Discussion Webcomic / Shortpacked

They're strawmen. The point of a strawman is to not let them have decent points to make their POV look worse. Though you have a good point, making the strawmen look like strawmen seems like a bad idea.

Although I seem to recall a lot of tall, skinny strawmen too.

That is true. I still think even putting a strawman into something meant to be taken seriously in the first place is just a bad idea.

Sadly if I was to ever suggest that to Willis he'd probably instantly make me a strawman instead.

Just would like to point out we were about to take it to the discussion page, and I think that we were both handling it fairly civilly. But thank you for beating me to the punch.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.

So... I'm not sure why interrupting the (ostensibly a character-based humor strip) comic strips with an Author Tract isn't considered an Author Filibuster. Specifically, the edit reason that it's only one strip seems irrelevant. It's still long enough to halt the strip since it's just Ethan making a message board post for an entire strip. Other webcomics-based examples include single-strip Author Filibuster examples. 0

Did you bring it to Ask The Tropers?

EDIT: Lark, you're a ninja...

Well, thank you, first and foremost, and I feel you're being fairly civil too.

The thing about the use of Character Filibuster there's nothing to halt, and even if there was it doesn't do it for long. It's no more a filibuster than a two-minute speech in Congress is a filibuster.

If other webcomics-based examples use single strip examples I'd be perfectly willing to argue that they, too, are misusing the trope based on the description given on its page.

Similarly, an Author Tract is when the entire comic is there for no other reason than as a soapbox for the author. I don't feel that term applies either.

I'd say Ethan's blog post is certainly an Author Filibuster, and probably many of the Cutaway Gags as well (my fingers keep wanting to type "cutaway Gaga"), but the political stories less so. Author Tract, sure, but they're not really an "interruption," since we still are dealing with the same characters. Not every strip has to take place at the toy store.

Except they come when there's no plot to halt, as it went up amongst a bunch of gag strips.

I think perhaps we're misinterpreting what filibuster means. It's when you begin talking nonstop and at length to the determent of everything else, so that people will have cave to your ideas before they can move on. If we spend weeks on end with Willis writing comics about how dumb toy fans are, with absolutely nothing that deviates to break it up, that would be an Author Filibuster—not just by the definition of the trope, but by the definition of the word in its title. A singular comic can no more be a filibuster than a paragraph in a novel.

The idea is of a long speech, interrupting the action, not a series of strips within a strip. Taking up an entire strip counts as "long," but no matter how many strips it takes, a silly bit of political satire in a silly, sometimes story-driven comic doesn't qualify as a speech.

I don't necessarily agree that the Washington stuff is a filibuster. But I felt that Larkman made the case well and I can see his prospective. There's a change in location, a change in general focus and subject matter, and a sudden plot twist to get us there, and it all seems to be in the service of talking about politics. To me, it's understandable why someone might list it.

But I am having immense trouble figuring out how a single gag strip amongst a sea of generally unrelated gag strips qualifies as a "filibuster". I don't care how much text is in it, or how seriously it takes itself. It doesn't stop the comic from proceeding as normal when the next update roles around.

Thanks Wackd, I appreciate it. I also get that the burden of proof is on me so I hope I can convince you.

My point is that it's not a "gag" strip, it's an out of place, strip-long Author Tract. Other gag-a-day comics have examples listed that are similar (VG Cats on the Author Filibuster page, for example). The jokes stopped so that Walky can air his grievances about the fandom.

It doesn't stop the comic from proceeding as normal when the next update rolls around, sure, but it stops the comic from proceeding as normal for that entire strip. It's not worked into the narrative, it doesn't move the plot or characters forward at all. There's no denying that. Now, maybe the VG Cats is a bad example and I shouldn't follow it. But as far as I can see, it fits the trope description and laconic.

EDIT: Geez Louise, I didn't expect so many people to beat me to responding. Hahaha.

Well, then, list it under Author Tract*. If you want to list anything that's not worked into the narrative or moves the characters forward as an Author Filibuster, than that makes every single gag strip in the entire archives a series of Author Filibusters on different topics, which I don't think works.

And "it's not funny" isn't really a qualifier, I don't think. Funniness isn't anywhere in the definition of the trope. None of your qualifiers are. A cartoonist expressing their opinion in their comic isn't the same thing as them spending weeks or months building up the same point in a way that everything else grinds to a halt.

* Actually, don't, since Author Tract doesn't work either. That's when the author feels making a point is more important than telling a story, and that's clearly not going on here.

Hey, so I'm working on that now. I feel like we should start small. The entire Walkyverse is a lot to cover.

Dumbing Of Age has its own page and its own character tropes, so yeah, that should be on its own.