggest Wall Banger in the series.
- No. No, it doesn't. The readers who hate Super-Greg really hate it, but that's far from a universal reaction, and it lacks the Values Dissonance of Rape Is Love.
- Surely it has stiff competition from Super-Greg
Conversation In The Main Page is bad, mm-kay?
Twin Bird: Removed:
- Spoiler - Sigfried's dead.
Ha ha.
Some Guy: Is it just me, or does the second paragraph in the article sound a little...well...cheerleady?
Geese: Cheerleaders are people too. I know, I'm as surprised as you are.
As much as I'd like to believe that the people who adore this comic are sewer-dwelling subhumans or sockpuppets (or both), the fact remains that they're a reasonable portion of the readership and have the same right to representation that the other factions do. In fact, many of them are probably nicer people than me. :(
C Trombley: Does MPD at the bottom of the last paragraph mean Multiple Personality Disorder and if so, can I just write it out?
Geese: It does, and sure, if you like.
CoreDumpError: I'd like to contest the notion that Klo Tark and Siggy's deaths were instances of "Killed Off for Real" that got reversed. We're shown *immediately* after Siggy's death that he's gone to Hell to become a demon lieutenant for Karnak, so he hasn't really been Killed Off for Real. As for Klo, he's also shown sending Celesto to the horror dimension (whatever you call that place) after his death within just a few comics, which tells us that he's not really gone, he's just not alive any more. Readers know that Heaven and Hell exist in that universe, so it's entirely reasonable that dead people aren't erased from the story.
Willy Four Eyes: I transferred the Cast of Characters list to the new namespace for it. Does anyone else want to expand/edit it from there to look like the other pages?
Mr Death: Took out the Ass Pull listing until it gets an actual example. As far as I can tell, Dominic never reveals "new powers." For the most part, he'll reveal his Second Sight let him play Chess Master but as far as I can tell, it ain't New Powers as the Plot Demands. A Lso taking out this, because, well, it's not making any sense to me:
- Did Not Do The Research - on just about everything, leading to things such as glasswood (wood that shatters like glass when a blade is stuck into it) or homemade soap.
Seriously, "glasswood"? Homemade soap? I don't remember any mentions of that at all in the comic.
Slotts: Can we get a link to the page with the door/clay/whatever shattering with the dagger in it? I do not remember anything like that in the archives...
Mr Death: Okay, last one from me. Took out the Family-Unfriendly Aesop thing because it's wildly inaccurate.
- Family-Unfriendly Aesop - Five "good guy" characters (Siegfried, one of the thieves, Szark, Dominic's brother, Luna's sister) have committed cold blooded murder. Luna's sister worked as an assassin. Oh, and all is forgiven. Only Szark takes heat from this and has to redeem himself (even though his is the most justified)- the rest are still good people in Dominic's eyes. Maybe Dominic is just naive, an idiot or doesn't want to see the truth.
- Dominic has been clearly shown as second-guessing himself often, and capable of self-deception.
- I'm beginning to find the idea that Dominic is manipulating everything as part of a master plan less and less far-fetched... "Soon the world will bow down to it's Lord and Master- Dominic the All Seeing. You have been judged and found unworthy to rule yourselves"... admit it- it fits with his behavior.
- Dominic has been clearly shown as second-guessing himself often, and capable of self-deception.
Let's see here: Dominic knows exactly how bad Siegfried was, but he was trying to change; also, he doesn't get away with it, note how he's down in Hell. Szark was dueling, which while still killing, was legal, and technically he was in as much danger of dying as his opponent. Dominic has never seen Jacob as "good people." He outright hates Jacob, and only once tried to reconcile, and it backfired on him. Luna's sister wasn't really considered a "good guy" and it's been said explicitly that she'll be punished for her crimes.
As for Stunt, well, we've never actually seen him murder anyone, so for all we know he exaggerates his own reputation. The only person we've seen him actually kill pretty clearly deserved it. Besides, Bumper doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would hang out with Stunt if he really did much killing.
Mr Death: Okay, I lied. Took out this bit from Flanderization, cuz it's just more bitchy whining, plus the last bit is just inaccurate:
- Dominic's increasing ability to plan ahead seems easily justified as him simply getting better at it due to every major happening in the world taking place around him and his friends. Besides, it's a lot of fun to watch the puppets dance.
- It is, but look at the Snowsong arc. If that isn't the
scrying, tragic waste of skin"one step ahead of his enemies" type taken to a ridiculous extreme, what is? - After all, Dominic can only see the future- NOT possible futures.
- It is, but look at the Snowsong arc. If that isn't the
- Dominic's increasing ability to plan ahead seems easily justified as him simply getting better at it due to every major happening in the world taking place around him and his friends. Besides, it's a lot of fun to watch the puppets dance.
Kizor: Removed this, since an example followed by natter that disproves that example isn't really good for much. Added it here since it's still interesting.
- Did Not Do The Research - In this comic it shows a beer dubbed "The Orion" being great because it was aged 20 years. However, wines and spirits are aged, not beers.
- Not usually, no. There are a number of exceptions to this. It is more common in home brewing than in commercial beers, as the cost of a heavier batch isn't so critical and the only ones the brewers need to please is themselves. This troper has made some brews which aged quite well for over 15 years, and they were not even specifically long-aging styles.
- Not usually, no. There are
Some Guy: Edited the main entry to have less cheerleading and be more grammatically correct.
Mr Death: "From another, a main character responding to a practical joke by murdering the trickster and a number of bystanders, which is morally justified because she's a main character." <—Okay, first off, in the strip in question you don't see any death, and second, has she -ever- thrown a fireball that was fatal? I seem to remember her frying Stunt and Bumper with no ill effects other than singing them. I'm editing this.
Kizor: I wrote that, and it is not intended to be a fair and accurate description of the comic strip in question. It is intended to be a fair and accurate description of one extreme of the reactions readers had to the comic strip in question. This is done to illustrate the extent of division among the readers. I thought that was said clearly. The Giant ITP hatedom and the Keenspot snarkers proclaimed that the comic strip in question depicts multiple homicide, and even the DD fan forum and livejournal had people who thought so. Hope that helps.
Mr Death: Fair enough, though the original construction "from one viewpoint...from another..." implied to me that the two were to be viewed equally, so I've edited it to say the second is meant to be a more extreme view.
Kizor: If you wish.
Mr Death: Took out the irrelevant bitching from the Gender Bender entry. Original wall-o-words here:
- Gender Bender - Male misogynist Stunt was subjected to a "hilarious" gender bender in the Wild Edge territories story arc (strip Aug 27/2008), by way of eating a chaos-magical vegetable from the garden of a mongrelman. Stunt had previously appeared in the comic as a small-time criminal and shorttempered Jerkass; he executed a partial temporary Heel–Face Turn when an even worse criminal threatened to take over the town, was sentenced and exiled from his home town, and lately appears to be working as a park ranger/tour guide in the Wild Edge territories, where he met CanonSues Dominic and Luna on their holiday trip. Since then, Stunt has become the Butt-Monkey of the Deeganverse, has been beaten up by hobgoblins, gotten an "amusing" sunburn (while the redhaired fairskinned Luna didn't get one) and otherwise being humiliated for the amusement of the audience. Expect a Very Special Episode where women-hater Stunt is forced to learn a Valuable Lesson About Tolerance very soon...
Personthing: Can someone please explain to me how the Semashi have Unfortunate Implications for Italians?
Mr Death: Because a lot of the posters here will try and find anything to pin on the comic to make it look bad, whether it's accurate or not. Just read the rest of this discussion page if you need evidence of that.
Mr Death: On the "Unfortunate Implications" of the most recent strip. The listing (which I deleted) said it as if the parents were trying to rationally think things through, and killed the kids just because the teeth might look slightly different than a normal baby. But stop and think a moment: Orcs and humans can apparently interbreed (Melna asks Luna if there are any orcs in her ancestry when they first meet). Orcs and humans are at war with each other at this point. Humans can be very racist toward orcs, and I imagine it was even worse when the war was actively happening.
Considering all this, a baby born with tusks isn't just "a minor physical impurity." It's an implication that someone in the house is sleeping with, not only an "inferior people," but with the kingdom's stated enemies. A family who, all of a sudden, has a kid who may have been sired by an orc (in the middle of the orc war) is likely to be ostracized or worse. And if it's a noble family? They could be downright ruined by the implications, false though they may be. I'm not going to defend killing children, obviously, but there's a lot more going on than "mass infanticide for a minor physical impurity." Original is here:
- The reigning champion is unlikely to be defeated. An outraged orc makes a curse: some babies in the standard fantasy kingdom of Callania are born with orcish tusks. Luna, the female lead, has tusks and they are a minimal impediment, certainly less visible than Down's. The parents respond with MASS INFANTICIDE. Callanians have been characterized as being slightly prone to small-mindedness. They have not been characterized by widespread murder of their children for cosmetic impurity.
Kizor: Did Not Do The Research and Unfortunate Implications were removed on the grounds that they have been discussed and not defended on the discussion page, so they are "just more bitching by people who are looking much harder than they should for something to bash the comic about." First of all, nobody here seems to be driving for hostility except you.
Second, this seems to be giving discussion pages too much credit. There are no date tags: matters are often just presumed abandoned as the page accumulates more material. In the absence of a definitive discussion like the ones you were looking for, let's have one. I've been following the Giant in the Playground snarking and strip slaying. I don't hate the comic, but I am no longer able to enjoy it. Instead, I do enjoy their humor. Did Not Do The Research has every right to be here: just recently, the main character got an arrowhead embedded into his forearm. It did not even disturb his balance, and he's putting weight on that arm the very next day. He's also in an explicit no-magic zone without a healer, before surgery, before antibiotics, with no sign of a fire and not enough of a time-lapse to build one. In fact his crew is trekking across a great desert, in the daytime, with their heads completely unprotected. The natives at least have excuse of chlorophyll, or something.
I don't get the Semashi having Unfortunate Implications, but then I'm from the remote North - I'm white enough to verge on translucent, and so's everyone else I know. What do I get about race? The trouble seem to be that the Dominion's cultures (a) often show signs of being Expies of real-world ones, yet have universal traits, (b) have universal traits in the first place, (c) are commonly described through blanket statements and stereotypes, * and (d) show clear cases of Noble Savage, Mighty Whitey, and Positive Discrimination. ( It seems reasonable that people can find this uncomfortable without going out of their way.
Mr Death: I'll admit I was a little annoyed when I made that edit. I tend to get a little more heated than I should over these things, but in my defense, there have been people who have put up either exaggerated or blatantly false information in order to point out the comic's "flaws," like saying Dominic's Chess Master-ing is impossible because he can only see the definite future, rather than possible futures, the past, or the present, when it's been demonstrated and stated that he can see all four.
I'm sure there are things where he Did Not Do The Research; even the best authors will miss something. So put up those examples you mentioned, rather than something vague like "glasswood," where nobody can seem to find an example. Just look up above for the stuff on the beers, for example.
Ditto Unfortunate Implications; just about anything, even by the best authors, will have something in it that can be seen as such. That said, I don't see how the Semashi are an Unfortunate Implication of Italians either, and I'm part Italian. If there's something you see as Unfortunate Implications, list that and link to an example. At least get rid of the "on every subject" and "far too many to list" things, which to me do come off as trying to bash the comic.
Kizor: You're spot on regarding the people involved. So. I was intrigued by glasswood and looking at the last part to feature daggers brought up this. It doesn't seem to have happened more than once, but did happen at the right time to become the poster boy. I can't list the examples I gave because the lack of research isn't just apparent in them, but the general situation - take simple human anatomy in a years-old strip, with one of the missing leg cases (Dex, left) and whatever this is supposed to be. Nobody's perfect, sure, but you can't blame human failings when no groundwork was done. "On every subject" is nevertheless unfair. I'm adding "on all kinds of subjects."
The guy who listed the Semashi says that he's forgotten what he was on about. I'll ask him to replace it with orcs.
Kizor: While we're at it, I added I Got Better following Dex's
, which states that the author didn't want to kill him off - the very definition of I Got Better. Sure, the following strip praises his will, but he might as well have been healed by Martians as far as plausibility is concerned. Mental strength will not knit tissue to achieve homeostasis.
