What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Comicbook/Fables

Bioshock
topic
01:41:00 AM Apr 16th 2014
"War of Northern Aggression". In what context and when did someone in the comics refer to the civil war as the "war of northern aggression". Bill may be a wingnut but implying he's a confederate sympathizer is a pretty serious accusation.
Candi
topic
04:35:38 PM May 23rd 2013
edited by 69.172.221.4
Anyone have an objection to Spikes of Villainy being added? Hadeon the Destroyer (aka a name to run away from very fast) from the "Fairest" collection/graphic novel, has quite the impressive set of black, spiky armor.

Also, maybe Important Hair Cut for the Snow Queen?
Blunderbuss
topic
03:44:00 AM May 31st 2010
Jesus christ, what's up with the rape justifications on the main page? I won't edit it myself because I haven't seen the issue in question but that's RAPE no matter how much people claim that 'letting it happen' or 'she didn't scream' is supposed to be consent. I mean, really.
Hasfet
05:35:36 AM Oct 10th 2011
I vaguely remember someone claiming that Jack raped a girl because she was depressed around the time and so her explicit consent (which pretty much amounted to: "shut up and have sex with me)" and participation in the act were all null and void- Which is completely retarded in every legal and moral sense. Also if you haven't seen that issue how can you insist so vehemently on something. I mean, really.
Lorealie
12:23:00 AM Jun 16th 2012
No Rose Red did not consent. Jack came into her room expecting sex and she told him no because she was "saving herself for Blue" so she could become "worthy of him" when he came back from the dead. She later confessed she wanted him to stay with her because of her grief though he though she changed her mind but she told him she did not mean it like that. He ended up having sex with her anyway, multiple times which she may have consented to but would appear dubious at best and sometime afterward she ordered him to leave her alone under threat of being burned by Clara. I just read the section in question and not once did she ever gave any "explict consent", she never said "shut up and have sex with me" or anything along those lines, and she appeared very weak and sickly as a result of her refusing to get out of bed since blue's death and Jack made himself one the most well known Fables in the world so she would not have really been able to fight him off. The closest thing we have to "consent" of any sort is the fact that during the sex Rose kept calling Blue's name, there's a trope regarding this misplaced notion known as "It's not rape if you enjoyed it" but as mentioned there that is NEVER the case. Jack wanted sex, Rose told him no multiple times, Jack slept with her anyway. If that being rape is "completely retarded in every legal and moral sense" than something is wrong here because that sounds like it fits much better than "dubious consent" in this situation. If your memories are vague at best how are you any better of a judge than someone who hasn't read it, the least you could have done is make SURE your information was accurate before replying based on a misinformed assumption.
Hasfet
03:51:18 PM Jun 17th 2012
I said I remember someones claim vaguely not the comic itself (albeit I didn't have it open, like I do now, when I wrote that.)

"there's a trope regarding this misplaced notion known as "It's not rape if you enjoyed it"" Something I never said and I think it's unfair to imply that I think something as idiotic as that.

"If that being rape is "completely retarded..."" I didn't say "that" is a retarded notion but the claim of the edit I was describing- which was that being depressed about something the other party knows nothing invalidates consent.

Re-reading it now, we only see the prelude which goes in the the direction that consent wasn't given (Jack chooses to misrepresent the situation and keeps on badgering Rose) and the aftermath which goes in the direction that it was given out of self-loathing ("The fact that I let you into my bed is proof enough that I've hit rock bottom. Don't you get it genius? You're the man I deserve, poor you.")

The point is that the whole thing is open to conjecture due to the incomplete nature of what we see - any rape trope in this case goes in the YMMV tab, not on the main page. The original poster ignored the fact that people were pointing out the ambiguity or the faults of some arguments (like I did) and choose to see it as "rape justifications" which is an unfair thing to accuse people of when you haven't even read the damn thing.

Let's get this clear, this is not a thing of personal preference (I dislike Jack a lot for that scene as well as in general and Rose is one of the few characters I found sympathetic) it's a matter of TV Tropes policy which has a YMMV tab for just such situations and where having strong opinions on things you don't read/watch is discouraged.
Patrick
topic
08:25:30 AM May 30th 2010
  • Protagonist-Centered Morality: Geppeto/The Adversary is the bad guy of the series because his wars of conquest caused many thousands or millions of people to die; but as he points out later, this meant many more millions/billions of people across hundreds of worlds could live in peace for centuries without worrying about getting eaten by dragons or ogres or murdered by psychotic local despots (as long as they paid their taxes, anyway). Meanwhile, Bigby, Frau Totenkinder and even Jack are known mass murderers whose only real motivation was power, money or infamy. But the latter are accepted as more or less good guys while the former is straight-through evil (although his habit of recruiting primarily orcs and assorted monsters rather than more family friendly, civilization-oriented mythic creatures for foot soldiers compounds the problem.
    • I'm sure those hundreds of millions were all grateful to be murdered in order to save ten times more lives. Well, not save as much as keep safe from potential harm. Sacrificing liberty for security and all that. Not that they were given the choice or anything.
      • As Geppeto himself admits in one flashback, he never set out to conquer the known universe - like so many other Well Intentioned Extremists before him, it all started out as simply replacing a single wicked man for the good of the many. Then more had to be done to preserve that peace. And then more. And then more. After a while, the things he had to do to keep power never seemed to be as hard as some of the things he had already done, which made it easier to "do bad for the greater good". And it's clear that somewhere along the way, he was seduced by the power as well. But Fables is definitely more a case of Grey and Gray Morality than it is a straight-up good-versus-evil dichotomy. If anything, it's probably closer to a conflict between True Neutral and Lawful Neutral, with the difference being that the Fables put more emphasis on the individual while the Empire puts more emphasis on the state. Well, at least until the Chaotic Evil Boogeyman escapes and the mood shifts dramatically.
    • Oh, also the good guys believe in preemptive assault, torture, summary execution, entrapment, and keep the non-human Fables (that aren't important enough to get glamours, anyway) either locked in cages and private rooms in the back office of their HQ or, in most cases, on a prison-farm, with more summary executions for any that rebel.
    • The Adversary however was trying to assault Fabletown to kill everyone though (and possibly try to conquer Earth while there), so many of their actions could fall under self-defence, particularly the pre-emptive assault (why let a larger and more powerful enemy get the first hit?). Even allowing for this though, the Fables are far from squeaky-clean, morality wise, as the above points out.
back to Comicbook/Fables

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy