She is so smart. Ess-emm-arr-tee~ I do like this guy. And Berten’s mustache. I wish mine could stay twirled like that, but apparently I do have to get mustache oil/wax. ._.
The go to recipe for a few guys I know who compete in facial hair contests is a 50/50 mix of vaseline and beeswax. One guy swears Elmer’s washable glue is all he uses. And another actually uses a “Paste” that is sold by the Axe company. Yeah the body spray guys. Early on you’ll need to use something that has a rather rigid and stiff hold. This will train the hairs into shape and after some time they’ll naturally want to return to that shape even without product. Once this happens you can start using product that have a less rigid hold. Also might want to look into some pomades that offer restorative compounds. Helps condition and help the hairs as they grow out. I use stuff from onedtq.com on my goatee. Not for styling per se, but more for skin conditioning. Time intensive, but I don’t think I could ever go back to a clean shave
But will it actually have any effect at all ? Shana seems to keep a strong “don’t get your fancy fact in the way of my cliché filled grudge against gaming !” stance here.
Now I wonder, though… Did she try playing some mmo and got a “boobs plz !” that led her to ragequit and start her crusade vs gaming ?
Does Shanna’s issue stem from the pen and paper days? Her mom does seem like the type to reenact bad Tom Hank movies or Jack Chick comics. Or maybe a bunch of RPGers treated Shanna like crap, back in the day?
I think it might be escapism that bothers Shanna. I’m probably drawing on Faans history so I don’t want to go into too much detail, but she has had problems with that in an alternate universe
I think someone jumped that gun already, but I don’t really see the appeal of her character. That said, I’ve never read faans, and it doesn’t seem like the kind of comic that would hold my interest long from the cursory glances I’ve taken at it
I was so, so surprised by how much I came to enjoy Faans. I thought the first issue or two looked like it was just ‘the wacky adventures of these guys’ but it ended up having some of the best character arcs, growth, and surprises for a large cast I’ve seen in recent art. I’d highly recommend it for a good binge reading at some point, if for no other reason than seeing early T Campbell and Waltrip work.
And I still dislike it when those of us who have read Faans act like it’s required reading for GA; that’s why I’m so hesitant to refer back to it.
T likes this sort of story.
Stubborn bigot gradually gets their defences worn down by softly spoken moderate and then suddenly sees the light and laments how foolish their misconceptions were before.
I don’t believe it is the first time it has happened with Shanna either.
To be fair though, lots of authory creative types engage in similar plots. It lets them live out a fantasy of actually being able to talk people into submission without the use of life-threatening duress or mind-screwing drugs.
In reality though… the differences people have are generally at the axiomatic core… the stuff they take for granted and use as the underlying foundation of everything they know. Things they learnt when they were very young, back when they didn’t understand anything and would just regard any new information as absolutely true… and they can no longer remember the learning… only that they always knew it. And it is impossible to reason with them precisely because the cause of all of it is right back at the beginning… the stuff they don’t put into words because it doesn’t even occur to them that it might not be absolutely true.
Nothing short of ripping out absolutely everything they know, burning it and salting the metaphorical ground will ever allow them to see things differently.
I don’t know, sometimes that is true. Guilded Age has plenty of examples of people who never, ever seem to learn past their ingrown prejudices. Sister Hestia and Naror’Nj are two compelling examples. I won’t give up on others until they’re dead, but I’m not holding out a lot of hope for Annunziata. I don’t expect some of the people in my Facebook circle to change their political views to align with mine, either. One or two might, but it’s not the way to bet.
But growth is important. Change is important. And I know these things are real, I have seen them happen in others, I’ve discarded former beliefs that now embarrass me. And it’s not just the hope of being able to persuade people to see the light– it’s the hope of being able to see more of the light myself. Honestly, of the two people in this scene, I identify with both, but it’s not Xan I identify with more.
Perhaps the fact that they died before they got the chance played into that.
Still, I’m not saying people can’t change… but from personal experience, it is something that tends to happen on one’s own terms, in one’s own time… rather than being convinced differently by another person.
Talk is often not sufficient to change someone’s mind, but it is usually necessary. Accepting a radical idea is easier when you don’t have to start by inventing it.
Was this comic dancing around the Zoe Quinn debacle? If so, is it implying that all of Quinn’s detractors are misogynists, or is it implying that perception is false by putting it in the mouth of Shanna, a character whose view on gamers is obviously flawed?
Well, I’ll state it outright. Anyone who is involved in Gamergate on that side either has a problem with women, or is completely willing to stand alongside people who clearly do.
Sadly, the way the culture is now, they could have written this months in advance and still be sure it would ring true.
(Not that you need my permission, whoever’s moderating, but feel free to pull this comment if you don’t want the comments section to get bitter. I care about the issue but hey, it’s your house.)
If you’re going to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush like that you do more damage to your own statement than you do your supposed opponents.
As much as people try to make this entire thing about misogynists they forget that EVERYONE on the internet receives these kind of threats. An author put up a piece taking up the anti-journalist side of “gamergate” and had already received double digit death threats from the supposed “good guys” within a week of time. If you’re in the public eye and say something people don’t like there’s going to be bad people on both sides saying these terrible things.
Gamergate has moved miles beyond the outrage over infidelity anyone might have felt over Ms. Quinn and onto the clear agenda being pushed by gaming news websites. It’s easy to demonize someone so that no one listens to what they have to say. If you have nothing to fear from someone, why would you try to rip out their tongue? Figuratively speaking of course.
And on a side note. The Fine Young Capitalists indiegogo campaign has received over a third of it’s goal’s funding from 4chan’s /v/ board. A hive of “misogynists” who are intent on helping to get women into gaming. And before you just might pull out the straight white male commentary. Many of the people speaking out in support of ethics and journalistic integrity are non-straight, non-white, and clearly not male.
There are jerks on both ends of this argument, that doesn’t invalidate or warrant dismissing either side entirely. To do so speaks volumes about the lack of respect you have for people who disagree.
The problem with that is that there’s evidence to support that they donated to the charity not out of goodwill, but to spite Ms. Quinn, and that straight white males started the notyourshield hashtag to astroturf. The chatlogs confirming this are being combed through by the FBI.
Does it matter if “straight white males” started that hashtag, assuming they did?
As for spiting Ms. Quinn, I’ve actually read through their various threads. 4chan is, by its very nature, a very impolite community. But from what I saw, spite was only part of several reasons for donating to that particular charity. Goodwill was also expressed.
It turns out that 4chan actually isn’t some sort of mythical hivemind where everyone shares the same exact opinions and such. It’s more just a place where it’s acceptable to discuss things without having to follow many rules of polite behavior.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. This isn’t the case of there being extremists on either side. There *may* be people sending death threats to the gamergate folk (although I’d like to see the actual evidence on that). But the extremists with the problems with women are responsible for *running* the gamergate campaign. It’s genesis is a bitter ex-boyfriend posting to 4Chan, for god’s sake.
You have read the extracted 4Chan chat logs, haven’t you? If not, I’m happy to provide links.
So I stand by my earlier comment. If you’re part of that campaign you either have a problem with women, or you’re so worried about supposed corruption in the enthusiast press that you’re willing to stand alongside people who are publicly, deliberately, repetitively attacking women for daring to not want to belong to the boys club. And I don’t care if every journalist is taking thousands of dollars in bribes from the indie games producers, it’s still not okay. If I can be forgiven the Godwinning analogy, it’s joining the Nazi Party because they’re revitalising the economy.
So you can’t have an opinion because shitty people have it?
Shit man, shitty people EAT AND BREATHE. And I am fully in support of full bellys! And also less corruption in online journalism. And also less shitty misogynists!
I will be less “all sides have a point vague” and say something more definitive: I’m completely in agreement with the Fine Young Capitalists on their donation policy. Who the hell cares where the money comes from if you get the money? The strings attached to this one are pretty small (It’s not like 4chan is writing Vivian James dialogue for the game, they just got to draw and name her). Ironic donations and real donations both don’t look any different in a bank account.
No, that’s not what I meant (and not what I think I said).
What I mean is that joining a named social movement (any social movement) means that you’re willing to adopt, to some extent, the other aspects of that social movement.
Let me give you a non-gamey example – you claim to be an environmentalist? You care about the environment. You wear a Sea Shepherd t-shirt? You’re okay with people blockading whaling ships on the high seas.
If you’re concerned about the insularity of the enthusiast press and the industry, I disagree with you (mostly), but that’s cool. If you’re willing to brand yourself with the #gamergate movement, then you and I have problems, because that movement has been inextricably linked with attacking and terrorising people because of their identities. It’s what it’s founded on.
From what I’ve gathered about the Gamergate nonsense, the entire thing is about journalistic integrity… which frankly strikes me as a bit pointless and silly anyway…
… but as silly and pointless as I believe the Gamergate movement is… somehow the opposition consistently make themselves worse by trying to twist the whole thing around and make it about identity politics or gender or whatever. A bunch of neo-progressive collectivists going out of their way to kick up shit about something that they’re completely ignoring that it was never a sexism issue in the first place. They’re just out for blood to justify the collective victimhood complex that forms the core of their identity.
As far as morality issues go…. it is a black-and-grey one…. and the grey is the Gamergaters. Make no mistake about that.
Well before Zoe Quinn published the 4chan logs, I found the whole #Gamergate thing highly suspicious.
In the first place, I’ve seen so much overt misogyny in games and in gaming forums, and heard about too much more from friends who are women who play games online and comment on them in forums, that I cannot take anyone seriously who denies the problem. Anyone denying the problem is either a fool, or a misogynist. We’ve made some headway in recent years, partly because of the increasing number of women playing and creating computer games, and partly because people are increasingly willing to call out misogyny. Of course, these two things are related, and similar things could be said of other forms of bigotry in gaming.
In the second place, there really is an issue with corruption of professional gaming journalism. However, even if the accusations against Zoe Quinn were true — and by the current evidence, they were not — what she was accused of was, at worst, trivial. It’s well known, and even admitted by professional game journalists, that big publishers are lavish with gifts, but publishing a critical review means the journalist loses access to review copies of future games, and the publication loses advertising revenue, so publishing a negative review of a AAA game is a career-ending move. EA, for instance, spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on marketing — they could, literally, buy up the gaming press on their marketing budget, and still have most of their budget left over, and the lavish fetes for the gaming press are not secret — they sometimes make the headlines in general news. Quinn, by contrast, is accused of getting a few favorable reviews for a low-budget indie game through personal acquaintance with a few game reviewers, and to have won some obscure competition because she was friends with some of the judges. We’re basically comparing the 2008 bank bailout scandal to someone taking a box of pens from work — and the only evidence that she took the box of pens, is that she’s got some pens.
