El Goonish Shive

I feel like you're mixing "I personally don't see it" and "I must argue that it's not there". The first thing is fine, and can be based entirely on opinions. The second should be supported by general analysis and knowledge of media.

I've been providing the second, mostly making a case for Shive's past trends, and examples in other media and what we know about it. If you just want to go at "I personally don't see it but, eh, whatever" then I Have no reason to argue with you, or even disagree with it.

But if you want to continue arguing as if it's something that has no support in the text, then you need to provide something else other than "I don't see it"

I personally don't see it. Still others just might. Neither opinion is wrong, Neither opinion is right.

I'm inclined to think it was just a gag, but I completely see why people would think there's an inflation fetish being referenced. The main reason I wouldn't is because I can't recall Dan being into that particular fetish, which makes me think it's more likely unintentional. Yet he's still a fetish artist in many ways and that is a fetish, so it's not exactly a leap.

sgamer: agreed on parts of that. I doubt Dan is an inflation fetishist himself, but I do think that the art and the concept plays into the fact that the fetish exists.

To armchair for a moment, Dan seems to be aware of many fetishes that aren't his own. We see this in the pinups and more. There's clearly more at play here than a mere "this is what I find attractive" and we won't ever really figure it out cuz we don't know the artist.

But with that being said, the use of the coding, which has been done since the comic was born, and has been admitted by shive many times, is still a pretty hefty part of the comic, and can still be interacted with.

Edited by MrAHR on Nov 15th 2018 at 11:22:35 AM

I feel that reasons put forth have been tenuous, overextended and generally unsupported, that's what I've been arguing against. If it was just, "Seems fetishy to me" then I wouldn't have any reason to argue, but when people bring poor reasoning to bear to try to support their view, that gets my attention. It's not what people think, but how they got there that I take issue with. Does your view stand up to scrutiny? Is it defensible?

So what is the argument that Nanase turning into a bowling must be a fetish moment supported by? Lay it out and we'll talk about that. I was going to try doing it myself but realised that I might be misrepresenting others views and I don't want to do that.

Also, a non-sexual fetish is just an interest. I realise that some use the word in a more metaphorical way("You're always eating curry. What's with your Indian food fetish?"), but that's not what we're talking about here. By definition a fetish is something linked to sexual gratification. If that element isn't there it ceases to be a fetish. Certainly someone with a fetish can include that in non-fetish material but does that then make it fetish material for everyone? If Will Marston includes a bondage scene in his script, does that mean H.G. Peter(just realised why he went by H.G. for most of his life...) can't draw a scene of a woman being restrained?

Edited by Daremo on Nov 15th 2018 at 11:33:52 AM

So, technically the way most people use the word fetish period is wrong, but has changed due to linguistic drift.

Fetishes are usually about things you MUST have in order to get off, but we often merge it with any sort of specific interest, when the more accurate word used nowadays would be "kink".

While there are specific definitions, the communities itself that deal in kinks and fetishes is far more varied and nuanced. I've had friends who were studying these fields, and I've done my own research as well. For many people in kink communities, the interests will bleed and take on multi-faceted situations, both sexual and nonsexual, but still tied to that original interest.

Additionally, this is all mostly irrelevant because not all depictions of fetishes have to be immediately and obviously "sexual". There are even community jokes about SFW fetishes that can exist without being super obvious to the passerby.

And how do we differentiate? Context and analysis, of course. We look at the trends, and the situation. If someone does something once, then it might be plot relevant, if they do it a dozen times, then we have something to compare to.

While Shive has never done anything inflationy to this extent before, he has done a LOT of other kinks/fetishes/common internet interests in this vein. A lot of people who don't know anything about the comic aside from a peripheral glance, assume it's just a Fetish Comic with no other context.

He has a pinup blog based around transformation and more.

Assuming this is More of the Same really isn't that much of a leap.

Like, you say it's poor reasoning, but then you go and give explanations of kinks/fetishes/sexual depictions that aren't even widely accepted, and ignore cited examples of places where this reoccurred.

Edited by MrAHR on Nov 15th 2018 at 11:40:09 AM

Not sure I fully grasp that last sentence, could you restate it?

