1048: "Emotion"

[Karilyn]

I feel a little guilty about not seeing your post yesterday after you gave me such a detailed and well thought out comment. I greatly appreciate it by the way, and am glad I noticed it today and did not miss it.

That sounds pretty good, right? Only a 8-10 year reduction in lifespan, and they aren't particularly sure of it. However, someone who has gone from 120 to 300+ pounds is probably not representative of people with BMI above 35kg/m², unless she's something like six and a half feet tall. It's plausible her results might be worse.

She hasn't become obese yet. She's currently 5'4" and 120 or so pounds. Something like that. The way she eats, she should be extremely morbidly obese though; in addition she has a very sedentary lifestyle. The only thing I've been able to figure out is that she must have an extremely high metabolism, as she consumes half a stick of butter a day, quite literally, in her food, and an equally horrifying amount of salt and sugar. She consumes no vegetables (other than collard greens), and relies on multivitamins to compensate for any gaps in her diet. I am quite certain she will eventually become a diabetic and/or get high blood pressure. And I suspect once one of those two occurs, her metabolism will crash, and her weight will skyrocket.

I feel kind of silly saying a lot about your partner based only on what you said, but I will anyway. Very likely there is an identity issue involved. She feels like her diet choice is part of "who she is". Anything you do to encourage her to change that, she would interpret as you rejecting her personally.

How. The crap. Did you get that out of what I just wrote? You should totally work a job as a psychic with that level of ability to perceive things off of extremely vague information. She does consider a part of "who she is." Specifically, she considers it a part of her heritage. She takes immense pride in her american southern heritage, and feels like it would be inappropriate for her not to eat as a southerner. Which means everything fried. Everything butter. Everything salt. Bacon on everything.

You want her to be healthy and live a long time; she considers that less important than being herself.

Well that one's wrong though. She considers it to be a non-concern. "I'm not fat, I don't have high blood pressure, and I don't have diabetes, why should I worry?" Even though she's only 31, and she has a near 100% chance of developing all three of those with the way she's eating, which will be very crippling for her later in life.

For example, you like it when she's adventurous and kind of daring in reasonably safe ways.

Wait, have we discussed my girlfriend on this forum before? Are you remembering me when I fail to remember you? That's only vaguely creepy!

Of course it's hard for you to stop worrying about her, whether it does any good or not, because that's who you are. Would you be willing to change who you are -- for her? If you want to do it, you might find a way. If you don't want to, or if you are sure it's impossible, then you probably won't find any way to do it.

Ain't that the truth. I'm a worrier at heart, always concerned about the future, providing security and reliability. While she's a (metaphorical) gambler, live in the moment type; "why worry about the future when it's so far away and she can have fun now?" Even 4 months for her might as well be a lifetime away as far as she's concerned (of course, I worry about 50 years from now like it's tomorrow). It's probably going to remain the biggest conflict between the two of us for the rest of our lives. But it's one I can work with. Both of us take it too far to the extreme anyway. Having her to be a foil to my excessive caution and pragmatism, and me to be a foil to her excessive recklessness and dreamerismness, would be beneficial to both of us I think.

[gmalivuk]

What I find abhorrent is that you allegedly feel no emotional effects from the suffering of a loved one.

How did you come to that bizarre conclusion? I don't feel effects from the suffering of someone I love? Is that what you really said? So that means that, if I don't make a webcomic about it, it's because I didn't feel it?

The problem isn't that you don't make a comic, it's that you so strongly object to Randall making a comic about it. Why do you so begrudge him his emotional outlet?

I'm pretty sure that "YMMV" is a TV Tropes invention.

[citation needed]

[Karilyn]

Respect for what issue? Randall having an abhorrent, self-pitying attitude at the expense of someone else's suffering? I don't respect that.

This might come as a surprise to you, but in terms of emotional toll, the spouse of someone with cancer, very well may be more emotionally drained than even the person with cancer. "WTF HOW CAN THAT BE?" Well my dear friend, I'll explain it to you. One of the first things cancer patients have to come to grips with is their mortality; the very real possibility that they could die soon. But with their death, doesn't come an end to the suffering. Because the spouse now is left alone, without the person who they loved and thought they were going to spend the rest of their life with. The physical pain may end, but the emotional pain goes on for a very long time. Years, maybe even decades.

And fear of this potential future, where they live out the rest of their life without their "soulmate," and they are completely powerless to affect whether their spouse will love or die, is quite possibly even worse than the fear of possible imminent death. Even a person who is said that they have "A month to live" or whatever, still has the opportunity to take that time to try and enjoy what short time remains of their life, to try and do things they've always wanted to do, to tell their loved ones goodbye, and hold them in their arms one last time. And then it's over for them. Their life comes to an end, but also their suffering comes to an end... as does their joys come to an end. Everything comes to an end.

But for those who live on after their spouse has died from cancer... the suffering does not come to an end, and the joys are severely reduced. The heartbreak of having your spouse taken away from you. The guilt of thinking you could have done something different. No longer waking up alongside the person who you love, who motivated you, who encouraged you, who strengthened you. All of it is gone. And there's no way to get it back.

By no means am I suggesting that having cancer isn't devastating and emotionally toiling for the person with the cancer. It is. I'm just trying to help you wrap your mind around why a person who's loved one has cancer would be equally devastated, and should their loved one die, that devastation will be prolonged for a very long time.

