Book 3 - Page 291

The tower was riveted

Book 3 - Page 291
Comic - Book 3 - Page 291
Recent posts... (See full thread)
multilis wrote:
Beeskee wrote:
Charlie could have wiped out GK in book 1 with a few hundred Archons at any time. Why didn't he? (Other than the author needed Parson and GK to survive.)

I'm guessing Charlie just didn't want to risk the Archons or lose out on whatever income the extras would have been making otherwise.

Charlie never wipes out a side, he gets others to wipe out a side and pay him for that.

If you're good at something, never do it for free.
greycat wrote:
I see Shirley as a television sitcom mother. MrYar mentioned 70s/80s but I'm seeing more of a 50s/60s morality with 80s vocabulary.


The 50s/60s were before my time and I only have passing familiarity with Shirley Temple so I went with the '70s/80s' because that's as far back as I can feasibly go while still knowing what I'm talking about :P

Everything else comes from passing familiarity with certain films from that era and LA Noire.

Merilynne wrote:
A lot of people keep talking about whether or not Charlie could conquer Erf or "win the game," but according to Wanda, Olive turned against him because he had no desire to conquer after he attuned to the dish. Why would we think he has changed


I wonder why he changed in the first place. That's the million-shmucker question to Charlie's entire backstory and probably/narratively a key to one of the missing pieces of the puzzle to 'Solving' Erfworld.

Because the answer to 'Could Charlie conquer Erfworld' is, to borrow Jack's Magic 8-ball for a second: "Signs point to yes."
DukeofTuring wrote:

Anomynous 167 wrote:
[1]. You don't need to purchase the "Full Service" package to use Archons as escorts, as Ansom did back in book 1 [2], you just don't get "magic security"

This didn't click with me when I first read your post, but are you referring to the fonz getting some affection? That seemed entirely spontaneous to me, certainly no orders issued.

No, I'm referring to when Ansom hired to archons to escort Jillian, Webinar, and Webinar's level 2 girlfriend back into the infantry collumn so the three of them wouldn't be swarmed by dwagons in the meantime.
http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%201/46

I thought it was obvious since I provided you the link in the footnotes of that comment I made.
Anomynous 167 wrote:
DukeofTuring wrote:

Anomynous 167 wrote:
[1]. You don't need to purchase the "Full Service" package to use Archons as escorts, as Ansom did back in book 1 [2], you just don't get "magic security"

This didn't click with me when I first read your post, but are you referring to the fonz getting some affection? That seemed entirely spontaneous to me, certainly no orders issued.

No, I'm referring to when Ansom hired to archons to escort Jillian, Webinar, and Webinar's level 2 girlfriend back into the infantry collumn so the three of them wouldn't be swarmed by dwagons in the meantime.
http://archives.erfworld.com/Book%201/46

I thought it was obvious since I provided you the link in the footnotes of that comment I made.


I saw the link and didn't have any idea how it was revelevent. Obvious... well, I've got something of a blindspot for puns, it went right over my head :)
Adept wrote:
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Maybe a better term would be "objectification". Shirley doesn't object to sexuality, she is unabashedly gendered herself.

Gender is different from sexuality, let alone morals. Shirley identifying / presenting as female doesn't mean she would approve of Charlie's sexualisation of the Archons. She seems to be implying very traditional, earthly morals.
The thing is, the archons are already sexual. Hypersexual, even. Charlie doesn't make them that way, he doesn't even seem to like that they're that way. But he treats them like tools.

Sexualizing someone who shouldn't be sexualized, or sexualizing a situation that shouldn't be sexual, can be wrong, and it often overlaps with objectification. Sexualizing kids, sexualizing coworkers or subordinates, sexualizing an interaction with the staff at a shop, sexualizing a traffic stop...there are plenty of ways to sexualize that are wrong.

But the archons are already sexual. Charlie granting full service contracts and so forth doesn't make them more sexual, what it does is treat them like objects. Shirley, with her comments about tramps and hookers and bunnies and girls next door, is the one sexualizing everything more than Charlie.

But her sexualizing them, while definitely not always complimentary, treats them as people who happen to have sexuality as part of their motivations (for good or ill).

So talking about "sexualization" as the moral issue is just confusing.
I personally read Shirley's voice as a heavy Minnesota accent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAavaZqDaXE
Jade wrote:
I personally read Shirley's voice as a heavy Minnesota accent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAavaZqDaXE


An incredibly fake Minnesotan accent, naturally. No one here actually talks like that, unless they are 70 and grew up in the Iron Range. :D
Complete non-sequitur time, does anyone know the name of the mountain range that encompasses Faq, TV, and CC?
Chiu ChunLing wrote:
Complete non-sequitur time, does anyone know the name of the mountain range that encompasses Faq, TV, and CC?

The Minty Mountains, named right at the start of book 1, confirmed here http://archives.erfworld.com/Book+2/14
JadedDragoon wrote:
David Hunt wrote:
Sylvan wrote:

I mean, most people tend to think of themselves as good people. It would be easy for Charlie to try and justify his actions in the same way Shirly did, as being difficult but necessary to accomplish a "greater good" by defeating fate of whatever.


You're referring to the phrase that everyone is the hero of their own story? While there's truth in that, it doesn't mean that they think of themselves with the term "hero." More to the point, almost no one considers themselves to be evil/bad/etc. Even the worst scumbags on Earth have some story that they tell themselves whee they justify their action.


I think a more accurate version of the "everyone is the hero of their own story" maxim is no one ever sees themselves as the villain... especially the villain. Anyone who objectively acknowledges they are monsters without immediately being overcome with crushing guilt and self-loathing is either indifferent to the suffering of others or actively enjoys hurting others... in other words, a psychopath....

I mean just think of a person or a group that is a clear and obvious villain. Hitler? Stalin? The KKK? Dr Mengele? Kim Jong-il? (all low hanging fruit, but still) They all see or saw themselves as heroes doing dirty work for the greater good.

...

The Stanford Prison Experiment is a chilling window into how easy it is for otherwise average, normal people to become blind to the evil of their own actions. ...

And then there's the populace of Nazi-led Germany who collectively turned a blind eye to the rise of hatemongers and the internment of "undesirables." Slavery... apartheid and segregation... the list of times when people looked the other way and told themselves it was no big deal are legion. ...

...No one sees themselves as the villain... especially the villain.


First, let me link you "Not a Villain": http://navcomic.com/

Second, there will be plenty of people who know that something is wrong,but have no ability to do anything about it -- or rather, don't see any way for them to do anything about it. For example,if you thought that what the Republicans did in The United States with the tax bill was wrong, what can you do about it?

Third, "low hanging fruit"? Hitler? If you're going to call Hitler low hanging fruit, then you have to look at all of the other people throughout history that have blamed immigrants, have blamed small group X, have used war and military expansion as a solution to domestic problems, etc. Hitler may have been recent, but he was not the first, not the last, and possibly not even the worst.

How would you consider the people who divided up Europe and the middle east at the end of World War I along arbitrary lines without any regard for the social status of those areas just for the purpose of being able to purchase oil for tanks?