Something Positive started a new plot thread in yesterday's comic that involves an author who is almost certainly a stand in for OSC. The plot thread continues in today's comic.
Posted by Constant Reader (Member # 7282) on :
That very well could be about Card. It's interesting.
Posted by Judas (Member # 7355) on :
interesting..
-Judas
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
hmm... wordy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's almost certainly about Card, since Randy was at the Boston con in question.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Wow. At least it wasn't Penny Arcade ... they would have depicted Card eating a baby Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I loved how the comic strip so obviously values open-mindedness and actually thinking about the possibility that the other person's ideas might have some value, instead of rejecting them completely because they contradict one's own prejudices.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
The good thing about stuff not being funny when it's being preachy is that it's far less effective.
Things that are funny and preachy are devestating, but rare like a steak walked through a warm room.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
since when does a steak WALK!?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Cleary it was escorted, you big goober.
Don't make me come over there.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
*makes her go over there*
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I would think that the fact that the steak is walking makes it even MORE rare than Ralphie intended. Her statement still holds.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Thank you, Puppy.
You may join my hoochie stable.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Why is the strip called "Something Positive" when it is the exact opposite of that? I mean, the language alone isn't exactly positive.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
The steak shall nolonger walk! WHY!? BECAUSE I PUT IN ON MY BARBEQUE, COOKED IT WITH BBQ SAUCE AND ATE IT!!! GHWAHAHA! Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Is it a reaction to "somethingawful.com" perhaps?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. I think it's precisely because the strip is generally cynical. As Farmgirl observed, that would be the sarcastic thing to do -- and never let it be said that the author passed up any opportunity for cynicism.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Oddly enough, for a strip that revels in its cynicism (and which has deservedly earned the label "equal opportunity offender" in its criticism of everyone and everything), I find Something Positive to be at the same time one of the most genuinely tolerant and uplifting strips on the internet. Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but for every strip that relentlessly mocks stupidity, there's another strip that takes a fair look at both sides of the argument (the latest strip included).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'd never seen it before this link, but I've gone and read the first month and enjoyed it quite a bit. Much better than a lot of the other internet humor I've seen.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's probably my single favorite web comic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My single favorite is Schlock Mercenary (recently having supplanted Sluggy Freelance due to Pete's inability to keep a deadline, and Howard's steadfast work ethic). But S*P is up there.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, they're both fantastic comics--probably my second and third favorite web comics, respectively.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't pay anything for Sluggy, so I'm willing to forgive Pete. Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
It would be kind of ironic; a friend's friend told me that he thought Mr. Card was homophobic from one his essay on gay marriage. I suppose some people will take one's opinion to the extremes.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Bloom County was always my favorite strip, but it almost invariably stopped being funny the moment it became preachy. (With a very few exceptions. And that's only because Berke Breathed is a FREAKING GENIUS.)
That preachy/funny law is, like, a cosmic one, man.
[ March 15, 2005, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I hate Something Positive. It's relentlessly mean-spirited. I realize it's fashionable these days to be nasty to everyone and everything--it's probably a backlash against the mush-minded political correctness pseudo-philosophy--but that doesn't mean I have to think it's cool. There's got to be a middle ground somewhere.
Penny Arcade actually did take on OSC once. Well, the Ender's Game movie, anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't pay anything for Sluggy, so I'm willing to forgive Pete."
I do pay something for Sluggy -- as one of the founding members of the DotN -- so I'm not. Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Sluggy and Schlock are both up there, although which one's on top tend to be determined by Pete's output- Howard is as consistent in his quality as he is in his update schedule (which is to say, it's consistently very high), but I think the best Sluggy stories are near-perfect. Unfortunately, the current story, "Oceans Unmoving," is not one of these. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the current storyline has potential, actually; it just suffers from the agonizingly undead pacing that's afflicted Pete's updates.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, I intend to support Pete by buying all his books in hardcover. And I didn't join DotN because of his scheduling.