[eran_rathan]

I'm pretty sure that "YMMV" is a TV Tropes invention.

[citation needed]

Yeah, it comes from the EPA estimated mileage for vehicles (and subsequent reporting requirements for manufacturers) - which, if I recall correctly, began in the late 70s or early 80s.

[gmalivuk]

I'm pretty sure that "YMMV" is a TV Tropes invention.

[citation needed]

Yeah, it comes from the EPA estimated mileage for vehicles (and subsequent reporting requirements for manufacturers) - which, if I recall correctly, began in the late 70s or early 80s.

That's definitely where the phrase came from, but I think Mustapha is only contending that its use as an initialism was coined by tvtropes.

This might come as a surprise to you, but in terms of emotional toll, the spouse of someone with cancer, very well may be more emotionally drained than even the person with cancer.

Hence why I've mentioned a couple times the appearance that SirMustapha himself doesn't feel any emotional pain at a loved one's suffering: he seems to think that expressing that pain is self-pitying and at the expense of the "one" person who is "really" suffering. Which implies that Randall isn't or at least shouldn't be suffering himself while working through this with his wife.

[Karilyn]

This might come as a surprise to you, but in terms of emotional toll, the spouse of someone with cancer, very well may be more emotionally drained than even the person with cancer.

Hence why I've mentioned a couple times the appearance that SirMustapha himself doesn't feel any emotional pain at a loved one's suffering: he seems to think that expressing that pain is self-pitying and at the expense of the "one" person who is "really" suffering. Which implies that Randall isn't or at least shouldn't be suffering himself while working through this with his wife.

I'm less inclined to word it in a way which would be perceived as an attack, and instead word it in such a way which explains it from the perspective of the spouse of someone with cancer. Your way of wording it implies that SirMustapha is a sociopath, incapable of feelings. My way of wording implies that SirMustapha has yet to experience such a relationship in his life, and thus would understandably find it hard to relate to the feelings involved.

The general impression I have of SirMustapha, is that he has never had a long term girlfriend before, and is unlikely married, and because of that, he does not have much experience in matters of deep love (as opposed to infatuation or lust) (I could be wrong, but that is the impression I've gotten). Thus it is entirely understandable that he would struggle to understand why it would be heartbreaking to lose a spouse, if he has never experienced deep heartbreak before. The heartbreak of infatuation dies very quickly. The heartbreak of love which has been built over years and decades is much slower to die, as such a love generally results in the extensive merging of the two people's personalities over time, and thus it really is as if half of who you are dies.

For someone who has never experienced a relationship that is at the very least 3 years long, or more realistically, at least 5 years long, and thus has never developed some of the deeper merging aspects of long-term love, the idea would be very difficult to explain.

[gmalivuk]

This might come as a surprise to you, but in terms of emotional toll, the spouse of someone with cancer, very well may be more emotionally drained than even the person with cancer.

Hence why I've mentioned a couple times the appearance that SirMustapha himself doesn't feel any emotional pain at a loved one's suffering: he seems to think that expressing that pain is self-pitying and at the expense of the "one" person who is "really" suffering. Which implies that Randall isn't or at least shouldn't be suffering himself while working through this with his wife.

I'm less inclined to word it in a way which would be perceived as an attack, and instead word it in such a way which explains it from the perspective of the spouse of someone with cancer. Your way of wording it implies that SirMustapha is a sociopath, incapable of feelings. My way of wording implies that SirMustapha has yet to experience such a relationship in his life, and thus would understandably find it hard to relate to the feelings involved.

I would be less inclined to word it as an attack if I believed SirMustapha was arguing in good faith and merely lacked the experiential understanding necessary to see where Randall is coming from. Since it seems to me that he is instead simply (and perpetually) looking for *something* to complain about in the comic, and this time has chosen to fixate on Randall's choice to occasionally make strips about his and his wife's ordeal with her cancer.

[JudeMorrigan]

I'm pretty sure that "YMMV" is a TV Tropes invention.

[citation needed]

Yeah, it comes from the EPA estimated mileage for vehicles (and subsequent reporting requirements for manufacturers) - which, if I recall correctly, began in the late 70s or early 80s.

That's definitely where the phrase came from, but I think Mustapha is only contending that its use as an initialism was coined by tvtropes.

The interwebs claim that tvtropes was launched in 2004. One should obviously take this with a grain of anecdotal-data flavored salt, but I can say pretty unequivocably that I've been using it longer than that.

[J Thomas]

That sounds pretty good, right? Only a 8-10 year reduction in lifespan, and they aren't particularly sure of it. However, someone who has gone from 120 to 300+ pounds is probably not representative of people with BMI above 35kg/m², unless she's something like six and a half feet tall.

She hasn't become obese yet. She's currently 5'4" and 120 or so pounds. Something like that.

I completely missed that. You said you were worried about her ballooning from 120 to 300 pounds and I thought she did that and you worried about it.

The way she eats, she should be extremely morbidly obese though; in addition she has a very sedentary lifestyle. The only thing I've been able to figure out is that she must have an extremely high metabolism, as she consumes half a stick of butter a day, quite literally, in her food, and an equally horrifying amount of salt and sugar. She consumes no vegetables (other than collard greens), and relies on multivitamins to compensate for any gaps in her diet. I am quite certain she will eventually become a diabetic and/or get high blood pressure. And I suspect once one of those two occurs, her metabolism will crash, and her weight will skyrocket.

