Book 3 - Page 278

When dolls cry

Book 3 - Page 278
Comic - Book 3 - Page 278
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Hmmm. I always get a bit uncomfortable around this kind of personality profiling... I mean, in this case, I have issues with the system generally, because it seems to confuse behaviours that arise from the underlying psychology (e.g. 'affectionate', 'withdrawn') with psychology.

'Affectionate' is a way in which you react to a given situation, because of who you are, not a definition of who you are. People are not toys who reward you if you play with them right.

But leaving that aside - because I am probably poorly representing a system I will happily agree I really don't understand - I have issues with any kind of personality modelling system, because, well, people are just more complex than that.

I mean: do you think you could come up with a workable personality categorisation system for cats? Because cats have personalities, for sure. And that seems like it would be a useful thing to have, right? So you can place cats into suitable homes where they'll be happy?

So if one of those doesn't exist - and as far as I'm aware it doesn't - for cats, then what the hell makes us think we can come up with one that works for even normal everyday humans?

And Wanda, of course is not (A) normal, (B) everyday, or (C) human. She doesn't even live in Stupidworld! Of course she's also not (D) real... but that's the point of this game, isn't it? Rob makes some lines on a monitor dance and speak, and we judge whether or not we think they're convincingly human.

So... what kind of person do you have to be, to say something like "Grief is not a particularly helpful thing... but I understand it"? And then to comfort the doll involved? How do you have to feel, for that to be something that comes naturally?

That she does it in front of her minions/tools/colleagues/fellows/friends... yeah. I think to imagine that it could even cross her mind to care what Claud and Ivan think of her, is a gross misunderstanding of Wanda.

In her mind, like everyone else, they're dust that hasn't stopped moving yet. With her magic sense, the first, the strongest thing she perceives about a person is the nature of their body, the strings she could pull to animate them, if their life was cut. She sees the puppets in the people - and the beautiful, magical candle flame of their lives which is the only thing separating them from the uncroaked... and which she knows will gutter out a brief instant from now. Why would you care about the opinion of someone who will be dead next second? Why would you worry whether the flame gutters out next second, or this one?

But you grieve for it... oh, you grieve.

That is my reading of Wanda. Tragic heroine? Victim? Monster? They are all facets of the same dark crystal - the only thing that changes is perspective.
Ansan Gotti wrote:
Sorry, I'm not seeing caterpillar or cockroach in the Binding of Isaac figure. What am I missing?


I actually hope they're right and I'm wrong, but I'm seeing more of a "Muppet" effect where the lower half of the body are just psuedo-limbs; not functional, but there to leave an impression of a full body, much like you see on puppet shows.
I just thought the dolls was curled up in the fetal position the whole time so you never really see it's lower half. Just looks like a naked pink doll man.
khamul wrote:
Hmmm. I always get a bit uncomfortable around this kind of personality profiling... I mean, in this case, I have issues with the system generally, because it seems to confuse behaviours that arise from the underlying psychology (e.g. 'affectionate', 'withdrawn') with psychology.

I appreciate everything you're saying here, but these terms aren't intended to be psychological profiles - they're tropes, used often enough (at least in anime) that they got their own terminology. Certainly nobody is arguing that Wanda fits any particular trope - that's why Chiu gave her the (German-inspired) compound term that includes every one: kuutsunyandere. This might be as close a term we can get to properly capture how I feel about Wanda:

  • 7% would hang with

  • 13% would run screaming from

  • 9% want to cradle in arms and say everything will be ok

  • 17% want to grab by shoulders and shake hard

  • 12% in love

  • 14% in lust

  • 5% revolted by

  • 9% inspired by

  • 14% infuriated by


Of course, any way you slice it she adds up to 100% badass woman. #feminism
khamul wrote:
Hmmm. I always get a bit uncomfortable around this kind of personality profiling... I mean, in this case, I have issues with the system generally, because it seems to confuse behaviours that arise from the underlying psychology (e.g. 'affectionate', 'withdrawn') with psychology.

'Affectionate' is a way in which you react to a given situation, because of who you are, not a definition of who you are. People are not toys who reward you if you play with them right.

....

So... what kind of person do you have to be, to say something like "Grief is not a particularly helpful thing... but I understand it"? And then to comfort the doll involved? How do you have to feel, for that to be something that comes naturally?

That she does it in front of her minions/tools/colleagues/fellows/friends... yeah. I think to imagine that it could even cross her mind to care what Claud and Ivan think of her, is a gross misunderstanding of Wanda.

In her mind, like everyone else, they're dust that hasn't stopped moving yet. With her magic sense, the first, the strongest thing she perceives about a person is the nature of their body, the strings she could pull to animate them, if their life was cut. She sees the puppets in the people - and the beautiful, magical candle flame of their lives which is the only thing separating them from the uncroaked... and which she knows will gutter out a brief instant from now. Why would you care about the opinion of someone who will be dead next second? Why would you worry whether the flame gutters out next second, or this one?

But you grieve for it... oh, you grieve.

That is my reading of Wanda. Tragic heroine? Victim? Monster? They are all facets of the same dark crystal - the only thing that changes is perspective.


SAY IT AGAIN. I completely agree. This is a beautiful Wanda moment, I missed it while she was in jail. Can't wait for the queen of the dead to get moving again, and I'm very excited for what this new unit means for her team. Is that just a ghost vessel for the residual dead thinkomancers that Wanda can now just hide in her pocket?
lordfisch wrote:
khamul wrote:
Hmmm. I always get a bit uncomfortable around this kind of personality profiling... I mean, in this case, I have issues with the system generally, because it seems to confuse behaviours that arise from the underlying psychology (e.g. 'affectionate', 'withdrawn') with psychology.