Selior: It seems that somebody can't stand a presence of any critical tropes on main page.
Kizor: He's hitting other Dominic Deegan pages and evading bans, too. Thanks to you, Katsuhagi and Rebochan for keeping things together. It's interesting how he started by incising critical material, then started hitting everything near it, and has now moved to straightforward vandalism. What's the trope for that? Maybe we could repel him with The Power of Love, if people who like or don't hate the comic came here to say that they prefer an article where the fandom and the hatedom live together in harmony, rather than an article where one has been forcibly evicted. Anyone?
- Selior: Well, I presonally don't care much about comic itself (there are more interesting readings) but one-sided representation of such information must be avoided by any cost, IMHO. All-sugar or all-bile article never ever made anything better. Not sure if this position counts for you.
Kizor: If I was any less anal, I'd be worried about how often I show up on this page. There are two competing versions of one bit in the intro, could you give me your opinions on which you prefer? I'm in favor of the former (mine, incidentally) as the latter is far clunkier to read and goes out of its way to debunk what is already stated to be a deliberate misreading.
- Opinions are deeply and sometimes loudly divided about the quality of the comic. (...) For an illustration of the difference, consider this comic: from the intended viewpoint, cartoon slapstick violence. Creatively misinterpreted, a main character spurned by a trickster murdering him and a number of bystanders, which she has every right to do because she's a main character.
Opinions are deeply and sometimes loudly divided about the quality of the comic. (...) Since the readership is a Broken Base, there's a large amount anti-fanon surrounding the comic. Consider this strip, which features a main character getting revenge on a trickster who spurned her via her trademark illusory fireball. Creatively misinterpreted by anti-fans, however, that strip becomes a depiction of the character murdering the trickster and a number of bystanders, which she has every right to do because she's a main character.
Incidentally, have all three forums really been taken over by the hatedom? The livejournal is congratulating the author for the comic's birthday.
Mr Death: I prefer the first one as well, partly because while she has made a habit of using illusions, an illusion is no good if the targets aren't looking at it. In that comic, nobody's looking at it, so they can't get scared, which would be the point of any illusion.
Drive By Editor: Yes, all three forums have a significant amount of hatedom now. On the surface, the "Cheerleaders" might seem cheerful, but take a look at the comments. For example, you mentioned the birthday congratulations—there's plenty of examples of snarkers and anti-fans present in the comments for that entry.
The things said in the original official Dominic Deegan Keenspot forums have been even worse. When Mookie broke up with his previous girlfriend, the snarkers and anti-fans of that forum had a field day laughing over his "failure in life."
Concerning the "canon/anti-fanon example," why do you keep insisting on reverting the entire thing over one quibble, Kizor? The quip about the illusory fireball was originally not in the bottom example—that was added by a troper named Mc Jeff, according to the page history.
... You know what? I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here.
Just where is it stated in the comic that illusions must be seen in order to be effective? Just because something is an illusion does 'not mean it's just an optical illusion.
If these illusion spells worked only by fooling the eyes, a number of stated illusions through the comic would not have worked ( TIM ripping out Miranda Deegan's "heart," the Spark getting impaled on Helixia's hand). There's enough anecdotal evidence to show that illusion spells aren't just optical illusions, and affect the other senses (touch, hearing, smell, etc) depending on how good the caster is at illusions.
Besides that, the fireball sequence used to demonstrate the "canon/anti-fanon" differences leaves out the fact that we see these merfolk later on, completely fine. Healing spells? Sure, it's possible, but our fireball-tosser here is a character who repeatedly uses illusions, and has a measure of skill at crafting illusions that affect things other than sight. A character doing her trademark illusions, to me, seems much more plausible than "she really did burn them and maybe a few survived and healed themselves by the time we see them later." That smacks of anti-fan bias (especially when paired with the provided Alternate Character Interpretation).
Unless Mookie himself has said somewhere that illusion spells must make eye contact to even work, then I simply cannot see how the "it's not an illusory fireball and I'm reverting the entire paragraph" flies. That's all from me.
Mr Death: We were never saying "she really did burn them and maybe a few survived," we were implying that they were all fine, maybe a bit singed, exactly like what happened to Stunt and Bumper much earlier in the comic.
And yes, an illusion spell meant to scare someone is best used if it's seen before it makes contact. What good is an illusory fireball if they don't see it? If it's illusory, it's not going to burn them, obviously, so the reaction would be nothing but, "Huh, what was that?" Why make it look like a fireball at all if they're not going to see it?
If it's not to fool their sense of sight, then that just leaves touch, smell, and hearing. Hearing might make them turn around in time to see it coming at them, but it's a longshot, and certainly not a guarantee, especially considering the natural sounds of the surf. Smell has an even smaller chance of getting their attention, since the smell would be following the "fireball" and wouldn't arrive until after it had hit or passed them. That leaves touch, and if you're going to craft an illusion to convince people it's a fireball once it's already hit them (i.e., by burning them), why not just use an actual, non-lethal fireball like she's also done numerous times before? And magic is pretty malleable, so it's highly likely that she could dial-down the actual power of the fireball when she casts it so it just knocks them off the rock and singes them a bit.
So, to sum up: Yes, it's possible for it to be an illusion, but it makes a ton more sense for it to just be a real, non-lethal fireball.
Drive By Editor: An illusory fireball meant to simulate a real one that big would definitely be felt before it hit, and would be heard beforehand as well. Just something to keep in mind.
However, I still think it's incredibly silly for Kizor to want to revert the entire thing because of Mc Jeff's addition. Especially since that means removing something that's actually true concerning the nature of the Dominic Deegan "fan" communities. If you're so opposed to the idea that the character wouldn't, y'know, trade prank with prank, then why don't you simply replace the link showing Luna using an illusory fireball with a link showing her using a non-lethal one?
Kizor: All right! All right already! I made three changes in the edit that you don't stop referring to. All three were done for a reason and collateral damage was not sought or to-my-knowledge caused with any of them.