There are various ways that can work. She might not eat as much as you think, so that the total number of calories just isn't that much.

She could have a metabolic defect that keeps her from digesting some of her food. If she doesn't absorb it, then her intestinal flora *will* consume it. That tends to result in large or frequent bowel movements with perhaps unusual smells. It's quite survivable unless we have a famine.

She could have intestinal parasites that digest much of her food before she can. Mostly harmless.

There are various diseases which can cause this which cause big problems later. If she has one of those then later you will probably think you should have known. But no, it doesn't help much for prediction. You can look that stuff up if you want to worry about it, but usually there's no point without other symptoms.

In the short run she's healthy, and you want to tell her to change her behavior in drastic ways because you predict her lifestyle will be bad for her. It's predictable she won't like that.

I feel kind of silly saying a lot about your partner based only on what you said, but I will anyway. Very likely there is an identity issue involved. She feels like her diet choice is part of "who she is". Anything you do to encourage her to change that, she would interpret as you rejecting her personally.

How. The crap. Did you get that out of what I just wrote?

It's a method. It isn't the least bit impressive when you know how. Sometimes people don't like the result even when it's accurate.

She does consider a part of "who she is." Specifically, she considers it a part of her heritage. She takes immense pride in her american southern heritage, and feels like it would be inappropriate for her not to eat as a southerner. Which means everything fried. Everything butter. Everything salt. Bacon on everything.

Southern cooking traditionally involved lots of vegetables. Spinach. Cabbage as far into the winter as it lasted, often with fatback. Carrots or onions boiled into lots of dishes. Succotash. Tomatoes stewed, fried, baked, etc. Okra boiled, stewed, fried, pickled, steamed, breaded, etc. Green beans with onion and bacon. Sweet potatoes. Lots of beans, particularly since meat was not always easy to come by.

If you want her to eat more vegetables, you could try cooking southern vegetables and see if she likes any of them. You might find there is some deeper reason she avoids them, and southern tradition was just the reason she gave you.

You want her to be healthy and live a long time; she considers that less important than being herself.

Well that one's wrong though. She considers it to be a non-concern. "I'm not fat, I don't have high blood pressure, and I don't have diabetes, why should I worry?" Even though she's only 31, and she has a near 100% chance of developing all three of those with the way she's eating, which will be very crippling for her later in life.

Diabetes is not as bad as it used to be, if you have good health insurance to pay for the expensive treatment. Obesity could result in quality-of-life issues, but it isn't so very life-threatening. If she's like the north europeans in the popularization I quoted, if she becomes obese by age 60 it will reduce her expected lifespan by 2 to 4 years. Obesity makes heart attacks and stroke and cancer somewhat more likely than for people who aren't obese, but still not that likely. Similarly with hypertension. Lots of people with hypertension live healthy lives right up until they die.

I think your worry is premature. You want your partner to change her lifestyle, It's OK to want that. It's a fine thing for you to invite her to try out things you think are healthy and see if she likes them. It has to be OK with you for her to say no. When you invite her to do healthy things that fit who she is, you are affirming her identity.

When you tell her that you worry about her continuing health, you are saying "I love you". Try to make sure she hears that, and not that you'd rather she be somebody else.

.... Having her to be a foil to my excessive caution and pragmatism, and me to be a foil to her excessive recklessness and dreamerismness, would be beneficial to both of us I think.

Great!

[Karilyn]

In the short run she's healthy, and you want to tell her to change her behavior in drastic ways because you predict her lifestyle will be bad for her. It's predictable she won't like that.

Good point, I'll try to do that.

She does consider a part of "who she is." Specifically, she considers it a part of her heritage. She takes immense pride in her american southern heritage, and feels like it would be inappropriate for her not to eat as a southerner. Which means everything fried. Everything butter. Everything salt. Bacon on everything.

Southern cooking traditionally involved lots of vegetables. Spinach. Cabbage as far into the winter as it lasted, often with fatback. Carrots or onions boiled into lots of dishes. Succotash. Tomatoes stewed, fried, baked, etc. Okra boiled, stewed, fried, pickled, steamed, breaded, etc. Green beans with onion and bacon. Sweet potatoes. Lots of beans, particularly since meat was not always easy to come by. If you want her to eat more vegetables, you could try cooking southern vegetables and see if she likes any of them. You might find there is some deeper reason she avoids them, and southern tradition was just the reason she gave you.

Yeah I've caught that irony before. It's not that uncommon that we eat at a local southern buffet restaurant (It actually is a very good regional food, and is my third favorite after californian and good old japanese sushi), and I gorge on all the vegetables, and she gorges on the fried chicken. She basically eats none of those except for Collard Greens, and I don't know why. I think the idea of specifically trying to cook vegetables southern style with my meals might help a lot though, that's a good idea. It could be just an excuse yes, but a believable one, as she is genuinely obsessed with southern tradition, and it's possible I could use her obsession to encourage her to eat more vegetables.

I think your worry is premature. You want your partner to change her lifestyle, It's OK to want that. It's a fine thing for you to invite her to try out things you think are healthy and see if she likes them. It has to be OK with you for her to say no.