I gotta admit I’ll probably be minding the comments section a little closely today.
Quinn and Sarkeesian were definitely on our minds when we composed this debate, but Guilded Age is a series that’s built to last: we have to write it in a way that things still feel relevant when people go through the archive in a year. So yes, it’s more about a general trend that includes what happened to both women, and others.
“Is it implying all X are Y” is an easy logic trap– I’m not accusing anyone of deliberately setting that trap, but it’s a bad way to think about this. Of course there are non-misogynist people who happen to be detractors of one or more women’s work in or about games, but they’re not really relevant to the existence of this repulsive subgroup. I mean, right here in the strip, we’re portraying Xan as critical of Shanna’s work, but when she brings up the topic of misogyny, he doesn’t come out with “Well, I’M standoffish to both genders equally, so that disproves your argument! Not ALL men!” He’s better than that. (Also, Shanna, for all her biases, does not believe that Xan’s issue with her is that she’s female.)
Shanna and Xan are such opposite poles on the subject of gaming that it should be notable when they have common ground. Xan tries to minimize the disgusting, misogynist, criminal threats by calling them the actions of threatened dinosaurs whom time will wash away. Shanna, naturally, uses them as a club to beat all of gamer culture with. But both agree that this behavior exists and is a real problem. They’ve done their homework.
Shanna might be a little more biased than most, but that doesn’t invalidate her points… Female gamers are almost always molested by the larger public gaming populations. There’s a good amount of gamers that could care less what sex you are, even I’d say the majority, but the minority of assholes are rather loud.
As for not liking gaming in general, it seems she has a reason. I’d guess it probably has something to do with her mother.
Oddly enough, being “molested” is an extremely rare occurence among gamers, for the most part. I’ve been playing MMOs and various other online games for a decade now, and I can count the number of times I’ve been approached like that on two hands; Three times in WoW, twice in Guild Wars, Once in Guild Wars 2, and once in Neverwinter (oddly, literally no such contact in City of Heroes while it was up). Much more common are the spammers that plague everybody of both genders.
As a matter of fact, I’m inclined to believe it’s much more common that these people just grief everybody, not just those of a particular gender. Just using gender as a basis for the griefing gets more people’s blood up. It’s a solid way to piss off a lot of people very, very quickly.
I have nothing to say about gaming and the occurence of molestation there other than I heard there is a problem. Still: Your last paragraph contains a very problematic notion in my opinion: What you describe is “a lot of people” becoming angry “very, very quickly” if someone points to gender as a reason, right? I heard this argument before – for situations in real life, too (and not only for gender, but lets stick with this example) – and what it basically does is prohibit to complain. It prohibits the persons that are molested possibly (!) on the basis of gender to complain about it and adding their perceived reason. Which is possibly right. So if you’re not a 100% sure that gender (or whatever) has anything to with the molestation, this is very problematical. And I’m sure there should be reasonable doubt about the 100%.
I find that the core point people seem to just accept as fact is that women get more grief than male gamers do. In my experience, and those of my friends, we’ve always noticed that when gender was found out. It was preferential positive attention that typically showed up, or just treating them like any other person they know.
The kind of cruel hearted misanthropes that would send threats or harass people did so to male gamers as much as female gamers. Yet suddenly they’re sexists who only target women because they used a female gendered insult when they knew they were referring to women instead of something more generic or male oriented at a male target.
I don’t deny there’s whining and idiocy. I just think it mostly has been overlooked when men are the target of it. Now that women are becoming an increasing percentage of the gamer demographic, they’re being exposed to this kind of behavior. So now that women are the victims as well it suddenly becomes unacceptable instead of par for the course figuratively speaking.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that your anecdotal evidence really trumps the mountains of evidence that is pretty readily available on line. There are hashtags, blogs, communities, and articles full of demonstrations of misogyny and sexism directed at women.
While these jerks and trolls might very well attack people regardless of gender, it is the disproportionate force used against women that sets them apart. A man speaks against objectifying women in video games, and he’ll receive death threats and nasty messages. A woman does the same thing, and yes she’ll receive those same death threats and nasty messages. She’s often also subject to much worse attacks involving personal information, hacking of accounts, and harassment that extends to family and friends.
As you stated in a different message, it’s harmful to paint in broad strokes. Ignoring the vile things these people do in the name of gaming because you have no personal experience with it lets it fester and thrive. Yes there are good gamers, of any gender, but there are also horrible ones.
These are unsolicited threats & commentary she has gotten for basically existing. I don’t think she’s seeking this out from any obscure hashtag. Women are targets for egregious threats, especially when they assert their voices in the gaming community
A question for you: Why does the fact that it has been directed at other people make it any less horrible?
Add to that the larger context. It can be easy to shrug off death threats, as statistically most people have not been in a situation where their life was threatened by another individual. However, statistically speaking again, the great majority of women have been sexually assaulted, or personally know someone close to them who has. That adds a new level of fear and terror to these “harmless” threats that get tossed at them.
I’m not saying it’s fine for men to be treated horrible but not women. No one should be treated that way, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that men have it as bad as women.
You cannot truly improve things by treating two unequal sides the same. Because of the imbalance you must focus on one side over the other.
While I agree that as a whole men do not have it as bad as women, the gap isn’t nearly as large as one might expect. Unfortunately there’s some confusion about the statistics surrounding sexual violence. This stems from a gap between the colloquial definition of rape, which is having sex with someone without their consent, and the legal definition of rape, which is penetrating someone without their consent. Under the legal definition, a government study found that 99% of rapists are male, which makes a lot of sense given the definition. Under the colloquial definition, however, the numbers are much closer: According to this study published in the American Psychological Association and authored by a female researcher (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-13-3-243.pdf), the majority of college-age men have been sexually victimized at some point (with 1 in 6 actually being raped according to the colloquial definition), and in 90% of those incidents, the perpetrator was female. It turns out that there is a legal term for raping someone without being the penetrator; it’s called “making them penetrate” you, and while it’s considered a violent sexual crime, because it’s not given the name of rape, it doesn’t get counted in government statistics in the same place. It may interest you to learn that if you add in these cases, both the victimhood and the perpetrator gender gaps shrink considerably (they are still there, mind you, and it’s worth working on closing that gap, but there is arguably more to be gained from tackling sexual violence as a problem that transcends gender boundaries). (More references may be found here: https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/)
As for death threats, it is worth pointing out that (at least in the US) males are more than 3 times as likely to be homicide victims as females (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hus11.txt). It is also worth pointing out that for every other minority group, the trend goes in the expected direction (being a PoC or LGBTQ+ or of low SES tacks on a substantial multiplier to your homicide victimization rate). While no one should receive a death threat, being a straight white well-educated female is statistically the best possible protection along those axes against such a threat being realized.
I agree that it is horrible to have such a statistic regarding sexual assault against men, and that it is not as well known or reported as it should be. However my point was not that women face more sexual assaults.
My point was that, generally, a threat against a man by these people will be one of death, and against a woman they are both threats of death and sexual in nature, and therefore are, statistically, much more likely to be personally relevant to the one receiving them.
Regarding the statistics of being a victim of homicide, again a horrible thing, there’s a few reasons why I feel that it is not as personally relevant as sexual violence. A victim of homicide, sadly, is unable to be personally affected by a threat of the action because they are dead. To those who personally know a victim of homicide, I believe, that the gender of the victim is much less relevant because the act itself does not involve it. A violent death can be applied the same regardless of any gender, race, or orientation. Sexual assaults, however, are intimately connected to gender.
I might be mistaken in these beliefs, but, unfortunately, I have found no relevant larger study or examples to base my understanding off of.
You speak of how the threats against women are especially horrible because women face a supposed majority of sexual violence.
However, men are four times more likely to be murdered and are the majority victims of violence in nearly every category save for domestic abuse. In which they are about equal.
If we’re speaking of death threats, that has more pertinence to the statistics of murder than to the statistics of sexual assault.
But we’re getting derailed. My core point isn’t that death threats and harassment are no big deal. My point is that these things have been happening for a while, and to much more than women in video games from either a player or developer side of things.
Both men and women are targeted by these misanthropic jerks who seek to just take a huge dump all over people online who offend them in some way. My entire point is that women aren’t special victims but are in fact victims that are getting more attention than male ones. Which you’ve clearly also got that perspective. (i.e. men being the vast majority of violence victims, yet you’re totally ignoring them to paint women as especially vulnerable.)
It seems to me as if you (and probably others, too) are constructing the problem in a different manner than I (and possibly others, too) have constructed it. If I get your position you seem to compare whether men or women have it better or worse and whether the attention to these facts “fits”.
What I would be interested in in the cases discussed here today (Quinn, Sarkesian) is whether there is a type of violence (including threats and terms of abuse) that is specifically targeted at woman on the base that they are women. And it seems to me that there is.
I’ve covered my thoughts regarding most of your statement in another reply. My point was not ignoring violence against men and stating women face more sexual assault. My point was that violence was relatable irregardless of the victim, sexual assaults less so, and that these attacks are generally violence focused when directed at men, and both sexual and violence focused against women.
My greater point was that there is evidence to be had online that women do face disproportionate threats and retaliations than men. While we might not agree on this, I hope we can at least agree that these type of attacks are not acceptable and shouldn’t be tolerated.
If you want to stop objectification, write better games. Objectification, at it’s core, is simplification of a human being down to a nice spherical object (possibly sexualized).
I believe Quinn was in fact trying to write and produce better games when all of this highly-publicized “Gamergate” stuff began, and that Sarkeesian mostly dedicates her video series to discussing how better games could be made.
I’m not sure from your comment where you stand on this topic, but it bears mentioning that people are trying to make better games and are discovering all of the difficulties that pioneers historically face.
If it’s half as fun as Bureaucracy, she deserves a tip of the hat.
(and if you get how much of a burn that is, a tip of the hat to you as well).
But, dude, that name?! awful, awful idea.