Overall, though, Sluggy has the best continuity and story arcs I've ever seen. The only other writer that comes close is Joss Wheedon. And his schedule is even worse than Pete's.
Posted by GoddessVirlomi (Member # 7532) on :
Hey, I'm a new poster here and this post totally caught my attention. I've been a fan of OSC for 10 years now. I may disagree with his views on a lot of things because I am quite the liberal, but that doesn't change my mind on OSC or his books. He's one of the best authors out there these days. His insight into the minds of people, religion, philosophy, and politics amazes me with every book of his that I read. So I may disagree with a lot of his views, but it totally doesn't stop me from being a huge fan of his works.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You should start a thread to that effect Goddess! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Aaaand, looks like the plot thread draws to a close with today's comic.
[ March 16, 2005, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by GoddessVirlomi (Member # 7532) on :
OMG! That's just so perfect. My best friend who happens to be gay is also a huge OSC fan. We were just talking about this the other day when we were trying to decide whether or not we were going to drive up to the Greensboro book signing today. He wasn't sure if he wanted to go and my reply was quite similar to that comic. I told him to go and get his book signed...he didn't have to ask him to marry him.
[ March 16, 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: GoddessVirlomi ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Okay, that didn't go where I thought it was going. I still don't like Something Positive, because the negative far outweighs the positive in the strips I've read, but I admit that story disappointed my fears as to its direction.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
Ralphie,
Berke Breathed is a genius. I hold him singularly responsible for warping my developing cerebrum in ways that all other artists I encountered would be measured by.
so, "pear pimples for hairy fishnuts"? preachy or funny? Still resonates in my mind.
didn't care much for Outland, I must say. Maybe I outgrew Opus and the gang.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but for every strip that relentlessly mocks stupidity, there's another strip that takes a fair look at both sides of the argument (the latest strip included).
Who called it, baby!
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: so, "pear pimples for hairy fishnuts"? preachy or funny? Still resonates in my mind.
Brilliantly funny. As was, "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still bologna."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I really like that, although it wasn't funny at all. Then again, it wasn't really meant to be.
OSC, I can see why you didn't like it, but I thought it was pretty well thought out. A lot of people, right or wrong, don't agree with your stances on a lot of things. Particularly your stance on gay marriage.
That is fine. I don't think the strip was trying to present an accurate view of you opinions, I think it was making a different point. One about tolerance of opinions other than your own. Sure, it set up a straw man to do it, but they can only get so much into a comic strip....it isn't an essay here at Hatrack...
To me the comic was more about peoples reactions to what they thought you were saying, and not really about your actual views at all.
Wordy, but well done, IMO.
I even agree with the conclusion....I have never been starstruck like a lot of people seem to be, and I don't expect celebrities to be better people than I am just because they are famous. And I really don't expect them to have the same opinions as I do about everything. How boring would THAT be?
I may not like all your opinions, and I am sure you wouldn't care for some of mine....but I was still very, very happy to meet you and your wife in Boston, and have you sign some of my books. I avoid your political columns because I don't agree with them....but I still buy your books, and enjoy rereading them often.
And I love posting here at Hatrack. I almost feel like that strip was about me, in some ways.
So I guess while it's views on your opinions may not be accurate according to you, the overall feel of it rang true to me....and I liked the point that authors don't give up the right to have their own opinions, and that readers can enjoy reading their books regardless of the authors politics or opinions.
Kwea
[ March 17, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I am star-struck, and I like it that way. I have very good taste in my irrational hero-worshipping.
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Verily - I apologize that my comic yesterday did not meet your lowered expectations. I will work harder in the future to see to it all my story evolutions follow only the path expected of me
(kidding! I swear!)
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It depends on if you choose to believe the "racist" or the "better looking" was describing... McKenzie. Welcome to hatrack. Your blonde character reminds me of that fellow on "Fat Albert" who had eyes growing out of his green knit hat.