A lot of it is probably poor choices on my part. Like a few weeks ago, I made a homemade burger which was made with vegetables and no red meat. Her and a friend was over, and the friend gushing about it being delicious, except for my girlfriend, who was all like, "Oh it smells wonderful, and looks wonderful, but it turns my stomach to think that it doesn't have meat in it. I can't eat it." And I'm like. "Wut?" It confuses me cause I don't know how to address that. Likewise, she loves Shepherd's Pie, it's one of her favorite dishes, and I made a healthy Shepherd's Pie without any red meat in it, took it to a Pot Luck. It was almost unanimously raved as the best dish there (And the group was definitely not health food lovers). There was only one person who refused to even try a single bite of it, and that was my girlfriend, once again because it had no red meat in it. That was very frustrating.

Maybe I'm just trying to go too far? Regardless of how good it tastes, if it's so foreign to her, it's going to confuse her.

The one time I managed to get her to eat something of mine which was healthy was when I made some stir fried chicken, with olive oil, thyme, and ginger. And she insisted it was the best chicken she ever tasted, but when I gave her the recipe she was like "I'll need to modify it to add in more butter." And in my head I though, "ARGH WHAT? But even you admit it was better than your chicken you make, and it was better in part because it had no butter or salt in it, so that you could actually taste the chicken!"

She can be very stubborn like that.

When you invite her to do healthy things that fit who she is, you are affirming her identity. When you tell her that you worry about her continuing health, you are saying "I love you". Try to make sure she hears that, and not that you'd rather she be somebody else.

Yeah I'll work more on making sure my choices affirm her identity so she's more comfortable with the changes slowly over time. I think I'm simply expecting her to make too big of steps.

[SirMustapha]

I'm pretty sure that "YMMV" is a TV Tropes invention.

[citation needed]

Yeah, it comes from the EPA estimated mileage for vehicles (and subsequent reporting requirements for manufacturers) - which, if I recall correctly, began in the late 70s or early 80s.

That's definitely where the phrase came from, but I think Mustapha is only contending that its use as an initialism was coined by tvtropes.

Not only as an initialism, but as an unnecessary, dumb replacement for something as simple and obvious as "that's subjective"; which is basically Rule Nº 1 of TV Tropes: NEVER use simple terms for simple concepts. And I definitely never saw that term being used before TV Tropes became this big phenomenon, not even in places such as Godawful Fanfiction, where that kind of terminology tends to catch like chewed bubblegum.

Hence why I've mentioned a couple times the appearance that SirMustapha himself doesn't feel any emotional pain at a loved one's suffering: he seems to think that expressing that pain is self-pitying and at the expense of the "one" person who is "really" suffering.

So yes, based on a single argument of mine, you make hugely extrapolated assumptions about me and judge me accordingly. If I say "I don't really like coffee", you'll conclude that any bitter drink will make me vomit. You're my hero.

The general impression I have of SirMustapha, is that he has never had a long term girlfriend before, and is unlikely married, and because of that, he does not have much experience in matters of deep love (as opposed to infatuation or lust) (I could be wrong, but that is the impression I've gotten).

Well, guess what, you're dead wrong.

Get this: I understand losing someone dear to cancer (I've been there). I understand a very close person losing someone dear to cancer (I've been there). I understand being directly involved in someone else's suffering (I've been there). Considering all the things I've been through, all the things that I've seen people go through, and the whole context of the situation, I think Randall's attitude is despicable. And it's not "despite" all I've been through: it's exactly because of it.

[gmalivuk]

So yes, based on a single argument of mine, you make hugely extrapolated assumptions about me and judge me accordingly.

No.

Based on a single ridiculously stupid argument of yours, I do a bit of reductio ad absurdum to "conclude" that obviously you must not feel bad when a loved one is suffering, because that's the implication of your poor logic.

I think Randall's attitude is despicable.

What is despicable about it? The only thing that I could see being despicable is if *instead* of supporting his wife he's busily churning out cancer-related comics in order to garner vicarious sympathy from people who will then send him boatloads of well-intentioned cash in exchange for comic-related merchandise.

But as near as I can tell, not a single part of that is true. He's not doing anything instead of supporting his wife, but rather he's doing things *in addition to* supporting her. He is not churning out tons of cancer-related comics, but rather he's made a few of them over the course of the whole thing, presumably for the simple reason that at those times he feels like doing so. He doesn't expect people to buy his shit out of sympathy, but rather he expects them to do so because people have already been buying his comic-related merchandise for years, since long before he met his wife.

[SirMustapha]

Based on a single ridiculously stupid argument of yours, I do a bit of reductio ad absurdum to "conclude" that obviously you must not feel bad when a loved one is suffering, because that's the implication of your poor logic.

Oooooh, yeah, sure. Sure. It can't possibly be that you're deliberately deconstructing my words and rebuilding them to your own benefit. It's just that you're really that clever. Either way, you're full of shit.

What is despicable about it? The only thing that I could see being despicable is if *instead* of supporting his wife he's busily churning out cancer-related comics in order to garner vicarious sympathy from people who will then send him boatloads of well-intentioned cash in exchange for comic-related merchandise.

Yeah. It's not bad to beat up an innocent person. It's only bad if you beat him up, bash his head with a brick, gouge his eyes with a spoon, and then throw a puppy down a well.