I wouldn’t cite Anita as helping to make games better. Her videos are full of half-truths and outright lies about the games she makes examples of. I don’t disagree with a lot of her general arguments, but she does way more damage to her own position when the foundation she used to support those arguments is 90% bull.
Yeah… speaking about 90% bull – some more eludication would be nice. Like the alleged “half-truths and outright lies” – which ones? And how did you arrive at the 90%?
I’ve gotta say my experiences were different then yours Ash. I’ve seen some ladies get shit and even if I can’t look into a persons head and see if their motivation was something other then their being female, the attacks those ladies got were female oriented. Certainly some of those people gave males shit as well, but not necessarily in the same way. It’s an issue. People probably see it where it really wasn’t sometimes, but you could say the reverse as well, people not realizing what it was and just thinking “well this person is a generic asshole!”
Different places, different experiences and all that, but I think if you tailor your insults to a gender, that’s a thing in and of itself. Even if the person is just a equal opportunity asshole, the fact they chose to be an asshole in that particular way is telling.
I’ve never tried to say my anecdotal experiences or those of my friends trump or negate the experiences other people face.
My point is that merely that there’s different perspectives and different experiences. One person’s view of the community is not all people’s view of the community. My friend, who is female, is of the opinion that she’s gotten as much shit as other male players have, with a side dose of flirting and sometimes greater politeness than normal. That’s in her experience.
My point about gendered slurs was merely to say that it doesn’t make harassment inherently sexist for a person to choose gendered language in their insults any more than a man being insulted with gendered terms makes them sexist against men.
If I call someone I know a guy a “dick” versus calling a woman a “witch” for the exact same type of behavior… I am not magically a sexist in one instance and a non-sexist in the other.
Using non-gendered insults really limits your range, at least in English. Sure, derivatives of “ass” seem to be safe, but those aren’t very strong. Derivatives of “fuck” can be taken as independent of gender, but not everybody will take them that way. And beyond that it’s mostly references to genetalia and monsters of well-defined traditional gender and things like that, and those definitely have different connotations depending on whom you’re insulting. I’d imagine it’s difficult to be a good troll while keeping all your insults non-gendered.
I’m not exactly a hardcore gamer, but on the old MMORPGs I used to play, I was never harassed for my gender. I usually used androgynous names (variants of this one, in fact,) so most people just assumed I was a guy. Nobody went insta-troll upon being corrected, although there were more than a few (usually clumsy and often amusing) attempts at flirting.
MAN. I remember back when single lady nerds were in such short supply that we were compelled to hit on literally any girl who played video games/read comics/whatever because we were so deeply afraid that we would never, ever encounter one ever again!
So yeah, I was definitely that guy at one point in my life. It’s all so embarrassing now.
… My attitude around geek girls was always one of fatalistic resignation.
The demand far outweighs the supply… so there is no reason why the geek girls would ever settle for anything less than the Alpha Geek… and I’ve never been that. I’m not a social geek. I’m the lone, room-dwelling sort of geek… the kind of geek that social geeks constantly insist is not real.
So obviously I just figured it was pointless to even consider it.
Wouldn’t have been appropriate anyway. Gaming is important to me… and in-game interactions should be kept in-game… just as in-character interactions should be kept in-character.
Fair point. I guess it’s not so much the the preachiness itself, but the way it’s presented in this particular case. Can’t quite put my finger on it though.
Honestly, I hope the lady who plays Scipio is going to talk to Shanna; she seems like someone who could really help Shanna see the light.
Incidentally, all that death-foreshadowing with all the in-game characters saying their lovey-mushy stuff a few pages back before going into battle has me thinking that maybe one of them’s not going to die in-game, but maybe outside in the real world, when JJ catches up to Shanna and, and maybe, Idunno, whichever gamer Shanna is talking to at that point might be a super noble person and take the bullet for Shanna. Or do it on accident.
I suppose if that person’s in-game character never logs back in, it’s still almost the same as having died in battle, right? MIA and no idea what happened to him/her. In-game foreshadowing real-world events?
Oh geez you just made me realize the real potential for tragedy here. Losing someone like Scipio would suck, but knowing that his Sepia world, “real-life” counterpart was dead? ugh.
Unless… what if they’re not linked? What if that’s the point? Scipio’s sepia avatar dies, but the Arkerra one lives on? Be hard to pull of plausibly, but it’d be interesting if they did.
Since the players don’t control all of the characters’ actions (I don’t think so anyhow; dialogue, feelings, etc. seem to exist within the reality of Arkerra rather than in the Arkerra-Earth interface) then it would be possible that the characters would be able to exist on their own, but maybe they’d lose the ability to leave certain areas? Or otherwise take any notable action.
So I’m imagining that all of the non-Five PCs would be suddenly limited to free actions.
Actually, that’s kind of what I’ve been pondering too. What if the Arkerra we are seeing isn’t exactly the game that’s being played in the Sepia world? What if it’s some sort of reflection/shadow. And once an avatar is created in the Sepia world version of the game, the reflection takes on a life of it’s own and is no longer bound to the Sepia world.
Aw, wow. I like your idea better. I *like* it more, but I still kiiiinda think it might make more sense that if the player’s gone, so is his/her character. Or at least, it might just be easier to explain that.
Not sure this would work though, people would notice their characters in different places the they left them, etc. Unless this is an actual feature advertised in the game “Real time MMORPG! While you are away ‘Personality AI’ makes decisions for you based on your game actions!”
Which is why I wonder if there are two versions of Akerra. The real Akerra and the game version of Akerra. The characters in the version of Akerra we see act very much unlike any MMO I’m familiar with, even if it’s a server with a heavily enforced role-play only policy.
Have we only seen gameplay through HR’s computer? He might have an unfettered view of the real Arkerra while all other players see this intermediary ‘shadow’
It looks like it’s finally starting to dawn on her that there are real, live, reasonable people on the other side of the issue, that are getting hurt by her lumping them all in with a minority of bad people.
Or, at least starting to realize that her personal experiences are clouding her judgement on the issue.
What’s left unsaid in the comic is that Shanna may havehas experienced harassment from gamers because of her articles. It’s not confirmed, but it’s practically a given. :/
True that. I wonder if she has developed any skills as a consequence of that fact, such as internet and home security know-how, that may contribute to her continued safety?
Also, I’m hoping such experiences have contributed to her heightened paranoia, because I really really want her to suggest a change of locations for Xan.
I still maintain that you’re going to get harassment and threats for things that offend people no matter what is swinging or not swinging between your legs.
Look at the CoD dev who received death threats for slight balance changes to some of the more popular weapons in one of the iterations of Modern Warfare. You are even remotely public and you piss someone off and you’re going to get threats, especially online, where there’s much less repercussions.
I personally really enjoy Shanna’s character, I can see why a lot of the people do not like her though. This is just kind of a guess, but most of the readers on here are gamers right? I have been wondering if that affects peoples opinions of her.
I think that any decent person would realize that referring to random people in a condescending (and sometimes dehumanizing) manner and tarring an entire field with the same brush is not good behavior regardless of who it’s targeting.
No, the fact that she’s specifically targeting gaming doesn’t endear her to me. But her behavior is unacceptable, especially when she is dealing with people who are helping her out of pure goodwill (and whose lives she is endangering simply by talking to them).
Exactly my reasons for disliking her. However, I also appreciate her character. Even the characters in this series I don’t like I appreciate the depth they have. So even though I dislike her… I appreciate the depth of character she has. There’s nuance there.
I think she’s a good unlikable character? They are a thing. Liked her for the same reasons back in faans, and then she became something else, which I’ll admit Sepia Shanna benefits from the bias of. But I think even if I’d read this dry I’d come to the same conclusion
I’m sure this has been covered before, but… what are the odds of Shanna logging into Arkerra at some point so she could interact with the 4/5 directly?
Yeah, she’ll almost certainly deal with the B-team first now that she has their info, but that won’t be enough to unplug the Five (Four + Best, whatever). It looks like things are being set up for her to dive into the virtual world at some point, in a desperate attempt to “fix things”.
I really hope she already has spent time playing the game. If she really is trying to help the five, or at least find out what happened to them, or even just write an objective article, then playing the game for a while would be due diligence.
If she has played the game, then she probably either went with default character settings or tried to make a character as close to herself as possible. I’m guessing the latter. Whenever I play a game for the first time, I try to create a character that looks as much like me as possible, for my first character slot, just to see how good the game’s customization is. Also, it helps me immerse myself in the game. I figure a lot of other people do the same thing.
That’s why I believed that Kur’ik could be Shanna’s character. Kur’ik hasn’t shown up a lot, but when she has, she’s demonstrated the skills of an investigative journalist. However, Shanna didn’t seem to recognize the five, when Xan showed them to her, and I didn’t get the feeling that she was just trying to hide her recognition from him.
If Shanna has spent a reasonable amount of time in the game, though, it seems strange that she still feels the need to lump all gamers into one big, negative basket. Surely she’s interacted with a number of nice, reasonable people. Heck, I even met several reasonable and even nice people, back when I played GTA Online. And, I spent most of my time avoiding people, when I played that.
I admire her bravery and tenacity, but I’m kinda hoping Shanna gets put in a tank, so she can be immersed in the gaming culture, and quickly overcome her annoying and unprofessional bias. I like her, but as other people have said, that bias is starting to get old.
I’ve asked this previously when Shanna first started getting a lot of focus, but it didn’t get answered at the time and I feel that now is an appropriate time to ask it again: are we supposed to like Shanna? Note that this is different than rooting for her or wanting her to succeed — you can have a protagonist who’s a terrible person that you still want to succeed because the alternative is worse, for instance (not that I am describing Shanna as such).
But I’ve noticed that comments suggesting that those who dislike Shanna do so because they are gamers (and, on occasion, kind of implying that is not a valid reason to dislike her) or because they are misogynists or whatever get gold stars and/or creator feedback that seems to approve of such comments. So I’m at a loss to know what the intention is here.
Is she supposed to be likable and I’m just the odd one out?
I also get that there is room for character development for her, and that’s one of the reasons I’ve stuck around. I’m just trying to figure out if I’ve gone wrong somewhere along the way or what.