- There was a new description of the viewpoint divide. This version seemed far too clunky and cumbersome, but as I was behind the older version, so I knew I'd favor it and did not want to be too forceful. I copypasted both into the discussion page and asked for others' opinions. For the time being, I restored the more legible version.
- The mention of fansites had been changed to emphasize hostility. I looked at one fansite and saw happy anniversary congratulations. I changed the phrasing back to what appeared to be more accurate and brought this discrepancy up on the discussion page.
- I restored a request for discretion. This has every right to be there: note that shortly after it was removed (again), an example collapsed into an argument with itself and became worse than useless.
I considered, and consider, all of these to be minor and well-justified acts. But since they've been enough to draw outrage from you for weeks complete with fake-quotes and italics, alright already! I'm sorry for the offense I caused by what I considered to be routine maintenance.
Mr Death: On the Crossing the Desert thing: I get it, he Did Not Do The Research. I'm not disputing that, since Kizor apparently has experience on the subject. I'd just like to ask if the entry could maybe not read with the undertone of "Mookie's an idiot". Also, just because they haven't said they're using magic, doesn't mean they aren't. Remember, this is a world where magic is just a part of every day life, and is taken for granted. If you're going somewhere, do you stop to talk to your fellow traveler about how you're going to use your automobile and put gas in it so the internal combustion engine can move the wheels? Of course not, so in a world where magic is used so commonly, they're not going to stop and explain to each other every time they use it, especially if it's a type of magic that's already been explicitly explained to the audience.
And on it being a magic deadzone: look at Spark. Spark can still talk, explicitly because he retained the magic in him, so it's logical to believe that things that already had magic intrinsic in them (like bags of holding) would retain that magic on going into Maltak. It seems to be that you just can't cast spells in Maltak, so bags of holding should work. And honestly, they'd have to have bags of holding, otherwise tents would be all that would fit in the back packs.
Kizor: I'm right with you on the undertone. Mookie seems like the kind of guy I'd have a few beers with, if we lived on the same continent and if I drank beer. My interest is in a page where TV Tropes Magic can make fans and snarkers live side by side, and if you saw an undertone in the Crossing the Desert example and removed it with your edit, thanks. Regarding bags in Maltak, what you describe would be a valid way of writing fantasy, it's just inconsistent with the way Dominic Deegan has been written. Magic has usually been described explicitly, and Mundane Utility is rare. Even if the setting did have well-integrated magic, it'd still be desirable to keep the events relatable and understandable. It'd be a cinch: Instead of having characters chat while walking, one could have them chat while making camp and pulling out items larger than their backpacks. The use of protection against forest fires in a desert and the lack of mentions of supplies in a long story about an expedition also suggest that the arc focuses on characters and portrays survival more as a backdrop than consistently.
You're spot on about Spark, so I'll add a note saying that bags of holding have been mentioned years ago. Doing more would IMAO be too much of a stretch, we shouldn't interpret every shred of evidence to defend the comic any more than to attack it. We should be fair in both directions.
On that note, I wondered if it'd be rude to add Blood from the Mouth, noting that Luna wasn't hit anywhere in the mouth, lungs, or upper GI tract. In the last four strips we've witnessed archers either attacking with one arrow when they could've fired a volley or firing a warning shot at someone's face, an obvious art mistake that the author admitted but didn't fix, three groups running into each other at the same time, a chief issuing an attack while high, the most dangerously Sueriffic character developing Fertile Feet, and (in author-approved fan art) a pair of decomposing tits. I'll add the blood, all of a sudden it seems like a much smaller issue...
Mr Death: I'm fine with the Blood from the Mouth since, yeah, it seems to be used as shorthand for fatal wound, rather than a realistic result of the wound she actually suffered.
I'm not sure that Mundane Utility is rare, per se (we've seen, among other things, Luna walking around with shopping bags floating behind her, one of her coworkers uses a spell to change from her work clothes to her normal stuff, and Greg was using his buffing spells to help rebuild Barthis), but I'm with you on the rest of it. We shouldn't be overly critical or defensive, which is part of why I had potholed Fan Wank into my additions to the main page about the bags of holding.
Mr Death: On the "non-lethal arrow volleys" issue: I think we should wait and see just what he comes up with as explanation before we say it won't work. I mean, at least give him the benefit of the doubt, since he's at least acknowledged that he's aware of it.
Kizor: I'm for the benefit of the doubt, but there was really no other way this could've gone. The archers were already firing into a melee at that point. Thanks for giving in once the outcome was clear: that's a bit of a rarity on the Internet.
We're going to have to add this to Hollywood Tactics. A snarker pointed out that this was akin to a captain ordering his men to throw down their muskets and meet them injuns with good old fisticuffs. Another argued that this was closer to ordering half his men into close combat and the other half to fire into the crowd. Incidentally, I'm expanding the Chosen One entry to point out why it's a problem that Luna's personality and deeds are irrelevant to her role. I intend it to be educational, but it's going to be biting. I also tweaked Crossing the Desert to reflect new information.
Mr Death: It is Hollywood Tactics, but to be fair it is being shown as a losing tactic, at least while they're trying not to kill (inspirational leader and Chosen One he may be, but nobody in the comic's ever called Stonewater a tactical genius).
But yeah, I know when I'm wrong, and there's no point in fighting a losing battle on the internet.
Besides, the only other thing I could come up with as an explanation is if the orcs are using Chandak magic to "guide" the arrows to deliver non-lethal wounds (like Melna's father did to stop those spikes from hitting her and her mother), but that'd be a stretch at this point considering, besides Stonewater, the comic hasn't established anyone else as being a Chandak, and Melna's father was able to do it because he was an exceptional one.
Edit: Hey, Kizor...reading your elaboration on the Chosen One part, it actually sounds like a deconstruction of it, vis a vis the whole "the chosen one doesn't really have a choice" thing.
Kizor: Unfortunately, I think that's due to my emphasis on those elements more than the comic. (In fact, the impression you got suggests that I managed to pull that angle off quite well - so thanks! :-) ) I don't say this just because we have the problematic Big Bikta Battle as a baseline, but I don't want to bash the comic any more right now.
Mr Death: Well, considering how Luna and Azazia have outright discussed how being a Chosen One/plaything of destiny stinks, I'd consider it likely that Mookie does intend it as a Deconstruction on some level.