But as near as I can tell, not a single part of that is true. He's not doing anything instead of supporting his wife, but rather he's doing things *in addition to* supporting her. He is not churning out tons of cancer-related comics, but rather he's made a few of them over the course of the whole thing, presumably for the simple reason that at those times he feels like doing so. He doesn't expect people to buy his shit out of sympathy, but rather he expects them to do so because people have already been buying his comic-related merchandise for years, since long before he met his wife.

So it's just self-pitying sympathy-whoring. Ok.

[gmalivuk]

Based on a single ridiculously stupid argument of yours, I do a bit of reductio ad absurdum to "conclude" that obviously you must not feel bad when a loved one is suffering, because that's the implication of your poor logic.

Oooooh, yeah, sure. Sure. It can't possibly be that you're deliberately deconstructing my words and rebuilding them to your own benefit. It's just that you're really that clever.

Inasmuch as it apparently requires tremendous cleverness to notice the absurd implications of your reasoning and call you out on them, yes, I guess I really am "that" clever.

[Steax]

What is despicable about it? The only thing that I could see being despicable is if *instead* of supporting his wife he's busily churning out cancer-related comics in order to garner vicarious sympathy from people who will then send him boatloads of well-intentioned cash in exchange for comic-related merchandise.

Yeah. It's not bad to beat up an innocent person. It's only bad if you beat him up, bash his head with a brick, gouge his eyes with a spoon, and then throw a puppy down a well.

If you're trying to make a metaphor, it's not working on me. It's actually kinder to, you know, explain what you're trying to say.

... Though I guess I've concluded arguing with you is useless if you consider a person wrong just because they used the term "YMMV'. YMMV.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

So it's just self-pitying sympathy-whoring. Ok.

God forbid anyone want sympathy when they're feeling bad.

[RobinColorado]

Oh, this hurts....I remember this pain so well. More than 20 years ago I was told I had < 20% chance of 5 year survival. I had a 12 month old baby when I was given that diagnosis. I am still here but the shock and pain I will never forget. It's the monster under the bed....and he is still there. I am alive and well but still afraid.
My love goes out to you~

[Schadenfreude]

Kind of baffled by all the forumites behaviour. SirMustapha dislikes the comics and makes gruff but generally coherent statements as to why he doesn't like them. So...the general forum reaction appears to be to scream that he's wrong and generally dump on him? The knee-jerk reaction to everything he says hardly seems to be a sensible method of debate.

[Steax]

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It's people reacting to someone ridiculing a person for being emotional over have a family member with cancer. (Feel free to clarify me if that's not what he's doing.)

I don't see where we're screaming, dumping, or having some sort of knee-jerk reaction. We're responding to him pretty properly.

[Ghostbear]

Kind of baffled by all the forumites behaviour. SirMustapha dislikes the comics and makes gruff but generally coherent statements as to why he doesn't like them. So...the general forum reaction appears to be to scream that he's wrong and generally dump on him? The knee-jerk reaction to everything he says hardly seems to be a sensible method of debate.

Did you read SirMustapha's first post in this thread? I haven't followed the thread itself much, but seriously, just read the damn thing, it's not exactly constructive criticism so much as being a jerk. It's loaded with phases or words like "exploitative" and "sympathy whoring". Fuck, there's this fragment "He frankly seems to be cashing in on his wife's illness", and he calls the people that enjoy these comics sycophants. They seemed to completely miss the blog post that the comic itself directly links to, wherein Randall explains why there will be comics with cancer topics. I don't think calling them out as wrong is at all unreasonable in this case -- that it's the "general" reaction just means that many people think SirMustapha is wrong wrong.

[Schadenfreude]

Kind of baffIed by all the forumites behaviour. SirMustapha disIikes the comics and makes gruff but generally coherent statements as to why he doesn't Iike them. So...the general forum reaction appears to be to scream that he's wrong and generally dump on him? The knee-jerk reaction to everything he says hardly seems to be a sensibIe method of debate.

Did you read SirMustapha's first post in this thread? I haven't followed the thread itself much, but seriously, just read the damn thing, it's not exactly constructive criticism so much as being a jerk. It's loaded with phases or words like "exploitative" and "sympathy whoring". Fuck, there's this fragment "He frankly seems to be cashing in on his wife's illness", and he calls the people that enjoy these comics sycophants. They seemed to completely miss the blog post that the comic itself directly links to, wherein Randall explains why there will be comics with cancer topics. I don't think calling them out as wrong is at all unreasonable in this case -- that it's the "general" reaction just means that many people think SirMustapha is wrong wrong.

So you have a problem with SirMustapha not giving constructive criticism but are perfectly content to ignore the fact that there's basically nothing (artistically speaking) to criticize? I mean, c'mon, let's be honest. This is a chart comic and the only artistic thing I (a cartoonist myself) can say about it is that everything is laid out in a fairly legible manner and the colors aren't an unpleasant combination, which is nothing really.

And, to put it frankly, I hardly think SirMustapha's criticism is unwarranted. Hell, a concern that's crossed my mind over the past few months is that the cancer comics are basically a "get out of jail free" type comic, one that he can produce with little effort (Pretty sure I could do something roughly like this particular comic in 15 minutes in the very worst case) that will still generate lots of talk and sympathy. I don't know about most people, but as an artist I'd be offended by someone using such a cheap exploit to just wring support from the base.