I agree with you somewhat. At very first when she came into the picture, I really REALLY disliked her. I’m starting to come around though, and I think it might be because I either believe, or want to believe, that she can change; that her opinion can be changed, and she can become a far cooler character (in my opinion) because of it. When you think about it, whatever her views on gaming are, she is already trying hard to save 4 missing persons as well, while knowing her life could be in danger. I suppose that’s pretty noble, even if she might only be doing it because it’ll help her say “See! I told you games were bad!” in the long run.
I have a lot of confidence in Phil and T. I find both Sepia World and Arkerra supremely interesting, and I keep coming back because I’m hooked on the story. I just don’t know how to deal with Shanna, because I often get the impression we’re supposed to like her. And I don’t. I know too many people like her in real life, and they are hell to be around.
I’m hoping she changes. I know her counterpart did, so I’m kind of banking on it. It’s just difficult to watch the way she interacts with geeks, especially those trying to help her.
I have no idea why Phil awarded the comment a gold star and I’m surprised that Phil considers Guilded Age to be “deliberately preachy”. I guess he would know what they are trying to preach, but I’ve just been reading it for the entertainment value. I’m not sure that T agrees with what Phil said, but maybe he does.
My impression is that Shanna is a complex person with both flaws and good points. You can like or dislike her. I’d say the same is true with Xan. T, at least, seemed to have a balanced view of them. He said, “Shanna and Xan are such opposite poles on the subject of gaming that it should be notable when they have common ground. Xan tries to minimize the disgusting, misogynist, criminal threats by calling them the actions of threatened dinosaurs whom time will wash away. Shanna, naturally, uses them as a club to beat all of gamer culture with. But both agree that this behavior exists and is a real problem. They’ve done their homework.” So, neither are perfect, but neither are perfectly wrong. That makes sense to me.
And I’d really like to see Phil’s explanation of why that comment deserved a gold star. I can’t tell if the comment was meant as a sarcastic swipe at the majority of the readers, or if the author really meant that he couldn’t figure out something that’s fairly obvious. (Yes, of course, a lot of the readers are gamers, and yes, of course, they are reacting defensively to what Shanna says.) Either way, I don’t understand why the comment got the gold star. But maybe Phil read it completely differently than I did.
I Gold Star’d it because it made me laugh. It made T laugh, too. I even asked him if he thought I should Gold Star it (first time I have ever asked him that about any comment). He approved.
I think the fact that it had equal odds of being snark or sincere is probably why we thought it was so funny.
If you are still looking back here, do you mind explaining “…after five years of being a very deliberately preachy comic?” I thought that was you saying that, but now I think you may have been throwing what the OP’s author had said elsewhere back at him/her. I don’t know what the other person might have said before, so it’s hard to interpret, but I would have interpreted the OP as just being about the last 2 pages. (I think it conflates what a character says with what the authors are saying, in any case.)
Sure. I guess part of my issue is, if her behavior is supposed to draw a negative reaction, why do the creators seem to be okay with people implying all sorts of negative things about people who react to her negatively? And if we’re supposed to applaud her behavior, why?
This is a deep, complicated question. Also a good question!
I don’t really know how to answer it, though. I like Shanna. Obviously T likes Shanna. There’s no character we put in this comic that we don’t “like.” I think a character can be liked as a concept, independently of whether or not you like them as a person.
For example, in Death Note: Misa-Misa is borderline unbearable as a person, but as a character I would say you really can’t do the story at all without her in it. Her complexities and quirks and motivations are unique and interesting, even if her voice is grating and she says dumb shit all the time. But her devotion to Light, even as he uses and abuses her, even as she knows she’s just being used… well, it speaks a lot on the tragedy of abusive relationships and how someone so full of love, tenderness, and care can be wasted on the likes of a sociopath like Light. And that same relationship is just as easily applied in the lens of analyzing them from the perspective of “lover and lover” or “religious figure and believer.”
And Light, for that matter, is the most unlikable person in the entire story. He lies to everyone, cares only for himself, sees even his family as merely tools in quest, gets people killed, fucks over a bunch of truly honest and morally good cops (a rarity in this day and age)… He’s King Shitstain, Lord of Skidmarks, Prince of Poops, Duke of Deuces, but Goddamn if he isn’t one of the most interesting character concepts in fucking years!
So yeah, it’s like that, I guess. Some people focus on the likability of a character based on their personality, some people focus on the likability of a character based on their concept, or role in a story. Who they are vs what they represent, etc.
So I guess she *is* supposed to be “likable.” But maybe not in the way you would think that means?
Okay, yeah. I getcha. For me, then, the deal is that I like her role in the story, I definitely see the need for it, and her own personal struggles are pretty compelling — I actually felt the moment when she was talking to the rest home administrator (I’m probably using the wrong term, but you get who I’m referring to) was pretty powerful. But yeah, as a person I don’t think I could stand to be in her presence for very long. Which makes it difficult to read pages where she’s just generally being a meanie.
Given the charged atmosphere surrounding gaming, women, and gaming journalism, I felt like I was walking on eggs in terms of how to express my dislike of Shanna the person without offending anyone — and also without coming across as too negative!
I have a very different outlook to religion and politics than many of the people in my part of the country. So I can appreciate being friends with people who don’t share my view points. I like Shanna. She’s risking everything to save 6 people she’s never met. In my book, that says a lot about a person.
Strange. It was always L I couldn’t tolerate. I found Light to be vastly entertaining. I was rooting for him to win. Shame it didn’t play out that way. L was just a pointless douche though.
For whatever it may be worth I don’t like her much either. I respect her, and I anticipate that she’ll slowly grow on me as she progressively draws her foot farther and farther out of her mouth, but that we’ll ultimately never see perfectly eye to eye. Then again I don’t dislike H.R. so I’m probably not the best barometer for what you should think about people. >.>
Ah! Suddenly, Shanna has a point. And however skewed her views may be, they are at least up to date on recent events. I smell the start of character development! ^_^
She had a point all the time because fivesix people disappeared, but yeah. Suddenly – BAM! – sepia world becomes truly up-to-date with our present, instead of being a fictional world whose scary issues couldn’t hurt the reader.
Upon reflection, though, this kinda happens all the time in the comic. Sepia world feels a little bit more real every time a real world logo appears – BAM! Starbucks! – or even real persons – BAM! Joel Watson!
it can be two things…that statement doesn’t in itself actually “proof” anything.
if you want to intentionally read something into banana’s post thats on you.
Eh, I don’t know why people feel the need to get all defensive of their favorite type of gaming. For better or ill its not REPORTERS who are going to change anything in the gaming industry: Its the people paying the bills.
If enough of these He-Man Woman Haters or whatever we believe these “dinosaurs” to be keep buying games of their favorite type hand over fist then they will continue to exist in some form or another no matter how many “news” articles or enraged forums sprout up. You know barring some laws being passed that are so freedom restricting that they will boomerang nastily on the group that supported them…
I hate free-to-play games. No matter how they start they all end the same and more and more they are simply starting that way. Doesn’t matter how I feel though cause waaaaay too many folks are going there and spending their time and idiotically their money on the damn things so they will continue to grow like a cancer.
And don’t use WoW as an example of paid games being worse. Blizzard decided to copy everybody else who looks even mildly successful for a few months. Stealing features from here and there for like ever. So now that everything is going free to play WoW is stealing its way to becoming like them more and more all the time. A paid game copying free to plays. Sad.
No wait, this is genius! Hide from JJ in that pile of stuff! He’ll never look there!
JJ Berten will arrive at Xan’s place to cause mayhem, only to find it has already been trashed!
They’ll never find you inside the potato chip bag!
Huh. I guess Gold Stars are still a thing.
It’s ok Shanna, Berten’s not a misogynist. And he doesn’t play games either.
She is so smart. Ess-emm-arr-tee~ I do like this guy. And Berten’s mustache. I wish mine could stay twirled like that, but apparently I do have to get mustache oil/wax. ._.
All available from your local moustachery.
No, see, what you have there is a muzzle.
The go to recipe for a few guys I know who compete in facial hair contests is a 50/50 mix of vaseline and beeswax. One guy swears Elmer’s washable glue is all he uses. And another actually uses a “Paste” that is sold by the Axe company. Yeah the body spray guys. Early on you’ll need to use something that has a rather rigid and stiff hold. This will train the hairs into shape and after some time they’ll naturally want to return to that shape even without product. Once this happens you can start using product that have a less rigid hold. Also might want to look into some pomades that offer restorative compounds. Helps condition and help the hairs as they grow out. I use stuff from onedtq.com on my goatee. Not for styling per se, but more for skin conditioning. Time intensive, but I don’t think I could ever go back to a clean shave
Well, It’s good that Xan called Shanna out on her anti-gaming attitude and for her to check herself.
But will it actually have any effect at all ? Shana seems to keep a strong “don’t get your fancy fact in the way of my cliché filled grudge against gaming !” stance here.
Now I wonder, though… Did she try playing some mmo and got a “boobs plz !” that led her to ragequit and start her crusade vs gaming ?
Does Shanna’s issue stem from the pen and paper days? Her mom does seem like the type to reenact bad Tom Hank movies or Jack Chick comics. Or maybe a bunch of RPGers treated Shanna like crap, back in the day?
I think it might be escapism that bothers Shanna. I’m probably drawing on Faans history so I don’t want to go into too much detail, but she has had problems with that in an alternate universe
I think someone jumped that gun already, but I don’t really see the appeal of her character. That said, I’ve never read faans, and it doesn’t seem like the kind of comic that would hold my interest long from the cursory glances I’ve taken at it
I was so, so surprised by how much I came to enjoy Faans. I thought the first issue or two looked like it was just ‘the wacky adventures of these guys’ but it ended up having some of the best character arcs, growth, and surprises for a large cast I’ve seen in recent art. I’d highly recommend it for a good binge reading at some point, if for no other reason than seeing early T Campbell and Waltrip work.
And I still dislike it when those of us who have read Faans act like it’s required reading for GA; that’s why I’m so hesitant to refer back to it.
Hopefully. At least it looks like it may have hit home in the fifth panel.
T likes this sort of story.
Stubborn bigot gradually gets their defences worn down by softly spoken moderate and then suddenly sees the light and laments how foolish their misconceptions were before.
I don’t believe it is the first time it has happened with Shanna either.
To be fair though, lots of authory creative types engage in similar plots. It lets them live out a fantasy of actually being able to talk people into submission without the use of life-threatening duress or mind-screwing drugs.