Fawkes: There really needs to be a distinction between Hatedom and the Snarkers. They're not the same thing.
Drive By Editor: Sorry, Fawkes, but I don't believe you. I've seen the snarkers at work, and I've seen just how much venom they work into their so-called "caring snarks." They are a Hatedom, nothing more, nothing less. There is overwhelming proof that anyone who calls themself a "snarker" doesn't enjoy the comic for its own merits, but because they enjoy making fun of it. Compare Bile Fascination and Snark Bait.
Please stop trying to fill the article with Accentuate the Negative Natter and claims that snarkers aren't Haters.
Fawkes: Did a snarker kick your puppy or something? You're making us out to be villains here, which is kind of... weird. Many genuinely like (or liked) the comic, and feel that it has Jumped the Shark. Many hold hopes that it could be as good as it used to be if Mookie put his mind to it. Yes, a true Hatedom does exist for Dominic Deegan, but it's a separate group from the snarkers of the Git P board. The snarking community there is more akin to a crowd watching Rocky Horror Picture Show and throwing toast at it than your standard Hatedom. Also, I don't think you know what 'proof' means.
Please stop trying to fill the article with your own Accentuate the Negative for for the Snarkdom.
Jahkaivah: You clearly have some level of understanding of where we stand as "There is overwhelming proof that anyone who calls themself a "snarker" doesn't enjoy the comic for its own merits, but because they enjoy making fun of it." sums up snarkdom rather well, so it's really just a matter of what word you think ought to be applied to that. The problem with the term "hate" is it implies we don't enjoy the comic whatsoever, and are enraged by it, or directly attack the fans, which is of course not the case.
In the end there does need to a method to distinguish the rational from the irrational, and leaving the term hatedom to those who actually hate would work.
Drive By Editor: In a sense, yes, you did. You sprinkled a number of snarky and/or contrarian Natterish comments into various examples, adding some phrased in a way (such as Added Alliterative Appeal) to make the trope seem bad.
Furthermore, your insistence that the snarkers are not a Hatedom is ridiculous; have you even read the article for Hatedom?
- In a nutshell, a Fandom that is dedicated to hating a work or author, instead of celebrating it. Sometimes they view the work as So Bad Its Good (to the ire of more traditional fans); at other times, they just loathe it outright, but enjoy making fun of it. Some works have the dubious honor of producing hatedoms larger than their traditional fanbase.
How do the snarkers not fit this description? They don't enjoy the comic itself, they enjoy making fun of it. I have not done any form of Accentuate the Negative; I have only called a spade a spade.
Jahkaivah: But that way the term Hatedom is used to describe both the people who enjoy the comic ironically and the people who insult and troll the fans of the comic, in other words you are choosing to call a cat an animal, which while technically true, is not nearly specific enough for common usage. Especially when:
a, When hearing "hatedom" people think the latter of the two while "snarkdom" is commonly associated with Riff Trax and MST 3 K which is a good analogy of the former.
b, We don't necessarily hate the comic, which is as spade not called spade as you can get. In other words the problem lies in the very definition we are arguing by.
DriveByEditor: Take it up with YTTK, then. Suggest a new fandom definition for that.
However, I still think that Dominic Deegan's snarkers are a Hatedom as the definition stands. The snarkers who claim to still enjoy the comic for what it is, and the snarkers who enjoy the comic only for mocking it, are nigh-indistinguishable, as they always come off as loud detractors more interested in making the comic seem as awful as possible than anything else.
Besides, as the Scapegoat Creator example mentions, a lot of the people considered snarkers clearly despise the comic—and even Mookie himself. I've personally seen a thread in the old Keenspot forum for Dominic Deegan during the Siegfried arc where snarkers were laughing about Jayden's tears looking like a different kind of body fluid altogether, continuing on to gleefully mock Mookie for his recent break-up by claiming that said teary-eyed Jadyen "looks like the girl Mookie will never have."
If you can provide a clear difference between these two types, and you can convince people that a separate article is needed for "snarkers who are still real fans," by all means, go for it. Until then, I remain adamant that Hatedom is the only appropriate term for Dominic Deegan's snarkers.
Jahkaivah: "snarkers who are still real fans," isn't quite where I'm coming from, since we stopped being "real fans" when we realised making fun of the comic was far more fun than taking it seriously (not to imply we could even take it seriously).
Your point that people whom we associate with a Hatedom is referred to as a Snarkdom is a good one as it shows there is a problem at hand here, but in the end it's all the more reason to refer to them as a hatedom to associate the term more with them and refer to the least volatile snark group with the least volatile name appropriate to help enforce this distinction, which is to call them what they call themselves, snarkers.
Fawkes: I'm not sure a new trope page would be worth it, as the DD snarkers are the only ones of their kind, and are a pretty diverse group. The keenspot forum got pretty rough, but on GitP, we tend to frown on making judgments on Mookie himself. We all agree that he seems like a pretty nice guy.
Drive By Editor: And yet the Keenspot forum wasn't the only place where such "snarkers" could be found. I've seen many in the old "cheerleaders" forum, who admitted they could care less about the comic, didn't like Mookie, and only read the comic because they enjoyed finding things to rip to shreds. Granted, they never got as out of control or as raunchy as the people on Keenspot, but they still enjoyed taking personal swipes at Mookie's inadequacies as much as they did the comic.
That's tantamount to what a Hatedom does, as defined by TV Tropes itself.
Fawkes: Even if we allow that there are Caustic Critics on every forum, not all Snarkers have the same viewpoint, and reducing them all to one mindset is ridiculous. Not every Snarker is a Caustic Critic.
Drive By Editor: Which takes you right back to my response to Jahkaviah, doesn't it? If you honestly believe that your kind is wrongly portrayed as snarking to devalue the comic, take it up with YTTKW. Get a new trope coined.
Fawkes: What would be the point of creating a new trope for one instance? It's not a new trope. It's a subversion of the usual vitriolic Hatedom.