I appreciate everything you're saying here, but these terms aren't intended to be psychological profiles - they're tropes, used often enough (at least in anime) that they got their own terminology. Certainly nobody is arguing that Wanda fits any particular trope - that's why Chiu gave her the (German-inspired) compound term that includes every one: kuutsunyandere. This might be as close a term we can get to properly capture how I feel about Wanda:

  • 7% would hang with

  • 13% would run screaming from

  • 9% want to cradle in arms and say everything will be ok

  • 17% want to grab by shoulders and shake hard

  • 12% in love

  • 14% in lust

  • 5% revolted by

  • 9% inspired by

  • 14% infuriated by


Of course, any way you slice it she adds up to 100% badass woman. #feminism
All words are linguistic tokens to convey concepts that radically simplify and thus fundamentally distort complex realities.

Specifying that this applies to words we use to describe people without acknowledging that it is true of all words naturally tends to imply (and more often than not reflects) the idea that it is somehow not as true of other words.

On the other hand...

My feelings about Wanda are complex (more so than I can or wish to easily explain). Wanda as a character is more complex, because Rob probably cares about her more than I do (far more than he does about, say, Parson). But Wanda as a character is a subset of Rob's cognitive process concerning Erfworld as a whole, and Erfworld as a whole is a subset of Rob's cognitive creative efforts, and that's a subset of Rob.

I would feel uncomfortable dissecting Rob, because Rob is a person. Wanda is not. That doesn't mean I wouldn't dissect Rob if there was some important reason to do so, just that I wouldn't do it casually or for fun.
No one in particular wrote:
Horatio Von Becker wrote:
Oh. The page title is a reference to Higurashi no Naku Koro Ne. Isaac is referencing both a cockroach and a cicada, then.

Or, in keeping with the themes of Erfworld being built on rock, it's a reference to the Prince song "When Doves Cry"

Oh, probably. I get probably half of my popculture from TvTropes.
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
lordfisch wrote:
khamul wrote:
Hmmm. I always get a bit uncomfortable around this kind of personality profiling... I mean, in this case, I have issues with the system generally, because it seems to confuse behaviours that arise from the underlying psychology (e.g. 'affectionate', 'withdrawn') with psychology.

I appreciate everything you're saying here, but these terms aren't intended to be psychological profiles - they're tropes, used often enough (at least in anime) that they got their own terminology. Certainly nobody is arguing that Wanda fits any particular trope - that's why Chiu gave her the (German-inspired) compound term that includes every one: kuutsunyandere. This might be as close a term we can get to properly capture how I feel about Wanda:

  • 7% would hang with

  • 13% would run screaming from

  • 9% want to cradle in arms and say everything will be ok

  • 17% want to grab by shoulders and shake hard

  • 12% in love

  • 14% in lust

  • 5% revolted by

  • 9% inspired by

  • 14% infuriated by


Of course, any way you slice it she adds up to 100% badass woman. #feminism
All words are linguistic tokens to convey concepts that radically simplify and thus fundamentally distort complex realities.

Specifying that this applies to words we use to describe people without acknowledging that it is true of all words naturally tends to imply (and more often than not reflects) the idea that it is somehow not as true of other words.

On the other hand...

My feelings about Wanda are complex (more so than I can or wish to easily explain). Wanda as a character is more complex, because Rob probably cares about her more than I do (far more than he does about, say, Parson). But Wanda as a character is a subset of Rob's cognitive process concerning Erfworld as a whole, and Erfworld as a whole is a subset of Rob's cognitive creative efforts, and that's a subset of Rob.

I would feel uncomfortable dissecting Rob, because Rob is a person. Wanda is not. That doesn't mean I wouldn't dissect Rob if there was some important reason to do so, just that I wouldn't do it casually or for fun.

Honestly, I find Parson quite compelling. Now, granted, I haven't read Book 0. But there's a reason he's the primary lens we see Erfworld through, and I don't think Rob would use him as such if Rob didn't care a lot about him as a character.
I agree that Rob cares a lot about Parson as a character, Rob cares about all his characters, and Parson far from least. But he seems to care a good bit more about Wanda.

Then again, maybe I just see it that way because I'm the one that cares about her. It's easy to believe, when you find a character very interesting, that the author must have put a lot of work into that character. It's annoying when you discover that your absolute favorite character in an entire series is the one that the author put there as a two dimensional strawman to be mocked.

It's less annoying when all the other characters are even more shallow and also obviously exist for no other purpose than being mocked.

Anyway, I like that Rob gives even the transient gag characters a certain depth and dignity. If my favorite character got one text update and croaked in a fire, that character would get taken seriously as a person.
keybounce wrote:
HighJumper wrote:
Frozen Northman wrote:
I think Claud's coloration is an extension of both his current Signamancy and his recent linkup with Ivan.

It shows he's been taken for granite.


On behalf of my Geology TA, I must respond with the following despite how many people may not understand the pronunciation:

Gneiss.



Can this sub-thread just die, alright? :-)


So I don't know what happened. That was the first line of a longer post, that included puns about minecraft stone, and included a link to you youtube video that actually attempted to identify which rock minecraft:stone actually was.

But everything after that first line went poof.

I did not intend to stop the punning. Please, just bury this, deep, like at the bottom of an ocean trench. Let it get taken down into the earth, and burned up in the lava.

(And come back out in a volcano into the air?)