[0615] Fox Fan
└ posted on Thursday, 11 September 2014, by Novil
- Lydia: Is something wrong, Steve?
- Steve: I… forgot to turn off the stove. The roast’s completely burned!
- Lydia: Oh, that’s too bad. But I’m full anyway.
- Steve: I’m not feeling so well, Lydia.
- Lydia: Yeah, you’re quite pale. I hope you won’t get sick.
- Lydia: Maybe I should go.
- Steve: Yes, maybe that’d be better.
- Lydia: But before that I want to take a look at your fox collection!
- Steve: Then this way, please.
- Lydia: Is it true that you have over fifty paintings and prints?
- Steve: Yes, I love foxes!
- Steve: I have a very bad feeling about this.
- Lydia: Maybe a little too much, don’t you think?
“Maybe one or maybe most of them but the strip didn’t acknowledged that.”
I actually have something else to say about this. It’s a bit of a rant, so please excuse me in advance. Or don’t. 🙂
When I was taking Drama classes, little over ten years ago, I learned in Dramaturgy what I find to be one of the most fundamental lessons in reading, studying and understanding a dramatic text.
If the text doesn’t specity if, it doesn’t exist.
Take a little girl. If the text doesn’t specify her age, or even an age range, then she is effectively ageless. You can presume her age from what she says, from the way she acts; you can say she behaves like a normal five year old girl. But you can’t say she IS five years old, because she’s not. She’s ageless, because regardless of the hints the author strew around – hints which DO help create an age for the character – it’s never specified.
In fact, the character might be a precocious three year old. Or a retarded ten year old. Or an adult who likes pretending to be a child. If the text doesn’t say otherwise, all these things are possible, because the character is ageless.
(Note: I do admit that this sort of reading does make it harder for me to follow authors who rely on assumptions; there are authors who write most of everything like this, hinting at everything and never flat out stating. I sometimes fail to catch the subtleties, but I get the general gist because, to get the girl’s age example, whatever the character actually is and whatever her physical age, for all narrative intents and purposes she behaves in a childlike manner. If the author intended this character to indeed be a retarded ten year old, and I didn’t get it, it’s my loss, but because she behaves as though she were five, I can still safely construct a five-year-old girl in my mind as filler, until I have reason to do otherwise; all the while knowing it’s only an assumption I’m making)
(and I have never taken Sandra and Woo to be an example of a case where the author leaves the readers to assume, or works through subterfuges to hint at things)
So, to apply this to this story arc: Steve was shown as a paparazzi-style voyeuristic photographer. He put up offending pictures which pissed off Shadow and made him want to go Titus Andronic on Steve’s dérriere. So far, that is *all* that we know. So far we haven’t been shown that he DID post non-defecating or non-mating photos in his blog; therefore he hasn’t, until proven otherwise.
If the author intended us to think otherwise, the author wouldn’t have done things this way.
Because, heck yeah, authorship is all about leading the reading and manipulating his/her emotions and thoughts (and occasionally leaving clearings to allow for free thought). I never saw it as anything else. A REALLY good author will allow readers to make parallels, to jump to correct conclusions, in fact to make the reader a more interactive part of the story simply by being able to join a few dots together, or make parallels, either in the story itself or between the story and the reality we live in. But the whole point of authorship is to lead the reader down a path.
If the reader decides to stray off the path just because, without any clear indication why, then the story’s in trouble. Like this narrative arc, where the supposed Punisher and the supposed Justice are being criticised because Steve has all these redeeming qualities *which haven’t actually been shown anywhere*, because people are making excuses for this character *without any actual proof*.
In some deeper works, this sort of thinking leads to breakthroughs.
But it’s kinda out of place in this comic strip.
…and then of course there are books that become more than what the author intended, like Watership Down, which was written simply like an adventure book and became a political statement. Those are infrequent, I think you’ll agree.
“In his mind he did something that was done for a long time – “capture nature into pictures” and simply enjoy fruits of your labour. ”
I should also address this. Regardless of the reasons for what he did, he did it. Woo and Shadow are not interesting in his justifications, they are interested in what he did, and want him to feel how violated they feel (in this case by going overboard and giving him too much of his own medecine. Talking about the sculptures and photos here; the roast and the wine are much more direct messing about, because of how badly Shadow felt).
So the characters are reacting to his action with actions. The backstory is irrelevant for the purposes of the narrative. How many paparazzi do exactly the same thing? I know what I’m talking about because my uncle is a freelance photographer, and he does take great photos of group events, but he’s always on the lookout for celebs and hunting them down, and I find that disgusting. But he’s also doing what everyone else does, and enjoys the fruits of his labour.
And if I was in the receiving end of a guy like him, I’d probably react pretty much like Woo and Shadow, allowing for how these things translate into real life (i.e., I wouldn’t DO what they’re doing, obviously).
“because animals don’t use internet.”
“Woo, Shadow and Sid are animals, first and foremost. We can’t say that it’s right for them to have revenge, because it’s normal to take a pictures of animals and just put them on the internet and other stuff.”
“we don’t give animals right to have privacy.”
Doesn’t all of this miss the point that the animals in this comic have human characteristics and similarities to human beings? And that works like this do make a bridge between what happens to animals and what happens to people? Remember what I said about not assuming? Here it’s safe to assume and draw parallels between animals and people – both when being exploited for another’s viewing pleasure – because the animals were given so many human characteristics.