Drive By Editor: For one thing, your fellow Hatedom members—including yourself—have complained about the negative image that being labeled a Hatedom brings. You yourself tried to sweep the label under the rug. If you really think you're some kind of Neighborhood Friendly Snarker as supposed to a malicious anti-fan, then you need a new trope to explain yourselves. Something which resembles a trope but is not quite it often deserves its own trope. Surely you've seen it yourself, when a trope has inversions or similarities listed as individual tropes.
If you want my opinion, though, you've done nothing to prove that you're any different from the behaviors described in Hatedom; you don't have to be the raunchiest veteran of the Keenspot forums to qualify as an example. That you popped up here ar TV Tropes with the initial aim to slip as many Natterish Take Thats towards the comic as you could mange with no regard as to whether or not the information is useful only went to strengthen my opinion of you.
Though you have added useful trope examples, many of your additions suffer from this sneering tone that often dives into maliciously unhelpful. "Uhh, whatever this thing is! I don't know, but it sucks!" That's the tone I get from a lot of the examples I've seen you add over time. At this point, all I can really do is echo Twin Bird's sentiments from a while back: "Wow ... was this written by John Solomon? Don't you think this is a little harsh for the comic entry? Maybe you don't like it, but it kind of seems like the equivalent to adding "Torchwood sucks" to the end of every paragraph of its entry."
Fawkes: Yes, I get it, you hate me. That's fine, but the article doesn't need to reflect that.
Fawkes: In a separate issue, I really don't think this paragraph is necessary:
- When Celesto killed Serk Brakkis shortly before he skips out of jail, most of the Hatedom savaged Mookie over its depiction, accusing him of lacking any knowledge of human anatomy ... all the while ignoring that chaos magic was involved. Besides, combining gratuitous gore with a Smug Snake Karma Houdini getting pasted is beautiful.
This is pretty clearly a Your Mileage May Vary moment, not a Completely Missing The Point. The "beauty" of gratuitous gore is definitely subjective, there's no indication that Chaos Magic makes people have extra spines, and I think you cease to be a Karma Houdini when you explode.
Drive By Editor: It's absolutely necessary, and ironically enough, you're one of many reasons why; you want to make the instance seem like a legitimate complaint about Mookie's incompetence, when it's been shown time and again that Celesto's chaos magic twists and deforms its victims before they explode (see Brett Taggery's death, where he started growing several sets of new mouths and teeth).
However, I did remove the last sentence anyway. That was modified from the original troper who added the Unpleasable Fanbase entry, who wrote that "A man getting exploded by chaos magic is just as likely to have three spines as one, and a Smug Snake + Karma Houdini getting pasted = beautiful." That is more of a YMMV opinion, so I just took that line and potholed Smug Snake, Karma Houdini, and Vigilante Execution into the earlier sentences.
Fawkes: I don't think it was incompetence. I think Mookie fully intended to put extra body parts in there to make it as gruesome as possible. I don't think that this example falls under Unpleasable Fanbase, because it's bizarre, [[Squick disgusting, and arguably Disproportionate Retribution. It's Your Mileage May Vary. Not everyone has to like everything you like.
Drive By Editor: And you're Completely Missing The Point, too. The example wasn't there because the original troper thought it was beautiful. I've removed that line entirely from the example, as it was opinionated. The reason they originally added it, however, was because they thought it was inane that the Hatedom would attack Mookie over Serk Brakkis having three spines as he blew up.
I personally saw some of that in the "cheerleaders'" forum; resident snarkers seized upon the incident, claiming that "someone needs to get Mookie an anatomy book" and other similar snarks about his drawing abilities. They would not stop making a stink over how anatomically incorrect Serk's exploded body looked. That was what the original troper was getting at—the snarkers ignored the blindingly obvious cause, just because they wanted to make Mookie look like a moron.
Fawkes: The justification was ''literally' A Wizard Did It. That's not a "blindingly obvious cause". There was no indication in the comic that Chaos magic makes extra bones appear. It really looks like Brakkis has spare parts.
Drive By Editor: Are you even taking into consideration what has been said previously before you reply to me? Celesto has done this before. His powers of chaos were used on Raf Maliksh's arm to stall him. Serk Brakkis isn't an example of A Wizard Did It; what we are seeing is an example of Magic A Is Magic A. Celesto's chaos powers display consistency in their chaotic Body Horror effects. Anyone who's followed the comic long enough should know that; people have listed both "chaosplosions" as a C Mo A on the Sugar Wiki, after all.
As Celesto has been explicitly shown to induce Body Horror with his chaos powers, his using them to kill Serk Brakkis—and the way his body was distorted by the result—should never have been a point of contention. That the Hatedom jumped all over it was sensless nitpicking for the sake of finding something—anything—to find fault with the comic and snark about. That is why it counts as an example of Unpleasable Fanbase.
Of course, I should know better; this is a Hatedom I'm talking about, after all ...
Jahkaivah: Or just simply a case that they hadn't considered the choas magic interpretation at first? And it doesn't really count as an example of an Unpleasable Fanbase, partially because it's not really a Fanbase, not in the sense that the article intended at least, and the article agrees with me this time:
- It's not just Snark Bait, it's just some people who call themselves fans but think, "Well, those new additions aren't very good. But, then again, it wasn't very good in the beginning either."
We don't call ourselves fans. And on top of that, the Trope is that no matter what the writer does, he will displease a fair portion of the group because his fanbase is very diverse, that isn't what the example illustrates, which is just one group of people being displeased by one event, whether or not the displeasure is justified being irrelevant. And since said group has rejoiced at moments during the comic they aren't unpleasable.
Fawkes: Regarding the Mind Rape entry:
- The Hatedom, of course, Flanderizes any usage of Dominic's powers in another's mind into an example of this (see their opinions on his interrogation of Barnet Travoria).
How is this necessary? The Barnet interrogation is a controversial (even among the Snarkers) moment in the comic's canon that at the very least borders on Mind Rape. (Also, how can we see said opinions if you keep deleting them?)
Drive By Editor: Mentioning said opinions and explaining that the Hatedom sees most (if not all) of Dominic's Journey to the Center of the Mind as Mind Rape is letting people see said opinions, no?
Fawkes: It doesn't count when you set the opinion up as a strawman.