In reality though… the differences people have are generally at the axiomatic core… the stuff they take for granted and use as the underlying foundation of everything they know. Things they learnt when they were very young, back when they didn’t understand anything and would just regard any new information as absolutely true… and they can no longer remember the learning… only that they always knew it. And it is impossible to reason with them precisely because the cause of all of it is right back at the beginning… the stuff they don’t put into words because it doesn’t even occur to them that it might not be absolutely true.
Nothing short of ripping out absolutely everything they know, burning it and salting the metaphorical ground will ever allow them to see things differently.
Hehe, axiomatic.
I don’t know, sometimes that is true. Guilded Age has plenty of examples of people who never, ever seem to learn past their ingrown prejudices. Sister Hestia and Naror’Nj are two compelling examples. I won’t give up on others until they’re dead, but I’m not holding out a lot of hope for Annunziata. I don’t expect some of the people in my Facebook circle to change their political views to align with mine, either. One or two might, but it’s not the way to bet.
But growth is important. Change is important. And I know these things are real, I have seen them happen in others, I’ve discarded former beliefs that now embarrass me. And it’s not just the hope of being able to persuade people to see the light– it’s the hope of being able to see more of the light myself. Honestly, of the two people in this scene, I identify with both, but it’s not Xan I identify with more.
+a whole lot
Perhaps the fact that they died before they got the chance played into that.
Still, I’m not saying people can’t change… but from personal experience, it is something that tends to happen on one’s own terms, in one’s own time… rather than being convinced differently by another person.
Talk is often not sufficient to change someone’s mind, but it is usually necessary. Accepting a radical idea is easier when you don’t have to start by inventing it.
Today? Now? No. Later? Just maybe. It’s gonna take more the this to break the camels back, but this was a few straws more.
This is why I have an inflatable mattress. My couch is filthy.
The couch is where I sleep, dammit…
I just lay a blanket on the floor in the corner, there’s not even enough room on the floor for a mattress here
REVERSAL : My bed is where I sit.
Was this comic dancing around the Zoe Quinn debacle? If so, is it implying that all of Quinn’s detractors are misogynists, or is it implying that perception is false by putting it in the mouth of Shanna, a character whose view on gamers is obviously flawed?
Well, I’ll state it outright. Anyone who is involved in Gamergate on that side either has a problem with women, or is completely willing to stand alongside people who clearly do.
Sadly, the way the culture is now, they could have written this months in advance and still be sure it would ring true.
(Not that you need my permission, whoever’s moderating, but feel free to pull this comment if you don’t want the comments section to get bitter. I care about the issue but hey, it’s your house.)
If you’re going to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush like that you do more damage to your own statement than you do your supposed opponents.
As much as people try to make this entire thing about misogynists they forget that EVERYONE on the internet receives these kind of threats. An author put up a piece taking up the anti-journalist side of “gamergate” and had already received double digit death threats from the supposed “good guys” within a week of time. If you’re in the public eye and say something people don’t like there’s going to be bad people on both sides saying these terrible things.
Gamergate has moved miles beyond the outrage over infidelity anyone might have felt over Ms. Quinn and onto the clear agenda being pushed by gaming news websites. It’s easy to demonize someone so that no one listens to what they have to say. If you have nothing to fear from someone, why would you try to rip out their tongue? Figuratively speaking of course.
And on a side note. The Fine Young Capitalists indiegogo campaign has received over a third of it’s goal’s funding from 4chan’s /v/ board. A hive of “misogynists” who are intent on helping to get women into gaming. And before you just might pull out the straight white male commentary. Many of the people speaking out in support of ethics and journalistic integrity are non-straight, non-white, and clearly not male.
There are jerks on both ends of this argument, that doesn’t invalidate or warrant dismissing either side entirely. To do so speaks volumes about the lack of respect you have for people who disagree.
Well said Ash, well said.
The problem with that is that there’s evidence to support that they donated to the charity not out of goodwill, but to spite Ms. Quinn, and that straight white males started the notyourshield hashtag to astroturf. The chatlogs confirming this are being combed through by the FBI.
trolls will be trolls.
I’d assume the FBI reads everything on 4chan.
The NSA has already beat the FBI to those logs.
Does it matter if “straight white males” started that hashtag, assuming they did?
As for spiting Ms. Quinn, I’ve actually read through their various threads. 4chan is, by its very nature, a very impolite community. But from what I saw, spite was only part of several reasons for donating to that particular charity. Goodwill was also expressed.
It turns out that 4chan actually isn’t some sort of mythical hivemind where everyone shares the same exact opinions and such. It’s more just a place where it’s acceptable to discuss things without having to follow many rules of polite behavior.
I’m sorry, but I have to disagree. This isn’t the case of there being extremists on either side. There *may* be people sending death threats to the gamergate folk (although I’d like to see the actual evidence on that). But the extremists with the problems with women are responsible for *running* the gamergate campaign. It’s genesis is a bitter ex-boyfriend posting to 4Chan, for god’s sake.
You have read the extracted 4Chan chat logs, haven’t you? If not, I’m happy to provide links.
So I stand by my earlier comment. If you’re part of that campaign you either have a problem with women, or you’re so worried about supposed corruption in the enthusiast press that you’re willing to stand alongside people who are publicly, deliberately, repetitively attacking women for daring to not want to belong to the boys club. And I don’t care if every journalist is taking thousands of dollars in bribes from the indie games producers, it’s still not okay. If I can be forgiven the Godwinning analogy, it’s joining the Nazi Party because they’re revitalising the economy.
Uh, just to be clear. I’m not disagreeing with Twitcher, but with the people disagreeing with me.
So you can’t have an opinion because shitty people have it?
Shit man, shitty people EAT AND BREATHE. And I am fully in support of full bellys! And also less corruption in online journalism. And also less shitty misogynists!
I will be less “all sides have a point vague” and say something more definitive: I’m completely in agreement with the Fine Young Capitalists on their donation policy. Who the hell cares where the money comes from if you get the money? The strings attached to this one are pretty small (It’s not like 4chan is writing Vivian James dialogue for the game, they just got to draw and name her). Ironic donations and real donations both don’t look any different in a bank account.
As someone who has Kickstarted, I will confirm:
I gave approximately zero fucks where that money came from!
No, that’s not what I meant (and not what I think I said).
What I mean is that joining a named social movement (any social movement) means that you’re willing to adopt, to some extent, the other aspects of that social movement.
Let me give you a non-gamey example – you claim to be an environmentalist? You care about the environment. You wear a Sea Shepherd t-shirt? You’re okay with people blockading whaling ships on the high seas.
If you’re concerned about the insularity of the enthusiast press and the industry, I disagree with you (mostly), but that’s cool. If you’re willing to brand yourself with the #gamergate movement, then you and I have problems, because that movement has been inextricably linked with attacking and terrorising people because of their identities. It’s what it’s founded on.
Oh, and as for the FYC thing? I have no idea what that’s about, so I’m not making any comment on that specifically.
I have no idea what you’re even saying anymore
From what I’ve gathered about the Gamergate nonsense, the entire thing is about journalistic integrity… which frankly strikes me as a bit pointless and silly anyway…
… but as silly and pointless as I believe the Gamergate movement is… somehow the opposition consistently make themselves worse by trying to twist the whole thing around and make it about identity politics or gender or whatever. A bunch of neo-progressive collectivists going out of their way to kick up shit about something that they’re completely ignoring that it was never a sexism issue in the first place. They’re just out for blood to justify the collective victimhood complex that forms the core of their identity.
As far as morality issues go…. it is a black-and-grey one…. and the grey is the Gamergaters. Make no mistake about that.
Well before Zoe Quinn published the 4chan logs, I found the whole #Gamergate thing highly suspicious.
In the first place, I’ve seen so much overt misogyny in games and in gaming forums, and heard about too much more from friends who are women who play games online and comment on them in forums, that I cannot take anyone seriously who denies the problem. Anyone denying the problem is either a fool, or a misogynist. We’ve made some headway in recent years, partly because of the increasing number of women playing and creating computer games, and partly because people are increasingly willing to call out misogyny. Of course, these two things are related, and similar things could be said of other forms of bigotry in gaming.
In the second place, there really is an issue with corruption of professional gaming journalism. However, even if the accusations against Zoe Quinn were true — and by the current evidence, they were not — what she was accused of was, at worst, trivial. It’s well known, and even admitted by professional game journalists, that big publishers are lavish with gifts, but publishing a critical review means the journalist loses access to review copies of future games, and the publication loses advertising revenue, so publishing a negative review of a AAA game is a career-ending move. EA, for instance, spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year on marketing — they could, literally, buy up the gaming press on their marketing budget, and still have most of their budget left over, and the lavish fetes for the gaming press are not secret — they sometimes make the headlines in general news. Quinn, by contrast, is accused of getting a few favorable reviews for a low-budget indie game through personal acquaintance with a few game reviewers, and to have won some obscure competition because she was friends with some of the judges. We’re basically comparing the 2008 bank bailout scandal to someone taking a box of pens from work — and the only evidence that she took the box of pens, is that she’s got some pens.
I gotta admit I’ll probably be minding the comments section a little closely today.
Quinn and Sarkeesian were definitely on our minds when we composed this debate, but Guilded Age is a series that’s built to last: we have to write it in a way that things still feel relevant when people go through the archive in a year. So yes, it’s more about a general trend that includes what happened to both women, and others.
“Is it implying all X are Y” is an easy logic trap– I’m not accusing anyone of deliberately setting that trap, but it’s a bad way to think about this. Of course there are non-misogynist people who happen to be detractors of one or more women’s work in or about games, but they’re not really relevant to the existence of this repulsive subgroup. I mean, right here in the strip, we’re portraying Xan as critical of Shanna’s work, but when she brings up the topic of misogyny, he doesn’t come out with “Well, I’M standoffish to both genders equally, so that disproves your argument! Not ALL men!” He’s better than that. (Also, Shanna, for all her biases, does not believe that Xan’s issue with her is that she’s female.)
Shanna and Xan are such opposite poles on the subject of gaming that it should be notable when they have common ground. Xan tries to minimize the disgusting, misogynist, criminal threats by calling them the actions of threatened dinosaurs whom time will wash away. Shanna, naturally, uses them as a club to beat all of gamer culture with. But both agree that this behavior exists and is a real problem. They’ve done their homework.