[gmalivuk]

Precisely what kind of support is it that you think he's "wringing" from his fan base with this comic? Which "jail" is he getting out of free? Do you think his normal moderately amusing stick-figure fare is so difficult and time-consuming to produce that he jumps at the chance to bang out another cancer one every time he's a bit strapped for other ideas?

[Schadenfreude]

Precisely what kind of support is it that you think he's "wringing" from his fan base with this comic? Which "jail" is he getting out of free? Do you think his normal moderately amusing stick-figure fare is so difficult and time-consuming to produce that he jumps at the chance to bang out another cancer one every time he's a bit strapped for other ideas?

From observation, Scott McCloud's books, and personal experience I know cartoonists of all calibers produce worse work when short on time/overcome by a desire to be lazy. This is just because shortcuts tend to make us skimp on details or thoughts put into scripting, layouts, and whatever. (I know my jokes tend to be worded 20% better when I run over them for a few days in my head.) What I hate most is cookie-cutter strip--where the artist basically takes the same concept, does several poorly conceived rehashes of it, and calls it a day. While total originality is overrated, putting some creative effort into a work of art is not.

Also, if you think these tunnel-vision questions are really helping you make your point at all then I weep for the future of debate. They're childish non-responses and you know it. Why the hell do you need to know each and every little detail about the exact meaning of my words? Read them and interpret them using that brain you presumably have.

[Princess Marzipan]

Why the hell do you need to know each and every little detail about the exact meaning of my words?

Because that's how to make sure communication is happening clearly?

[Schadenfreude]

You need total clarification of every single word. It's totally not just a tactic to avoid coming up with some meaningful response to some legitimate concerns. [/sarcasm]

[Steax]

What I hate most is cookie-cutter strip--where the artist basically takes the same concept, does several poorly conceived rehashes of it, and calls it a day. While total originality is overrated, putting some creative effort into a work of art is not.

Am I correct to assume you're implying that this strip is a bad, "filler", or otherwise "just built to a schedule" comic? Seeing people appreciate and relate to it in this very thread is enough evidence to me that it's not.

Read them and interpret them using that brain you presumably have.

That's the most counterproductive thing I've heard all day. You do realize many a disagreement rise from people misunderstanding others' positions, right?

You need total clarification of every single word. It's totally not just a tactic to avoid coming up with some meaningful response to some legitimate concerns. [/sarcasm]

What gmal did is called "asking for clarification." If you want to defend your position, you should make it clear what you mean by "getting out of jail" or "wringing", because I don't see what "jail" is supposed to mean here, either. You don't need to act smug when people are trying to get clarification on your communication.

[Karilyn]

Not only as an initialism, but as an unnecessary, dumb replacement for something as simple and obvious as "that's subjective"; which is basically Rule Nº 1 of TV Tropes: NEVER use simple terms for simple concepts. And I definitely never saw that term being used before TV Tropes became this big phenomenon, not even in places such as Godawful Fanfiction, where that kind of terminology tends to catch like chewed bubblegum.

I can comfortably say that "Your milage may vary" has been a regular idiom in my family since I was a child. It definitely predates TVTropes, though I would not be surprised if TBTropes was the first to make an acronym out of it. It is my impression that it was an extremely common idiom, along the order of saying "An ace up your sleeve" or whatever have you. I would disagree that idioms are dumb, as they are part of what make the English language so enjoyable and dynamic.

Get this: I understand losing someone dear to cancer (I've been there). I understand a very close person losing someone dear to cancer (I've been there). I understand being directly involved in someone else's suffering (I've been there). Considering all the things I've been through, all the things that I've seen people go through, and the whole context of the situation, I think Randall's attitude is despicable. And it's not "despite" all I've been through: it's exactly because of it.

Opinions are like assholes. If they are nasty, nobody wants to see it.

[Schadenfreude]

Am I correct to assume you're implying that this strip is a bad, "fiIIer", or otherwise "just built to a schedule" comic? Seeing people appreciate and relate to it in this very thread is enough evidence to me that it's not.

The newspaper strip "Garfield" sells pretty well. It's also something that Jim Davis admits to creating only to sell weII. Given that such a model works for him, it's hardIy rational to cite statistics as an argument against this being a cookie-cutter strip--cancer is a touchy subject that can easily generate sympathy.

Effort put into comic strips does not necessarily correspond to perceived value/quality/whatever the hell you want to call it. I think it cheapens the art as a whole if someone exploits this fact. Am I ready to mentally write off cancer strips as cookie cutter episodes? Not quite, but I still think it's a bad thing that l'm even have to consider that.

Also:

Hell, a concern that's crossed my mind over the past few months is that the cancer comics are basicaIIy a "get out of jail free" type comic, one that he can produce with little effort (Pretty sure I could do something roughly like this particular comic in 15 minutes in the very worst case) that will still generate lots of talk and sympathy. I don't know about most people, but as an artist I'd be offended by someone using such a cheap exploit to just wring support from the base.

geez. I thought I used some redundant phrases, but nooooooooo......

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

gruff but generally coherent

[Steax]

Am I correct to assume you're implying that this strip is a bad, "fiIIer", or otherwise "just built to a schedule" comic? Seeing people appreciate and relate to it in this very thread is enough evidence to me that it's not.