Phase: Exactly, if it ever seems like Snarkers ARE referring to any mental probe as Mind Rape, it's the fault of the original incident. Compare it to if the character were actually a rapist. Hitting on someone is not an inherently bad thing to do... but it will be received poorly, were the character an unrepentant rapist. I feel my analogy is somewhat not conveying my thoughts properly...
Drive By Editor: How else is someone supposed to take it when you people keep attributing incidents like Dominic's interrogation as Mind Rape? I'm sorry, that's not making a straw man at all. Siegfried's hijack of the lunar divination is a Mind Rape as the article about the trope describes; Siegfried deliberately and specifically wanted to force Milov into a Heroic BSoD, and the results were perfectly clear.
Dominic's interrogation of Barnet Travoria, not so much. His goal wasn't to drive her into a BSoD or leave her feeling helpless and violated. Yes, he does use tactics to embarrass Barnet into talking. There are other, better, more accurate tropes to describe that scene: Exasperated Perp. If it was in court, it would be the The Perry Mason Method. These tropes involve the same methods that Dominic used to interrogate Barnet. The only difference is that he did it with a Journey to the Center of the Mind.
Yet Fawkes is insistent that this incident is mind rape, or wants to report that a fair amount of the Hatedom views it as such. Clearly, then, the Hatedom has a very "liberal" definition of Mind Rape that is not covered by the trope itself—an example of the Hatedom Accentuating The Negative, Flanderizing an interrogation involving a Journey to the Center of the Mind into out and out raping.
Par for the course for a Hatedom that enjoys "creatively" misinterpreting the comic, but when they try to pass it off as an actual occurrence, that's going too far.
Fawkes: Not everything that happens in the Snark threads is 'creative misinterpretation'. Dominic forcibly inserts himself into Barnet's mind and pulls out embarrassing memories. Yes, I'm Accentuating the Negative - because something negative happened and I'm acknowledging it. It's not a Flanderization. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not there. It belongs in, and without a Justifying Edit explicitly stating it's wrong. It's certainly a YMMV, but it's a valid opinion.
Drive By Editor: By your logic, any time a character in any media enters the mind of another character, it would be Mind Rape, regardless of whether or not their actions in the other person's mind fit the descrpition of the trope. I'm telling you again: read the article concerning Mind Rape. What Dominic did was far from that.
Fawkes: Your Mileage May Vary, but it's a valid interpretation held by a fair number of readers. It's selfish to think your view is the only one that matters.
Drive By Editor: The same goes for you, especially since you're the one who's been pushing this particular example so badly while stubbornly trying to erase the example of Unpleasable Fanbase that had been on here for most of the year without being contested.
Nevertheless, I see the point you were trying to make by linking to a certain comic later in the arc, however dripping with snark it may be. I'll be attempting to do the observation some real justice beyond "this is what the Haters think!!1!" I fully expect you to delete it anyway, though.
Jahkaivah: Reading the description of Mind Rape it does actually seem to accomadate Dominic's actions.
The things that didn't happen, Heroid/Villainous BSOD (though Barnet isn't exactly over the moon about the incident), Horrifying Images and Eldritch Abomincations aren't listed as being a requirement of the trope, and the examples used on the trope page don't all fit this. The only requirments seem to be what was put in the name, Mind: as in Barnet's mind was entered, and Rape: as she was helpless and had things done against her will.
Fawkes: I think the new edit works pretty well, actually. For posterity:
- Dominic is accused of this by Barnet Travoria in a What the Hell, Hero? moment. It didn't help that she was already in a bad way, which Dominic only realized at that point.
- Dominic is accused of this by Barnet Travoria
Fawkes: It's kind of my own fault for bringing it up, but this section of Annoying Arrows may be off base:
- Incidentally, the Chief is also fine, but given how much he goes on about wielding Life magic, and a previous strip explicitly shows him rapidly healing a cut to the throat, it's understandable in his case. In fact, it's probably not too much of a stretch to believe he was healing the other Bikta during the battle, which could account for Eltu's recovery.
- Incidentally, the Chief is also fine
I'm honestly not sure: do arrows not shot from a bow still apply to this trope? Given that it's a Justified Trope anyway, it may be unnecessary. I'll leave it up to the one who rewrote it: Mr. Death, I think.
Mr Death: The initial part (everything up to "fine") was written by someone else. I added the rest because Annoying Arrows, especially the way it was phrased, is more or less a Did Not Do The Research, and the fact that the Chief is clearly hopped up on Life magic (not unlike Gregory's White Magic) moves it from the author not realizing arrows are deadly to the author introducing something in-story to make them not deadly.
And given the latest comic, it's probably safe to say that the Chief was enhancing the rest of the Bikta, extending that justification to Eltu's survival.
Fawkes: I wrote the initial part, in an admittedly negative post, and you were right to fix it. I'm just wondering if I should have mentioned the Chief's recovery at all under Annoying Arrows, since he had a stab wound, not an archery wound, and his recovery is entirely justified.
Mr Death: Well, it may not have been fired out of a bow, but it is an arrow, so I say it still fits.
Drive By Editor: Kizor, to clarify my beef with you; I had seen an edit by you earlier this month with the exact same "we have gone over this" reason where you had edited the entire opening to your liking. That you did it within recent weeks after leaving the issue alone for months was highly suspect, as if you were hoping to sneak the edit into the article now that everyone who might seemingly object had moved on (as Mr. Death, like you recalled, did not object to the idea of Luna tossing a bona-fide lethal fireball like several other tropers did).
You just up and decided that "we had talked about this," despite your last response on the issue being tantamount to throwing your hands up in the air in frustration and backing off, rather than acknowledgeing or addressing my previous suggestions. Nor did you take into consideration certain things pointed out by other tropers since then, namely that the example you picked for "creative misinterpretation" was subverted, with the fireball's targets shown alive, well, and grinning.
Mr Death: For the record, I did object to the idea of Luna tossing a "bona-fide lethal fireball". I said she had fired a bona-fied nonlethal fireball, as she had done several times over the course of the comic. As far as I know, neither I nor Kizor were ever suggesting that Luna threw a lethal fireball at the group. To quote myself earlier on this page, "We were never saying "she really did burn them and maybe a few survived," we were implying that they were all fine, maybe a bit singed, exactly like what happened to Stunt and Bumper much earlier in the comic."