His doorway is wide open.
That’s the door to his workstation, not the front door to his apartment.
Regardless of whether his door is locked or open, he doesn’t exactly appear to be in a position to drop everything and run.
Shanna might be a little more biased than most, but that doesn’t invalidate her points… Female gamers are almost always molested by the larger public gaming populations. There’s a good amount of gamers that could care less what sex you are, even I’d say the majority, but the minority of assholes are rather loud.
As for not liking gaming in general, it seems she has a reason. I’d guess it probably has something to do with her mother.
Oddly enough, being “molested” is an extremely rare occurence among gamers, for the most part. I’ve been playing MMOs and various other online games for a decade now, and I can count the number of times I’ve been approached like that on two hands; Three times in WoW, twice in Guild Wars, Once in Guild Wars 2, and once in Neverwinter (oddly, literally no such contact in City of Heroes while it was up). Much more common are the spammers that plague everybody of both genders.
As a matter of fact, I’m inclined to believe it’s much more common that these people just grief everybody, not just those of a particular gender. Just using gender as a basis for the griefing gets more people’s blood up. It’s a solid way to piss off a lot of people very, very quickly.
I have nothing to say about gaming and the occurence of molestation there other than I heard there is a problem. Still: Your last paragraph contains a very problematic notion in my opinion: What you describe is “a lot of people” becoming angry “very, very quickly” if someone points to gender as a reason, right? I heard this argument before – for situations in real life, too (and not only for gender, but lets stick with this example) – and what it basically does is prohibit to complain. It prohibits the persons that are molested possibly (!) on the basis of gender to complain about it and adding their perceived reason. Which is possibly right. So if you’re not a 100% sure that gender (or whatever) has anything to with the molestation, this is very problematical. And I’m sure there should be reasonable doubt about the 100%.
I find that the core point people seem to just accept as fact is that women get more grief than male gamers do. In my experience, and those of my friends, we’ve always noticed that when gender was found out. It was preferential positive attention that typically showed up, or just treating them like any other person they know.
The kind of cruel hearted misanthropes that would send threats or harass people did so to male gamers as much as female gamers. Yet suddenly they’re sexists who only target women because they used a female gendered insult when they knew they were referring to women instead of something more generic or male oriented at a male target.
I don’t deny there’s whining and idiocy. I just think it mostly has been overlooked when men are the target of it. Now that women are becoming an increasing percentage of the gamer demographic, they’re being exposed to this kind of behavior. So now that women are the victims as well it suddenly becomes unacceptable instead of par for the course figuratively speaking.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that your anecdotal evidence really trumps the mountains of evidence that is pretty readily available on line. There are hashtags, blogs, communities, and articles full of demonstrations of misogyny and sexism directed at women.
While these jerks and trolls might very well attack people regardless of gender, it is the disproportionate force used against women that sets them apart. A man speaks against objectifying women in video games, and he’ll receive death threats and nasty messages. A woman does the same thing, and yes she’ll receive those same death threats and nasty messages. She’s often also subject to much worse attacks involving personal information, hacking of accounts, and harassment that extends to family and friends.
As you stated in a different message, it’s harmful to paint in broad strokes. Ignoring the vile things these people do in the name of gaming because you have no personal experience with it lets it fester and thrive. Yes there are good gamers, of any gender, but there are also horrible ones.
You can find hashtags, blogs, and communities full of anything if you look in the right places.
Without searching for it, this is something Quinn posted on her twitter an hour ago (trigger warnings):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxLc1-rCMAEClwb.png:large
These are unsolicited threats & commentary she has gotten for basically existing. I don’t think she’s seeking this out from any obscure hashtag. Women are targets for egregious threats, especially when they assert their voices in the gaming community
I’ve seen plenty of shit like this, directed at more than women.
You somehow offend someone in any way on the internet, and some people will send you shit.
But really, I’m not the right person to discuss this issue.
A question for you: Why does the fact that it has been directed at other people make it any less horrible?
Add to that the larger context. It can be easy to shrug off death threats, as statistically most people have not been in a situation where their life was threatened by another individual. However, statistically speaking again, the great majority of women have been sexually assaulted, or personally know someone close to them who has. That adds a new level of fear and terror to these “harmless” threats that get tossed at them.
I’m not saying it’s fine for men to be treated horrible but not women. No one should be treated that way, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that men have it as bad as women.
You cannot truly improve things by treating two unequal sides the same. Because of the imbalance you must focus on one side over the other.
While I agree that as a whole men do not have it as bad as women, the gap isn’t nearly as large as one might expect. Unfortunately there’s some confusion about the statistics surrounding sexual violence. This stems from a gap between the colloquial definition of rape, which is having sex with someone without their consent, and the legal definition of rape, which is penetrating someone without their consent. Under the legal definition, a government study found that 99% of rapists are male, which makes a lot of sense given the definition. Under the colloquial definition, however, the numbers are much closer: According to this study published in the American Psychological Association and authored by a female researcher (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-13-3-243.pdf), the majority of college-age men have been sexually victimized at some point (with 1 in 6 actually being raped according to the colloquial definition), and in 90% of those incidents, the perpetrator was female. It turns out that there is a legal term for raping someone without being the penetrator; it’s called “making them penetrate” you, and while it’s considered a violent sexual crime, because it’s not given the name of rape, it doesn’t get counted in government statistics in the same place. It may interest you to learn that if you add in these cases, both the victimhood and the perpetrator gender gaps shrink considerably (they are still there, mind you, and it’s worth working on closing that gap, but there is arguably more to be gained from tackling sexual violence as a problem that transcends gender boundaries). (More references may be found here: https://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/)
As for death threats, it is worth pointing out that (at least in the US) males are more than 3 times as likely to be homicide victims as females (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hus11.txt). It is also worth pointing out that for every other minority group, the trend goes in the expected direction (being a PoC or LGBTQ+ or of low SES tacks on a substantial multiplier to your homicide victimization rate). While no one should receive a death threat, being a straight white well-educated female is statistically the best possible protection along those axes against such a threat being realized.
I agree that it is horrible to have such a statistic regarding sexual assault against men, and that it is not as well known or reported as it should be. However my point was not that women face more sexual assaults.
My point was that, generally, a threat against a man by these people will be one of death, and against a woman they are both threats of death and sexual in nature, and therefore are, statistically, much more likely to be personally relevant to the one receiving them.
Regarding the statistics of being a victim of homicide, again a horrible thing, there’s a few reasons why I feel that it is not as personally relevant as sexual violence. A victim of homicide, sadly, is unable to be personally affected by a threat of the action because they are dead. To those who personally know a victim of homicide, I believe, that the gender of the victim is much less relevant because the act itself does not involve it. A violent death can be applied the same regardless of any gender, race, or orientation. Sexual assaults, however, are intimately connected to gender.
I might be mistaken in these beliefs, but, unfortunately, I have found no relevant larger study or examples to base my understanding off of.
You speak of how the threats against women are especially horrible because women face a supposed majority of sexual violence.
However, men are four times more likely to be murdered and are the majority victims of violence in nearly every category save for domestic abuse. In which they are about equal.
If we’re speaking of death threats, that has more pertinence to the statistics of murder than to the statistics of sexual assault.
But we’re getting derailed. My core point isn’t that death threats and harassment are no big deal. My point is that these things have been happening for a while, and to much more than women in video games from either a player or developer side of things.
Both men and women are targeted by these misanthropic jerks who seek to just take a huge dump all over people online who offend them in some way. My entire point is that women aren’t special victims but are in fact victims that are getting more attention than male ones. Which you’ve clearly also got that perspective. (i.e. men being the vast majority of violence victims, yet you’re totally ignoring them to paint women as especially vulnerable.)
It seems to me as if you (and probably others, too) are constructing the problem in a different manner than I (and possibly others, too) have constructed it. If I get your position you seem to compare whether men or women have it better or worse and whether the attention to these facts “fits”.
What I would be interested in in the cases discussed here today (Quinn, Sarkesian) is whether there is a type of violence (including threats and terms of abuse) that is specifically targeted at woman on the base that they are women. And it seems to me that there is.
I’ve covered my thoughts regarding most of your statement in another reply. My point was not ignoring violence against men and stating women face more sexual assault. My point was that violence was relatable irregardless of the victim, sexual assaults less so, and that these attacks are generally violence focused when directed at men, and both sexual and violence focused against women.
My greater point was that there is evidence to be had online that women do face disproportionate threats and retaliations than men. While we might not agree on this, I hope we can at least agree that these type of attacks are not acceptable and shouldn’t be tolerated.
I do appreciate your point, and especially when people like you and I acknowledge that we’re not the experts in any way.
btw, it’s very weird to have a gravatar of Bandit looking *down* at me. Her eyes are suddenly up there!
If you want to stop objectification, write better games. Objectification, at it’s core, is simplification of a human being down to a nice spherical object (possibly sexualized).
I believe Quinn was in fact trying to write and produce better games when all of this highly-publicized “Gamergate” stuff began, and that Sarkeesian mostly dedicates her video series to discussing how better games could be made.
I’m not sure from your comment where you stand on this topic, but it bears mentioning that people are trying to make better games and are discovering all of the difficulties that pioneers historically face.
If it’s half as fun as Bureaucracy, she deserves a tip of the hat.
(and if you get how much of a burn that is, a tip of the hat to you as well).
But, dude, that name?! awful, awful idea.
I wouldn’t cite Anita as helping to make games better. Her videos are full of half-truths and outright lies about the games she makes examples of. I don’t disagree with a lot of her general arguments, but she does way more damage to her own position when the foundation she used to support those arguments is 90% bull.
Yeah… speaking about 90% bull – some more eludication would be nice. Like the alleged “half-truths and outright lies” – which ones? And how did you arrive at the 90%?
tl;dr: citation needed
I’ve gotta say my experiences were different then yours Ash. I’ve seen some ladies get shit and even if I can’t look into a persons head and see if their motivation was something other then their being female, the attacks those ladies got were female oriented. Certainly some of those people gave males shit as well, but not necessarily in the same way. It’s an issue. People probably see it where it really wasn’t sometimes, but you could say the reverse as well, people not realizing what it was and just thinking “well this person is a generic asshole!”