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Thanks for the welcome - and that's an interesting comparison. I'd never thought of that. I've been told Mike looks like an emaciated Guy Gardner, though.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Kwea, I'm not seeing anything in this thread that indicates that OSC didn't like the comic. On the contrary, although he disagrees with the comic's writer politically, he seemed to genuinely appreciate the comic's open-minded stance.
[ March 17, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I'm sure this is what was being referred to:
quote:I loved how the comic strip so obviously values open-mindedness and actually thinking about the possibility that the other person's ideas might have some value, instead of rejecting them completely because they contradict one's own prejudices.
At first this sounded like sarcasm to me as well.
*adjusts sarcasto reader*
edit: It *still* sounds like sarcasm, but Geoff is making me doubt myself.
[ March 17, 2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I thought he was being sarcastic, too.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I'da laid money.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yup, took that as sarcasm as well.
Randy, welcome to the forum. Have you checked out the Books, Films, Food and Culture side?
Posted by GoddessVirlomi (Member # 7532) on :
quote: I am star-struck, and I like it that way. I have very good taste in my irrational hero-worshipping.
I have to agree that I'm the same way. And as irrational as it sounds, when I find out that one of the "stars" I worship has views that are so drastically different from my own especially on topics I feel are important, it does make me step back and re-think my hero worship.
But with OSC I didn't even have to step back to re-think. I love his books way too much. A man who has such amazing ideas, writes such mind blowing books, and has such an insight into the minds of different peoples and cultures still is deserving of my hero worship. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
See, I've never really been one to go in for hero worship*. The only person I've ever really set on a pedestal in my life was an early girlfriend, and that came back to bite me pretty hard. I don't really have any idols. There are people I respect, certainly, some famous and some not (and quite a few of them are members of this forum and its various satellites), but worship? Why would you worship another human being? It's always struck me as a recipe for disappointment, if not disaster.
[*Edit--except for Ralphie]
[ March 17, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Except for me, Noemon. You forgot to say, "Except for Ralphie."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That goes without saying.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
My post has been corrected.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Great - Now I have all this pressure! Oh, the expectations you place upon me!
(Good boy.)
Posted by GoddessVirlomi (Member # 7532) on :
Ok, so "worship" was the wrong word. It's not like I have pictures of celebrities up along with my Hindu gods and goddesses that I worship each day!
It's more like there are certain famous people who through their work have found ways to touch my life. Because of that, I guess I see them differently then others. It's more like you said...it's a great deal of respect and not so much worship.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Are we sure the story arc is actually over? I'm not, considering that OSC did some writing for a comic recently...
AJ
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Thanks for the welcome, Noemon. No - I've really not ventured too far around here. I only learned of this forum because a few readers contacted me and told me I was being discussed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hey, rkm were you aware that OSC is writing comics now? I'm waiting to find out if the "comics" bit in your last strip was deliberate or not. <grin>
[ March 17, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Ha! No, I didn't know that. I don't keep up with Marvel, but have a few friends who are relentless Mervelphiles. It was meant as a shot at them.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
hmm, I could see a couple of devious way to spin it, if you want, now that you've given yourself the opening... <grin> AJ
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Ha - naw. I'd already decided the ending of the story and would rather not change it.
I'm all lazy like that. Thanks, though.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
No problem, I just couldn't tell if you knew or not. I'm all for laziness!
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:No - I've really not ventured too far around here. I only learned of this forum because a few readers contacted me and told me I was being discussed.
I thought about emailing you myself, but given that I don't actually know you I thought that it might be a bit odd. And then I kind of forgot about it.
Have a look around, especially on the other side, if you have the time and the inclination to do so. The discussions are ususally fairly interesting, and I've met quite a few great people here.