Guys, I think we're veering here.

Can this be a fetish. Yes. Is this a fetishist drawing. To some people. Is this Dan drawing a fetish comic. Ask Dan.

We've all pretty much stated our views. If we're arguing about whether or not Dan drew this specific comic for the very specific purpose of appealing to people with this specific fetish, then the only way to know is to ask him.

EDIT:

I don't like my word choice as it implies the conversation is off topic, which it is not. Preserving my dumbness for posterity.

Edited by Desidius on Nov 15th 2018 at 2:12:20 PM

Comic Tsos

Make your own movie.

You know, I actually don't remember a lot of Sam's personality from the MtG game, so for me, this might as well be the first characterization he's ever had.

And in one page, I already like him better than Ashley! Can Sam be the character who pops up everywhere all the time from now on?

Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 16th 2018 at 7:06:10 AM

Dan, so, you’re sad because you know people have been waiting for this date forever, and tragically, it’s just not that interesting, so here’s some highlights, but… why not just, um, make the date more interesting? You’re the author, you’re allowed.

I didn't think a date between Elliot and Ashley was very interesting but that didn't stop it from being multiple arcs.

Perhaps it's because the last time Shive made a date "interesting" by his definition was the Elliot/Ashley date, and we all remember the reaction to that.

@Tobias This is in character for him! He and Sarah hit it off by basically coming up with a story to their MTG match, and aside from that he’s very chill. Just touchy about his gender identity being brought up.

And yeah, I already like him infinitely more than Ashley. I’d love for him to become a mainstay.

@smokey Eh, I feel it's necessary to remind you that, when we had seen as much of Ashley as we currently have of Sam, plenty of people were, at the very least, intrigued by her. At that point, I saw lots of potential.

Then, of course, Shive quickly derailed what bits of character were already established for her and made Ashley into, well, The Scrappy for many of us.

In short, Be Careful What You Wish For.

Yup, sounds familiar. Let's hope that Sam does not also become a font of Incorruptible Pure Pureness that has everyone constantly singing his praises.

Yes, much like Carla in Dumbing of Age, we need negative role models too!

Sarah waffles on whether it was a date or not, but she did have fun.

Oh, and NP, about Blindfolded Team Twister and Sketchbook entries for colored inflation bowling and Colored Poke-Graces.

Edited by FuzzyBoots on Nov 19th 2018 at 8:02:58 AM

Eh, in my book, it counts as a date. It's worth noting that, on the first date with the woman I'd eventually marry, we didn't even hold hands (mostly, we were both cripplingly shy). What's important is that you were a) with just one other person, and b) the feelings were more than platonic. They might not ever progress much beyond that, sure, but that's a decent first date in my book.

Besides, it's worth noting that not everyone would count "watching and mocking a bad movie" as a good time. Yes, I love doing it (unless the movie was too bad - and yeah, I've been on those dates, too, usually at a Quentin Tarantino film, take that for what you will), but I'd take that as a good sign in Sarah's shoes that Sam liked it too.

Precise definitions of "date" and "not-date" are overrated. They serve only to confuse the process of meeting and getting to know a new person by forcing you to make a decision as to whether the interaction is platonic or romantic in nature well before you even have a clear idea of who the other person is. "Dates" are an artifact of formal business-like courtship.

Sarah spent some time in Sam's company. She enjoyed that time. Also, she is attracted to him and has seen nothing to discourage her from pursuing that attraction.

That is what the night was. Whether or not you consider that a date is entirely up to your personal glossary.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 19th 2018 at 9:34:46 AM

Well, we could drag this out into a debate over romantic courting through the decades, and where we each think the other has it completely wrong, but that won't be productive here.

The important question, of course, is whether Sam and Sarah thought about the evening on the same level. Because that can be where the real issue lies.

I thought Dan chose the colors because red-green color blindness is the most common kind. Oh well.

New Comic, in which Sarah confirms that it was a "date", but the wave at the end gave her some mixed signals. And I gotta admit, seeing Grace try to keep that a secret is genuinely pretty funny, especially that second-to-last panel.

Ugh, teenage dating. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I do not miss it one bit.

This is the first time in a while where Grace has entertained me.