Different places, different experiences and all that, but I think if you tailor your insults to a gender, that’s a thing in and of itself. Even if the person is just a equal opportunity asshole, the fact they chose to be an asshole in that particular way is telling.
I’ve never tried to say my anecdotal experiences or those of my friends trump or negate the experiences other people face.
My point is that merely that there’s different perspectives and different experiences. One person’s view of the community is not all people’s view of the community. My friend, who is female, is of the opinion that she’s gotten as much shit as other male players have, with a side dose of flirting and sometimes greater politeness than normal. That’s in her experience.
My point about gendered slurs was merely to say that it doesn’t make harassment inherently sexist for a person to choose gendered language in their insults any more than a man being insulted with gendered terms makes them sexist against men.
If I call someone I know a guy a “dick” versus calling a woman a “witch” for the exact same type of behavior… I am not magically a sexist in one instance and a non-sexist in the other.
Using non-gendered insults really limits your range, at least in English. Sure, derivatives of “ass” seem to be safe, but those aren’t very strong. Derivatives of “fuck” can be taken as independent of gender, but not everybody will take them that way. And beyond that it’s mostly references to genetalia and monsters of well-defined traditional gender and things like that, and those definitely have different connotations depending on whom you’re insulting. I’d imagine it’s difficult to be a good troll while keeping all your insults non-gendered.
I’m not exactly a hardcore gamer, but on the old MMORPGs I used to play, I was never harassed for my gender. I usually used androgynous names (variants of this one, in fact,) so most people just assumed I was a guy. Nobody went insta-troll upon being corrected, although there were more than a few (usually clumsy and often amusing) attempts at flirting.
MAN. I remember back when single lady nerds were in such short supply that we were compelled to hit on literally any girl who played video games/read comics/whatever because we were so deeply afraid that we would never, ever encounter one ever again!
So yeah, I was definitely that guy at one point in my life. It’s all so embarrassing now.
… My attitude around geek girls was always one of fatalistic resignation.
The demand far outweighs the supply… so there is no reason why the geek girls would ever settle for anything less than the Alpha Geek… and I’ve never been that. I’m not a social geek. I’m the lone, room-dwelling sort of geek… the kind of geek that social geeks constantly insist is not real.
So obviously I just figured it was pointless to even consider it.
Wouldn’t have been appropriate anyway. Gaming is important to me… and in-game interactions should be kept in-game… just as in-character interactions should be kept in-character.
Calling it now, they’re totes gonna bang.
Why are the avatars always so fitting? I smell a conspiracy.
You avatar comes from one of my favorite web-comics… Looking for Group… right?
Your
Overlap in readership between Looking for Group & Guilded Age makes perfect sense.
I wonder how many from Penny Arcade show up here.
Man I really hope so!
I’m a lecherous bastard!!!! Yar har har!
I like how Xan’s messaging works through graphs.
Seriously… for someone on a righteous crusade to find and save missing peoples’ lives… she is a major ass-hat!
Is the preaching over yet?
I find it interesting that, after five years of being a very deliberately preachy comic, this is somehow the final straw.
You are preaching to a very preachy choir, Phil. And no, the preachyness isn’t over until we decide it is!
Fair point. I guess it’s not so much the the preachiness itself, but the way it’s presented in this particular case. Can’t quite put my finger on it though.
In all honesty I didn’t even think about it till everybody started commenting. Preaching intensifies I guess?
… this current avatar makes everything I say sound more sarcastic then I meant, doesn’t it?
Can’t blame her. After Shanna knocked out Shanna last Saturday she presumably awoke on a bus station bench.
Honestly, I hope the lady who plays Scipio is going to talk to Shanna; she seems like someone who could really help Shanna see the light.
Incidentally, all that death-foreshadowing with all the in-game characters saying their lovey-mushy stuff a few pages back before going into battle has me thinking that maybe one of them’s not going to die in-game, but maybe outside in the real world, when JJ catches up to Shanna and, and maybe, Idunno, whichever gamer Shanna is talking to at that point might be a super noble person and take the bullet for Shanna. Or do it on accident.
I suppose if that person’s in-game character never logs back in, it’s still almost the same as having died in battle, right? MIA and no idea what happened to him/her. In-game foreshadowing real-world events?
Oh geez you just made me realize the real potential for tragedy here. Losing someone like Scipio would suck, but knowing that his Sepia world, “real-life” counterpart was dead? ugh.
Unless… what if they’re not linked? What if that’s the point? Scipio’s sepia avatar dies, but the Arkerra one lives on? Be hard to pull of plausibly, but it’d be interesting if they did.
Since the players don’t control all of the characters’ actions (I don’t think so anyhow; dialogue, feelings, etc. seem to exist within the reality of Arkerra rather than in the Arkerra-Earth interface) then it would be possible that the characters would be able to exist on their own, but maybe they’d lose the ability to leave certain areas? Or otherwise take any notable action.
So I’m imagining that all of the non-Five PCs would be suddenly limited to free actions.
Y’know… I’m still waiting for lagged or AFK characters to appear. My gaming sessions are never this well connected.
Actually, that’s kind of what I’ve been pondering too. What if the Arkerra we are seeing isn’t exactly the game that’s being played in the Sepia world? What if it’s some sort of reflection/shadow. And once an avatar is created in the Sepia world version of the game, the reflection takes on a life of it’s own and is no longer bound to the Sepia world.
Aw, wow. I like your idea better. I *like* it more, but I still kiiiinda think it might make more sense that if the player’s gone, so is his/her character. Or at least, it might just be easier to explain that.
Not sure this would work though, people would notice their characters in different places the they left them, etc. Unless this is an actual feature advertised in the game “Real time MMORPG! While you are away ‘Personality AI’ makes decisions for you based on your game actions!”
Which is why I wonder if there are two versions of Akerra. The real Akerra and the game version of Akerra. The characters in the version of Akerra we see act very much unlike any MMO I’m familiar with, even if it’s a server with a heavily enforced role-play only policy.
Have we only seen gameplay through HR’s computer? He might have an unfettered view of the real Arkerra while all other players see this intermediary ‘shadow’
Crud. I mean i’ve expressed doubts about Xan’s prolonged survival, but now I’m worried about everybody!
Yeah, Xan’s a better person than I am. I’d have sent Shanna off and left her to her own devices long before now. Just a thoroughly unpleasant person.
He’s a man on a mission. He probably knows better than anyone that you don’t get to choose the members of your party.
Lets see if Xan will toss her under the bus to save his own hide when JJ shows up at his front door.
Hey, now, I’m not advocating that. And I hope that doesn’t happen, either. But Shanna’s complete lack of awareness of her problem is infuriating.
It looks like it’s finally starting to dawn on her that there are real, live, reasonable people on the other side of the issue, that are getting hurt by her lumping them all in with a minority of bad people.
Or, at least starting to realize that her personal experiences are clouding her judgement on the issue.
What’s left unsaid in the comic is that Shanna
may havehas experienced harassment from gamers because of her articles. It’s not confirmed, but it’s practically a given. :/True that. I wonder if she has developed any skills as a consequence of that fact, such as internet and home security know-how, that may contribute to her continued safety?
Also, I’m hoping such experiences have contributed to her heightened paranoia, because I really really want her to suggest a change of locations for Xan.
I’ll reserve judgment on that point Thomas until we see evidence of what the ‘harassment’ Shanna got over her articles. I’ll believe it when i see it.
As did Jack Thompson.
So yeah. She’s probably been harassed because of her stance on gaming.
I still maintain that you’re going to get harassment and threats for things that offend people no matter what is swinging or not swinging between your legs.
Look at the CoD dev who received death threats for slight balance changes to some of the more popular weapons in one of the iterations of Modern Warfare. You are even remotely public and you piss someone off and you’re going to get threats, especially online, where there’s much less repercussions.
Not sure whether this topic is extremely important to you or it’s just your gravatar making me think so…
I personally really enjoy Shanna’s character, I can see why a lot of the people do not like her though. This is just kind of a guess, but most of the readers on here are gamers right? I have been wondering if that affects peoples opinions of her.
I like her. And I play video games a lot. That said, I wouldn’t exactly self-identify as a gamer…
I think that any decent person would realize that referring to random people in a condescending (and sometimes dehumanizing) manner and tarring an entire field with the same brush is not good behavior regardless of who it’s targeting.
No, the fact that she’s specifically targeting gaming doesn’t endear her to me. But her behavior is unacceptable, especially when she is dealing with people who are helping her out of pure goodwill (and whose lives she is endangering simply by talking to them).
Yeah, this.
Exactly my reasons for disliking her. However, I also appreciate her character. Even the characters in this series I don’t like I appreciate the depth they have. So even though I dislike her… I appreciate the depth of character she has. There’s nuance there.
I think she’s a good unlikable character? They are a thing. Liked her for the same reasons back in faans, and then she became something else, which I’ll admit Sepia Shanna benefits from the bias of. But I think even if I’d read this dry I’d come to the same conclusion
Can we talk about a Gold Star given for a post that is obviously not funny or intended to be? Seems to be a first to me. (Y)
I’m sure this has been covered before, but… what are the odds of Shanna logging into Arkerra at some point so she could interact with the 4/5 directly?
I wonder if Xan will attempt that? He’s probably got an avatar in the game already.
If she interviews them in person, isn’t that more direct already?
That’ll be tricky, since they’re all locked up in tubes deep within Hurricane’s corporate labyrinth.
Oh, oops, I misread. I thought we were talking about the other 4, that being Rachel, Scip, Bandit and Emerl.
Yeah, she’ll almost certainly deal with the B-team first now that she has their info, but that won’t be enough to unplug the Five (Four + Best, whatever). It looks like things are being set up for her to dive into the virtual world at some point, in a desperate attempt to “fix things”.
I really hope she already has spent time playing the game. If she really is trying to help the five, or at least find out what happened to them, or even just write an objective article, then playing the game for a while would be due diligence.
If she has played the game, then she probably either went with default character settings or tried to make a character as close to herself as possible. I’m guessing the latter. Whenever I play a game for the first time, I try to create a character that looks as much like me as possible, for my first character slot, just to see how good the game’s customization is. Also, it helps me immerse myself in the game. I figure a lot of other people do the same thing.