[ March 17, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
Thanks for the invite, but I don't foresee that happening. Considering a few of the replies and some of the emails I've received this past week, I should probably cut my posts after this thread. I'd rather not cause problems.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
lol, you aren't causing problems, at least on this forum! But do what you need to. I'm sorry people have been sending you nasty e-mails.
AJ
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I figured that you were unlikely to do so, but I thought I'd extend the invitation anyway. I can't really imagine what kind of trouble you're afraid you might cause though. You seem to be intelligent, articulate, and not an ass, so I don't really see the problem. Not that I'm trying to convince you, of course.
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
*shrugs* I get a lot of those anyway, and it's not like I've had a storm of hate in my email box. I've had some from people who felt I was being homophobic, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Homophobic for not roundly condemning your OSC stand-in? Well, it is an issue that people feel passionately about, and it isn't like people have to take an IQ test before they can get on the internet.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Wait. What? Then what exactly was that whole thing I did for SBC-Yahoo! in order to get a dsl line?
Oh, no. No. It can't be true. After I've been so careful....
....I was focus-grouped!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
But Zal, now you can begin to heal!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Considering a few of the replies and some of the emails I've received this past week, I should probably cut my posts after this thread. I'd rather not cause problems.
Believe me, you'd fit right in. Well, maybe not. You might have to cut back on the midget porn jokes.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::nods::
Sakeriver would probably be the more appropriate venue for those.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote: I'd rather not cause problems.
See, now, with this response I think he wouldn't fit in at all.
Causing problems is part of the user agreement.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
He didn't say he *wouldn't*, just that he'd be reluctant to. I'm sure he'd do his duty, if goaded frequently enough.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
For what it's worth, I'm a Jatraquera since a pretty long time and I think you would fit in perfectly too, rkmilholland.
Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
And yes, in case you were wondering, I am beyond bored right now. Posted by caligoarye (Member # 7539) on :
Hey Randy!
Firstly, *POUNCE*
2ndly, am I one of said Marvelphiles? I know I had a few conversations with people where I was Mike, but I can't remember if you're one of the people I did talk to.
3rdly, Darn you for bringing me out of my lurkerhoodom. :-P (I'm mainly here for spoilers...thought about commenting on this, but everything I tried to write felt like I was trying to speak for you.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think Randy's probably long gone, caligoarye--if you're friends with him you'll probably have better luck emailing him or something. Welcome to Hatrack though.
Posted by qirien (Member # 7638) on :
Hmm, I thought OSC's comment was sarcastic, too . . . I guess it could go either way, since at the end the message was, "don't let it destroy your views of the books", but there was also an implicit assumption that OSC's essay was "wrong" . . .
I can't believe no one mentioned the webcomics GPF and RealLife -- two of my favorites. :-D
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My very first instinct was to think it was sarcastic, just based on the wording. But it didn't really make sense that way, so I took it at face value.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Of course, it's worth noting that OSC made his post long before the "end message" of the plotline was revealed.
I still tend to think he was being sarcastic, myself. Somehow the phrase "so obviously" strikes me as something that Card wouldn't have used, had he actually been offering serious praise. I could easily be wrong, of course.
Posted by Verai (Member # 7507) on :
Like deciphering phrases from the Bible.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Clearly OSC meant to say that the Catholic Church is the only legitimate Christian Church.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::nods::
It's right there in black and white if you know the right mathematical formula to apply to the text of Ender's Game.
Posted by Diko (Member # 6060) on :
Kwea wrote:
quote: I avoid your political columns because I don't agree with them....but I still buy your books, and enjoy rereading them often.
I do not agree with some of OSC's views on things either (you'll be hard pressed to find someone you agree with about -everything- though!). Not only am I not inclined to say someone is a "bad person" because they believe differently than me, but I am also not the type to turn down reading an intelligent, well written essay simply because I won't agree with what's written.