Fawkes: The article contains a blank entry for If I Can't Have You…. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any moment in the comic that would fit. Anyone have any examples?
Mr Death: I believe it's referring to Karnak and Miranda.
Fawkes: Oh, that makes sense. I'll add their names to the entry. Feel free to flesh out the reference.
Mr Death: On the Maltak's resolution being a Wall Banger: I don't see it, unless you're going into Alternate Character Interpretation and Accentuate the Negative. Also, Fawkes, I thought you were more reasonable than just outright deleting any mitigating comments and questions as 'natter' without answering it. They're valid points too, whether you want to call it a Wall Banger or not. And good job misinterpreting Mookie's blurb post to be as negative as possible. Just because the "Snarkers" have decided that every instance of plot or character development is a Wall Banger doesn't mean those of us who like the comic have to sit here and take it.
Fawkes: To be fair, there were two YMMV tags on the same entry. I deleted one. When prompted further, I explained myself. You just didn't like the explanation.
And no, I don't think Melna's sudden Screw Destiny was a Wall Banger. That was added in by "123.243.186.153" when he reposted the Maltak entry to Wall Bangers.
Mr Death: I still don't see it. The example, while milder, is still mostly Alternate Character Interpretation. Dominic didn't really "engineer" the civil war. If anything, that was something building already; and can you really call it a civil war if it lasted, what, 20 minutes or so? You're making it sound like they're tearing up the whole plains killing each other, when it was one battle.
And how is it "a violent overthrow of their society" that they're celebrating? They're celebrating the clans being brought together and the miracle they just witnessed. Their society wasn't "violently overthrown"; if anything, things will go back to how they were before the clans split up originally. You're making it sound like they were invaded and now have to dress, act, and think like Callanians. After this, hey, they're still going to be Orcs, they're going to live like Orcs, only now they're going to be living in a fertile land instead of a barren one, and they might be united, like they were in the first place.
As for Mookie's newspost, again, his point was he wishes when people saw a genuinely good thing happen, they'd appreciate it and not bicker and bitch about it. He's not saying, "People should blindly follow charismatic leaders and welcome the overthrow of their society."
Fawkes: Let me put it another way: I don't think 'idealism' means 'ignoring consequences'.
Mr Death: And neither does Mookie, from what I can tell.
Doktor von Eurotrash: I just read the start of this comic (up to the end of the "Visions of Doom" arc) and no kidding about the Only Six Faces. At first, I couldn't tell Siegfried and Jacob apart.
Fawkes: Regarding Mr. Death's edits:
- She was still the catalyst for all that change. It's true to say it wouldn't have happened without her. Besides, she's trying to cheer herself up after being told that she can never become pregnant.
- As was mentioned before, she is responsible for the changes that happened. She might have been pulled around by forces greater than herself, but it is true to say that she was the key element, and it wouldn't have happened if she wasn't there.
As I see it, she wasn't the catalyst for the change, but the instrument. If the salvation of Maltak were a work of art, Luna would not be the artist, but the paintbrush. What's worse, there's no adequately explained reason it had to be Luna, she's just Chosen One. And SUCH a Mighty Whitey, to boot.
Mr Death: My point still remains that the change wouldn't have happened without her. She did choose to march on the Bikta on her own (even if the Nakta sorta took her over while she was doing it), and the attack on the Spirit Father was less to rescue her and more to provide a distraction so she could pull herself out.
Also, just checked the trope page, and turns out neither she nor Dominic fit the description of a Mighty Whitey. That trope is about things like The Last Samurai or Tarzan, where it turns out that a white guy is better at being a native than the natives are (for example, if we were ever shown Karnak's stay with the Orcs and everyone was saying how awesome he was at being an Orc, that'd be more of a Mighty Whitey). The trope isn't "Non-natives come to help natives," because sometimes people do need outside help to fix their problems. So I'm just gonna go ahead and remove the trope from the main page, since it doesn't fit.
Thirdly, the comic did give an explanation for why Luna is the chosen one: The tusks, and the fact that she's learned to live a happy life with them, essentially turning around the curse that the Shintula chief put on the Callanians.
Fawkes: Luna is better than the Orcs at their magic and their religion. I think it's still valid.
Mr Death: Just out of curiosity, which one was Taran again? I ask mostly cuz I think the Shintula orcs only ever gave their names like once each.
Fawkes: He's this guy. I think the last time we see him is here, but I could be wrong.
Mr Death: Just took a look, and he shows up here: http://www.dominic-deegan.com/view.php?date=2009-12-29
Fawkes: So he does. Perhaps I should change it to Demoted to Extra?
Mr Death: I don't think that fits either. That's for either adaptations where a prominent, important character is pushed to the background, or when a "a key member of the supporting cast becomes a background or one-off character." I really don't think Taran had a significant enough role for him to qualify, considering he was only introduced for this arc. He's just a storyline character, and the storyline he was part of is over.
Fawkes: Hm. This is a conundrum. I feel like it's a trope, but I can't figure out what it would be. What about What Happened to the Mouse?? Also, would any of these work for Eltu? It looks like he disappears in the middle of a climactic confrontation, and is not mentioned afterward. At least, I don't think he was. And what of Zinirenku? Someone who looks a lot like him gets killed here, but we never hear whether that was him or not. He doesn't appear afterward, as far as I can tell.
Mr Death: I'm not sure it is a trope, not everything can be, after all. Sometimes characters just sorta come and go once their role is finished. Maybe they're Mauve Shirts?
Kizor: I finally made a post to Ask The Tropers about Drive By Editor. Try not to make more than 32 edits to this discussion page until it's answered, or there might be a danger of pushing relevant edits off the page history. (Probably not how that works, but...) Here's hoping that somebody reads my blather, and that the argument isn't harmed by the fact that the first thing you lot did when he went away was get into an argument yourselves. >:-/
Fawkes: Hey, we solved our argument through intelligent discourse! Right, Mr. Death?
Mr Death: Indeed. I'd say we were pretty civil all things considered.