The newspaper strip "Garfield" sells pretty well. It's also something that Jim Davis admits to creating only to sell weII. Given that such a model works for him, it's hardIy rational to cite statistics as an argument against this being a cookie-cutter strip--cancer is a touchy subject that can easily generate sympathy.

Effort put into comic strips does not necessarily correspond to perceived value/quality/whatever the hell you want to call it. I think it cheapens the art as a whole if someone exploits this fact. Am I ready to mentally write off cancer strips as cookie cutter episodes? Not quite, but I still think it's a bad thing that l'm even have to consider that.

I'm afraid I don't understand your comparison. Personally to me, any comic that gets people talking - especially when it's free on the internet - is worth posting. I might be seeing it from a blogger's perspective; "if one person finds this writing useful, I've done my job." What's to say that every comic strip writer has the same motivations?

I was thinking by "jail", you meant his "schedule" of some sort. I thought the part after the comma was an additional, separate statement. See? I misunderstood you.

When I read the comic, I interpreted it as "things are starting to get better." It was a welcome update from the sad news we received last year. People have already "wrung support" last year - they did it in the form of links to flash games, among other things. I don't get your "generate lots of talk and sympathy" bit - it's not like he's been churning out cancer comics; this was an update, made evident by a link to the backstory. But in either case, "generate talk" is something xkcd's seen quite a bit (see... the Pick-up Artist one). And what's wrong with looking for support from a fanbase? And which are these "cancer comics" you refer too? I can only think of a few off the top of my head, and they're old.

Edit: Okay, I went through the liberty of starting at the "2012" comic, and this is the first comic of the year on the cancer topic.

Edit 2: I went back to june last year and only found 2 comics directly about cancer ("Lanes" and "Making Things Difficult"). 3 others are about biology which might or may not have anything to do with it. That basically means 3 things directly related to the cancer issue, out of 140 comics.

[Weeks]

3 out of 140 seems like a very small number.

[Steax]

And given that each is 6 months apart, negligible. There was never any cancer awareness fundraiser week.

(theories that it was meant to extend the period of fundraising incoming in 3... 2...)

[The Great Hippo]

The fuck are you even doing anymore, SirMustapha?

EDIT: I mean, I guess I can respect the whole 'hold an antagonistic opinion in the face of opposition' thing, but your opinion on this subject is, literally--and yes, I'm using the word 'literally' literally--shit. It is a heaping pile of steaming, fresh-from-the-large-intestine, frothing-with-fecal-bacteria shit. It is a shitburger with extra shitpickles ordered from McShits-a-lot.

Man, I don't give a fuck if every single comic this dude churns out is 'CANCER SUCKS PLZ GIVE ME MONEY OH GOD WHY GOD WHY WHY oh by the way here's my DONATE BUTTON fyi'. I probably wouldn't read that hypothetical comic, but I certainly wouldn't go on the forums and roll my eyes and say 'man, what a self-pitying hack, I hate work like this, it's so shallow and exploitative, he should totally respond to cancer in a way I artistically approve of'.

It's been long established that this is a niche comic, written by some dude who likes doing it, and posted online largely because he discovered other dudes and dudettes enjoy reading it. It's fine to criticize it--deconstruct it, break down why it works or doesn't--hell, that sort of thing can be fun! But there's a line between 'look, I don't think this comic works because...' and what you're doing here. What you are doing here amounts to squatting over the internet, spreading your butt-cheeks wide, and engaging in some explosive textual diarrhea.

It'd be one thing if all you were doing here was saying 'Man, this comic sucks, there's no joke!', or 'the joke here's not funny, let's break this shit down and talk about it', or even 'I really don't want to hear about his personal life, I think it detracts from the humor of the series!'. But take note: None of these are things you are doing. You are criticizing the dude instead of the work. The artist instead of the art. You are wailing and flailing over the fact that he didn't... what was it? Remove the 'merchandise' button for one of his comics? Because it deals with something personal to him, and because you don't like the proximity? Are you fucking serious? Because you are engaging in some serious cartoon villainy up in this thread right now. Like, this is Skeletor-level shit. Next, I expect you to wring your hands together, cackle in a shrill voice, and tell us how, with your next post, you'll surely seize the power of Grayskull for your own.

Basically, you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here, and you just need to bite the bullet and say 'yeah, okay, my bad' and leave it at that.

Unless you actually don't suspect you're wrong, in which case... I guess you're just a shitburger.

[bentheimmigrant]

Silly rabbit, fanbases aren't self selecting! Don't you guys realise? You were assigned your webcomics at birth, and must follow them throughout their existence. Stop lying to yourself and understand that the issue of Free Will is at the heart of this, and the trolls' rage that they have none is where their vitriol comes from.

[SirMustapha]

gruff but generally coherent

[SirMustapha]

I mean, I guess I can respect the whole 'hold an antagonistic opinion in the face of opposition' thing, but your opinion on this subject is, literally--and yes, I'm using the word 'literally' literally--shit. It is a heaping pile of steaming, fresh-from-the-large-intestine, frothing-with-fecal-bacteria shit. It is a shitburger with extra shitpickles ordered from McShits-a-lot.

Nope! Chuck Testa.

It's been long established that this is a niche comic, written by some dude who likes doing it, and posted online largely because he discovered other dudes and dudettes enjoy reading it.

Yeah, and he just happens to have it on a tight, arbitrary schedule and make a living out of it. Yeah, all my friends do that. I have an actual job because I'm boring, you know.