I would actually -rather- read articles I don't agree with than ones I do. You don't learn from only reading one viewpoint on an idea. Just as I would not want the media to leave anything out, or only present one version of the story (which may or may not be correct), I would not censor my own reading either. I -want- to know all sides of the story, and to make up my own mind about whatever the topic is based on more than one viewpoint. To only read one stance on an issue, you're blocking out the possibility of that stance being wrong, and as that has a tendency to happen fairly regularly in the world, I like to keep my options open.
I'm not attacking you or anything, Kwea, or telling you what to do...your statement simply caused me to do quite a bit of thinking about what I choose to read, and I quoted you to remind people where I was coming from. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Yeah. That's how I feel about his columns. I look forward to reading them each week. Obviously I'm not the only one, despite everyone's protestations to the contrary, because each week somebody else manages to be outraged. If everybody who disagreed with Card ceased reading his columns, they would have nothing to be outraged about, neh?
But then, I also listen to AM talk radio when I'm bored driving around at night--until I'm too sickened to listen further, which doesn't take too long with Savage or Hannity. I can take Dr. Laura a bit longer. (I could probably listen to OSC all day, by comparison. He doesn't even begin to compare to those folks.)
EDIT TO ADD (since I have the last post anyway . . . )
I went back and reread the comics and OSC's response, and I'm just about convinced that I was wrong and kwea was right. The post seems sarcastic to me now.
[ March 25, 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
Hi, first time poster, long time reader.
I've always wanted to type that, reminds me of people calling in to a radio show. It sounds stupid but it's relevant. I'd post a little bit more about myself but that's not terribly relevant, what is relevant is this topic and how it drew me here.
I've been reading OSC for some time (my favorite work thus far being The Worthing Saga. It's truly a masterpeice), and I've heard rumors of his distinctly conservative bent. I've been a raving left-wing radical for as long as I can remember, and have had homosexual friends since I left the womb of a conservative midwestern high school. What I can say is that S*P was dead on, as it usually is. Your heros are men (one of the lessons in TWS), and as men you'll be likely to disagree with them, their motives, and their viewpoints. What they produce that makes them your hero, however, is the only thing that matters in your calculation of how you estimate them.
That said, I just read the essay OSC wrote regarding gay marriage. It was also dead-on. It's the only time I've read an essay on the subject from a disparate viewpoint from my own without being offended or distraught by it's complete failure to provide a good reason that gay marriage isn't a matter of civil rights. Bravo.
Even if I still disagree. Cheers. I'm sure I'll be following these forums for awhile.
Posted by rkmilholland (Member # 7566) on :
This thread is still active... that's... kind of scary.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
No, that's normal. Around here, we can harp on things for ages.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
hahaha
I just found this thread in a search, looking for something else....
I do read some of OSC's essays, but usually I don't because I don;t always feel that he is telling the truth in them...not that he is lying. He doesn't lie, at least not that I have seen.
But he goes for the extreme type of opinion to create discussions, and I don't usually like that type of discussion regardless of which side of the fence it is coming from.
I hate reading Ann Coulture, Rush Limbaugh....not because of what they say as much as the hate and vitriol they spill everywhere every time they open their mouths. I don't like it when Dem's start accusing every single person who disagrees with them of being cruel and heartless either.
OS's political opinions are a lot different from mine, at least from what I have read in WW. I don't have a problem with that at all, but sometimes I wonder if I am being manipulated when I am reading them. I can't tell what part of the arguments are intended to stir up conflict, although I believe that he really believes what he is writing.
Some of the others I mentioned are a little....soft...on fact finding. OSC researches his topics better than the others, IMO, and I trust him to not lie to me, which is not true of the others.
But when I come here, I don't always want to read a political opinion, I usually want to read and write, or even have an actual debate here with someone.
I prefer to have a stake in a conversation, rather than just read an article I usually disagree with.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I guess it could go either way, since at the end the message was, "don't let it destroy your views of the books", but there was also an implicit assumption that OSC's essay was "wrong" . . .