If they just behaved as animals, then yeah, this whole thing wouldn’t happen. And we wouldn’t have a Sandra and Woo webcomic.
“without Woo Shadow woudn’t know that there are pictures of him on the internet,”
So if someone posted homemade sex tapes of their ex in the internet, the ex’s desire for revenge would only be valid if the ex him/herself (usually “her”, sadly) went online? It would not be valid if a concerned friend pointed it out?
“The other fact is that Shadow’s life is ruined because of his reaction to these photos, ”
I’m not sure that Shadow’s life is ruined. His mating sure was, and his pride and dignity plummeted below -42º. Similarly, Steve’s life isn’t ruined, but his “mating” (his date, if you will) sure is, and so are his pride and dignity (eating and drinking that stuff and then being subjected to those pictures and sculptures as though he were the author will do that to you. I’m told).
Someone else said this strip was all about karmic retaliation, and you know, I’ve just explained how the punishment exactly mirrors the deed – up until now I wasn’t sure myself that it WAS exactly tit for tat. Now I see it is.
“But Steve is making his own pictures and puts them on his own blog. Just putting stuff on the internet. If they make traffic and attract viewers, more powah to you!”
I somehow skipped over this, which I also want to address (damn, I wish I could edit previous comments rather than double-posting like this).
Again with the sex-tape example; if he were posting sex- or defecating-pictures/videos of his ex (scat, and all that crap, bad pun intended), would you be saying “if it makes traffic and attracts viewers, more power to you”? (yes, I’m sadly aware of the existence of tubgirl, which I wish I could forget).
And more to the point: if he were posting YOUR photos or videos, would you say “More power to you”? Or if you happen to now date his ex and saw pictures of her defecating?
Mind: I’m responding directly to the bit you quoted above. My arguments about “But they’re just animals!” has been covered in the previous post, and I’m aware you mean both of them in the same context. But this is part of my point: Shadow and Woo and the group are not 100% animals; they have human characteristics, so it is perfectly normal for them to behave half-human and half-animal in this instance, and is what the whole comic is based one (though it’s branched out quite nicely, I really like this comic). Steve thinking they have no rights is immaterial; in the fictional world of S&W, which is clearly not a perfect replica of our world, he very clearly commited a wrong. It’s shown every step of the way.
I think I should repeat what I said just now. The fictional world of S&W is not a replica of our own. In this world, animals are a lot more human (if not humane), abusive schoolteachers get away with amazing things that would NOT be tolerated in our society (I hope!) and then are dealt with almost magically, etc etc etc etc etc. We can, and should, draw parallels between these two worlds, and these parallels make us laugh, and they make us think, and occasionally they make us cringe if the comparison is too apt. But hey – there’s a limit to it. If we start imposing our real-life world on the world of S&W, we get…
…well…
…we get this, pretty much. And as much as I am enjoying a proper discussion, because as of the past couple of days I’ve had nothing much better to do with my spare time, I don’t think any of it’s doing the comic any good.
@ Landbark:
Right-o. It’s been a pleasure talking with you. 🙂
Max wrote:
Yes, absolutely! If it’s all in fun and the author isn’t sincerely trying to sell me on racism or something, but just writing a story with Hitler as the good guy for comic effect, I will totally root for him! (Actually, I even felt a little sorry for him in “Downfall”.) In fact, a lot of silly fiction I read does things like this. That comic I linked to earlier, Brainslug, is about a massively homicidal bunny. Not a good guy. Not at all. He’s actually an escaped space convict who doesn’t care about the other characters and teeters perpetually on the brink of killing them all just for kicks. And I *totally* root for him! Not because I’m “pro-murder”, but because he’s the protagonist and it’s all in fun.
@ Peter Pears:
Steve hasn’t been shown to be a bad guy. In the same way Dorothy, Harriet and others have.
Sure, he humiliated Shadow, but in the offending strip he was about as relevant as some random guy walking by the main cast. Then there’s the fact that Woo and Sid have expressed sympathy over what they’ve done to Steve.
Steve has been written as a guy the reader should care about, it’s funny watching him go through the motions of Woo’s epic revenge plot, but it is clear that he isn’t supposed to be hated. If that were the case, he’d be a completely different character to Steve, the nature photographer who just happened to take a photo of the wrong fox.
Is there an uncensored version of this?
:O
I think they used stunt foxes for the photography.
Threadnaught wrote:
As @ Peter Pears pointed out, when you say, “Steve, the nature photographer” you’re making assumptions not in fact. The only thing about him you or any of us KNOW is that he takes pics of foxes getting it on and defecating. That you apply harmless motives of “nature photographer” to his actions is you inserting more into the character then is there. For all we have been shown he’s a total perv that just takes sex and scat photos of foxes and nothing else.
When Woo and Sid express sympathy for what he’s about to receive it’s for the same comedic effect that Bugs Bunny says a line like, “Ain’t I a stinker?” when he gets done humiliating Daffy. Do you watch Loony Toons and think to yourself, “Hey! Daffy didn’t do anything so bad he deserves to get shot! It actually IS rabbit season! I can tell by the color of the leaves!”
It’s called comedy people. If you’re taking this or ANY strip of S&W seriously then you need help. Seek a psychiatrist or check yourself into the nearest loony bin, because you’re failing to differentiate between fantasy and reality.