That’s why I believed that Kur’ik could be Shanna’s character. Kur’ik hasn’t shown up a lot, but when she has, she’s demonstrated the skills of an investigative journalist. However, Shanna didn’t seem to recognize the five, when Xan showed them to her, and I didn’t get the feeling that she was just trying to hide her recognition from him.
If Shanna has spent a reasonable amount of time in the game, though, it seems strange that she still feels the need to lump all gamers into one big, negative basket. Surely she’s interacted with a number of nice, reasonable people. Heck, I even met several reasonable and even nice people, back when I played GTA Online. And, I spent most of my time avoiding people, when I played that.
I admire her bravery and tenacity, but I’m kinda hoping Shanna gets put in a tank, so she can be immersed in the gaming culture, and quickly overcome her annoying and unprofessional bias. I like her, but as other people have said, that bias is starting to get old.
I’ve asked this previously when Shanna first started getting a lot of focus, but it didn’t get answered at the time and I feel that now is an appropriate time to ask it again: are we supposed to like Shanna? Note that this is different than rooting for her or wanting her to succeed — you can have a protagonist who’s a terrible person that you still want to succeed because the alternative is worse, for instance (not that I am describing Shanna as such).
But I’ve noticed that comments suggesting that those who dislike Shanna do so because they are gamers (and, on occasion, kind of implying that is not a valid reason to dislike her) or because they are misogynists or whatever get gold stars and/or creator feedback that seems to approve of such comments. So I’m at a loss to know what the intention is here.
Is she supposed to be likable and I’m just the odd one out?
I also get that there is room for character development for her, and that’s one of the reasons I’ve stuck around. I’m just trying to figure out if I’ve gone wrong somewhere along the way or what.
I agree with you somewhat. At very first when she came into the picture, I really REALLY disliked her. I’m starting to come around though, and I think it might be because I either believe, or want to believe, that she can change; that her opinion can be changed, and she can become a far cooler character (in my opinion) because of it. When you think about it, whatever her views on gaming are, she is already trying hard to save 4 missing persons as well, while knowing her life could be in danger. I suppose that’s pretty noble, even if she might only be doing it because it’ll help her say “See! I told you games were bad!” in the long run.
Suffice to say: I believe in her.
I have a lot of confidence in Phil and T. I find both Sepia World and Arkerra supremely interesting, and I keep coming back because I’m hooked on the story. I just don’t know how to deal with Shanna, because I often get the impression we’re supposed to like her. And I don’t. I know too many people like her in real life, and they are hell to be around.
I’m hoping she changes. I know her counterpart did, so I’m kind of banking on it. It’s just difficult to watch the way she interacts with geeks, especially those trying to help her.
I have no idea why Phil awarded the comment a gold star and I’m surprised that Phil considers Guilded Age to be “deliberately preachy”. I guess he would know what they are trying to preach, but I’ve just been reading it for the entertainment value. I’m not sure that T agrees with what Phil said, but maybe he does.
My impression is that Shanna is a complex person with both flaws and good points. You can like or dislike her. I’d say the same is true with Xan. T, at least, seemed to have a balanced view of them. He said, “Shanna and Xan are such opposite poles on the subject of gaming that it should be notable when they have common ground. Xan tries to minimize the disgusting, misogynist, criminal threats by calling them the actions of threatened dinosaurs whom time will wash away. Shanna, naturally, uses them as a club to beat all of gamer culture with. But both agree that this behavior exists and is a real problem. They’ve done their homework.” So, neither are perfect, but neither are perfectly wrong. That makes sense to me.
And I’d really like to see Phil’s explanation of why that comment deserved a gold star. I can’t tell if the comment was meant as a sarcastic swipe at the majority of the readers, or if the author really meant that he couldn’t figure out something that’s fairly obvious. (Yes, of course, a lot of the readers are gamers, and yes, of course, they are reacting defensively to what Shanna says.) Either way, I don’t understand why the comment got the gold star. But maybe Phil read it completely differently than I did.
I Gold Star’d it because it made me laugh. It made T laugh, too. I even asked him if he thought I should Gold Star it (first time I have ever asked him that about any comment). He approved.
I think the fact that it had equal odds of being snark or sincere is probably why we thought it was so funny.
That makes sense. I know that’s what you guys usually use the gold starts for, so that’s part of why I was confused. Thanks!
*stars, even. If you start using gold starts I expect a royalty check.
Hey, thanks for answering!
If you are still looking back here, do you mind explaining “…after five years of being a very deliberately preachy comic?” I thought that was you saying that, but now I think you may have been throwing what the OP’s author had said elsewhere back at him/her. I don’t know what the other person might have said before, so it’s hard to interpret, but I would have interpreted the OP as just being about the last 2 pages. (I think it conflates what a character says with what the authors are saying, in any case.)
Sure. I guess part of my issue is, if her behavior is supposed to draw a negative reaction, why do the creators seem to be okay with people implying all sorts of negative things about people who react to her negatively? And if we’re supposed to applaud her behavior, why?
T and I are on the same page about basically everything about this page, comments said by either of us included.
This is a deep, complicated question. Also a good question!
I don’t really know how to answer it, though. I like Shanna. Obviously T likes Shanna. There’s no character we put in this comic that we don’t “like.” I think a character can be liked as a concept, independently of whether or not you like them as a person.
For example, in Death Note: Misa-Misa is borderline unbearable as a person, but as a character I would say you really can’t do the story at all without her in it. Her complexities and quirks and motivations are unique and interesting, even if her voice is grating and she says dumb shit all the time. But her devotion to Light, even as he uses and abuses her, even as she knows she’s just being used… well, it speaks a lot on the tragedy of abusive relationships and how someone so full of love, tenderness, and care can be wasted on the likes of a sociopath like Light. And that same relationship is just as easily applied in the lens of analyzing them from the perspective of “lover and lover” or “religious figure and believer.”
And Light, for that matter, is the most unlikable person in the entire story. He lies to everyone, cares only for himself, sees even his family as merely tools in quest, gets people killed, fucks over a bunch of truly honest and morally good cops (a rarity in this day and age)… He’s King Shitstain, Lord of Skidmarks, Prince of Poops, Duke of Deuces, but Goddamn if he isn’t one of the most interesting character concepts in fucking years!
So yeah, it’s like that, I guess. Some people focus on the likability of a character based on their personality, some people focus on the likability of a character based on their concept, or role in a story. Who they are vs what they represent, etc.
So I guess she *is* supposed to be “likable.” But maybe not in the way you would think that means?
Okay, yeah. I getcha. For me, then, the deal is that I like her role in the story, I definitely see the need for it, and her own personal struggles are pretty compelling — I actually felt the moment when she was talking to the rest home administrator (I’m probably using the wrong term, but you get who I’m referring to) was pretty powerful. But yeah, as a person I don’t think I could stand to be in her presence for very long. Which makes it difficult to read pages where she’s just generally being a meanie.
Given the charged atmosphere surrounding gaming, women, and gaming journalism, I felt like I was walking on eggs in terms of how to express my dislike of Shanna the person without offending anyone — and also without coming across as too negative!
Hah, yeah, imagine how we felt scripting it.
I’ll bet. I really appreciate you guys responding!
I generally prefer a more clandestine approach to interacting with you guys, but every once in a while T reminds me it’s better to just rock talk.
And said clandestine-ness is mostly in service of trying to let the work speak for itself as much as possible.
I have a very different outlook to religion and politics than many of the people in my part of the country. So I can appreciate being friends with people who don’t share my view points. I like Shanna. She’s risking everything to save 6 people she’s never met. In my book, that says a lot about a person.
… Wait… Light is supposed to be unlikeable?
Seriously?
Strange. It was always L I couldn’t tolerate. I found Light to be vastly entertaining. I was rooting for him to win. Shame it didn’t play out that way. L was just a pointless douche though.
For whatever it may be worth I don’t like her much either. I respect her, and I anticipate that she’ll slowly grow on me as she progressively draws her foot farther and farther out of her mouth, but that we’ll ultimately never see perfectly eye to eye. Then again I don’t dislike H.R. so I’m probably not the best barometer for what you should think about people. >.>
. . .
Have we still not managed to get that ghost out of the avatar machine?
I do not control the avatar machine.
The avatar machine controls me.
Kind of reminds me of the Metalocalypse episode where a reporter accused them of being racist because metal fans are predominantly white.
Ah! Suddenly, Shanna has a point. And however skewed her views may be, they are at least up to date on recent events. I smell the start of character development! ^_^
She had a point all the time because
fivesix people disappeared, but yeah. Suddenly – BAM! – sepia world becomes truly up-to-date with our present, instead of being a fictional world whose scary issues couldn’t hurt the reader.Upon reflection, though, this kinda happens all the time in the comic. Sepia world feels a little bit more real every time a real world logo appears – BAM! Starbucks! – or even real persons – BAM! Joel Watson!
I could have been clearer. I meant she now has a point behind her general anti-gaming stance.
“Some of its designers are happy as long as they are men”…
Oh dear … another gender-war crazed woman … *sigh*
Above: a typical case of someone proofing the point he wanted to refute.
it can be two things…that statement doesn’t in itself actually “proof” anything.
if you want to intentionally read something into banana’s post thats on you.
Your point being?
it doesn’t help that those women she mentioned tend to intentionally jab or provoke those specific types…
either that or egg on by trolling back
Eh, I don’t know why people feel the need to get all defensive of their favorite type of gaming. For better or ill its not REPORTERS who are going to change anything in the gaming industry: Its the people paying the bills.
If enough of these He-Man Woman Haters or whatever we believe these “dinosaurs” to be keep buying games of their favorite type hand over fist then they will continue to exist in some form or another no matter how many “news” articles or enraged forums sprout up. You know barring some laws being passed that are so freedom restricting that they will boomerang nastily on the group that supported them…
I hate free-to-play games. No matter how they start they all end the same and more and more they are simply starting that way. Doesn’t matter how I feel though cause waaaaay too many folks are going there and spending their time and idiotically their money on the damn things so they will continue to grow like a cancer.
And don’t use WoW as an example of paid games being worse. Blizzard decided to copy everybody else who looks even mildly successful for a few months. Stealing features from here and there for like ever. So now that everything is going free to play WoW is stealing its way to becoming like them more and more all the time. A paid game copying free to plays. Sad.
These pages have not aged as well as the rest of the comics