What you are doing here amounts to squatting over the internet, spreading your butt-cheeks wide, and engaging in some explosive textual diarrhea.

Hey! Like Randall!

But take note: None of these are things you are doing. You are criticizing the dude instead of the work. The artist instead of the art.

Okay, that's a fair point. I'll pause the cheap sarcasm to reply it seriously. Yes, I am doing that, because Randall himself erased the line between his comic and himself as a person. xkcd is Randall, otherwise would he really put out his wife's cancer thing in such a frank, explicit way? With other artists, I am fully able to make that distinction, but not with Randall.

You are wailing and flailing over the fact that he didn't... what was it? Remove the 'merchandise' button for one of his comics?

That was one of the things. But actually, it's not that the non-removal of the link is the big problem: it's just one aspect of Randall's exploitation of this matter. It's like he doesn't realise what he's really doing. So he wants sympathy? He wants to get his suffering out of his system? Doesn't he have a blog for that? A blog is a far better vehicle for a person to flesh out these problems and share them with his readers, and so on. But no, he's willingly using his comic for that. That means he's not only asking for sympathy: he's exploiting it. So, either he is fully aware of what he's doing, or he is unbelievably naïve.

Basically, you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here, and you just need to bite the bullet and say 'yeah, okay, my bad' and leave it at that.

That is exactly what I think of Randall.

Unless you actually don't suspect you're wrong, in which case...

No, it's just that I think Randall is more wrong than me. I always suspect I'm wrong, but Randall is just plain screwed up.

[iamspen]

Are you suggesting artists shouldn't create art the reflects their personal emotions while also still making a living off said art? If so, hey, let's start a list of other amoral assholes we should boycott! We'll start with total douchebags like Michaelangelo, William Shakespeare, Pablo Picasso, Charlotte Bronte, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart...you know what, I could keep going, but I'm going to assume you've been proven wrong.

[Weeks]

I think SirMustapha should stop using his sig (and therefore, this forum) as an advertisement.

[The Great Hippo]

Okay, that's a fair point. I'll pause the cheap sarcasm to reply it seriously. Yes, I am doing that, because Randall himself erased the line between his comic and himself as a person. xkcd is Randall, otherwise would he really put out his wife's cancer thing in such a frank, explicit way? With other artists, I am fully able to make that distinction, but not with Randall.

...

But actually, it's not that the non-removal of the link is the big problem: it's just one aspect of Randall's exploitation of this matter. It's like he doesn't realise what he's really doing. So he wants sympathy? He wants to get his suffering out of his system? Doesn't he have a blog for that? A blog is a far better vehicle for a person to flesh out these problems and share them with his readers, and so on. But no, he's willingly using his comic for that. That means he's not only asking for sympathy: he's exploiting it. So, either he is fully aware of what he's doing, or he is unbelievably naïve.

...

No, it's just that I think Randall is more wrong than me. I always suspect I'm wrong, but Randall is just plain screwed up.

You do not know this person.

[Pfhorrest]

Mustafa: Lets say I discover that I am apparently a pretty good cook, and friends start asking me to cater their parties, and then I lose my job as a web developer but find that I have enough of a fanbase of my cooking that I decide to open a little cafe of my own. It's virtually a one-man shop, and I'm close with all of my patrons -- much closer than the cooks or waiters at a big chain restaurant would be. The cafe is me -- this is what I do with my life now, and there's barely any semblance of a corporate veil between the business and myself. The business is just a thing that I do, and sure I make money off it, but it's still just me.

Then I get married, and my wife develops cancer, and that hits me really hard. Because I am so close with my patrons, and talk frankly with each one of them, I of course talk a lot about the big thing which is on my mind at the moment -- the fact that my wife has cancer. Maybe I even design a special dish and promise on the menu that some fraction of all proceeds from that dish will go to fund cancer research. Maybe I even advertise this fact -- eat at Forrest's and help fund the cure!

Would you then accuse me of exploiting my wife's cancer for business purposes? I could see you saying "all this cancer stuff makes me uncomfortable, I'm not going to eat at Forrest's anymore". Or saying "going on about cancer like this is likely to drive Forrest's customers away". But if I then say "ok, sorry you don't like it, but this is my choice", would you go on to complain (maybe not to my face, but elsewhere) that I'm doing something horribly wrong, rather than just something you dislike, or think is imprudent of me? I mean, I respect your opinion and you don't have to eat here if you're uncomfortable, and I thank you for the advice but choose not to heed it... end of story, right? We go our separate ways and maybe you miss out on my delicious food and maybe I go out of business as others follow you but nobody's done anything really wrong here, we've just made our choices.

It sounds to me that you are saying more about Randall and xkcd than "I find this cancer topic annoying/uninteresting/unfunny" or "I think this is a bad business decision on his part". You sound more like you're saying "how dare he!". But what is so audacious about someone's personal life showing through in their business which, as you say, is almost synonymous with them? Why does the fact that he makes money off this mean that he has to be completely impersonal about it? You can argue that it would be a better business decision if he was more impersonal. You can state your opinion that you would enjoy his business better if he were more impersonal. But you seem to be saying that delving too much into his personal life, at least as it relates to his wife's disease, is not just uninteresting or imprudent but wrong, and I don't see where you come up with that.