A Note:
Now, I don't know if anyone's been following the kerfluffle over at Ragnell's blog lately. I've personally stayed out of the argument, there were some personal events last week that left me without the spirit for a nice argument.
It's definitely interesting.
However as a result of these events, certain accusations were made that I simply can not stay quiet about.
The people over at Ragnell's blog are NOT sycophants. You know how I know? Because I am her only sycophant. I worked too damn hard to get this cushy job to share it with the rest of you wannabes!
Hmph.
(On a more serious note, I find it interesting how the accusations of "sycophant" seem to come only after being on the minority side of an argument. When they're being agreed with, the accusation never comes up. Funny how that works.)
It's definitely interesting.
However as a result of these events, certain accusations were made that I simply can not stay quiet about.
The people over at Ragnell's blog are NOT sycophants. You know how I know? Because I am her only sycophant. I worked too damn hard to get this cushy job to share it with the rest of you wannabes!
Hmph.
(On a more serious note, I find it interesting how the accusations of "sycophant" seem to come only after being on the minority side of an argument. When they're being agreed with, the accusation never comes up. Funny how that works.)
Labels: non-comic
posted by kalinara @ 7:56 PM
8 Comments:
At September 09, 2006 8:03 PM,
Ragnell said…
Umm.. Kali... That doesn't help...
At September 09, 2006 8:04 PM,
kalinara said…
Ooops. Yes, ma'am. Sorry ma'am.
At September 09, 2006 10:45 PM,
Chris Sims said…
I DISAGREE!
At September 09, 2006 11:51 PM,
kalinara said…
*points* Blasphemer! Off my blog! Only agreers allowed! :-P
At September 10, 2006 1:38 AM,
Seth T. Hahne said…
If you're talking about the thing about Sandicomm's comment and succeeding reaction (especially by West), I'm not sure. I didn't see the actual accusation of sycofancy. Reading the comments on the first post was interesting. The discussion was, largely, what a discussion should be (whether I agreed with the points or not). And I didn't find West's comment to be particularly offensive nor did I think that Ragnell should have necessarily taken from it the umbrage that she did (though I remain unaware of any history the two have that could have contributed to her reaction; if anything, it seems West's comment was more of a back-breaking-straw variety since it certainly didn't merit fury of its own accord).
The second conversation (the one asking readers what they thought of West's comment) was thoroughly less interesting - as it failed to keep to topic and ranged all over the place and rarely dealt with the issue at hand (i.e., the issue of West's reaction to the Sandicomm piece). It was more compiled rant than discussion and while not exhibiting the worst the internet has to offer, was more heated than it needed to be.
As far as sycofancy, I didn't detect any particular sycofancy toward Ragnell herself, but perhaps detected it toward certain ideologies. People seemed to pay almost a fawning obeisance to whatever position they had decided to take (note that this was not entirely the case, but was how I perceived things from my cursory reading). Where the recent emphasis on sexism and misogyny in comics has plenty of good points and will hopefully show forth fruit of like kind, it has also produced a tendency towards both over-sensitivity and polarization. At least in my very subjective reading of things/events.
In any case, Ragnell did well not to comment while angry - as that rarely helps a discussion - but I question whether anger was an appropriate response at all. Again, I may be missing out on the history between the two, but from an outsider's perspective (and generally speaking, I like to think, "a fair outsider's perspective"), there was little justification for her reaction. If West missed the point and his sarcasm was likewise misplaced? Fine, correct his misapprehension and move on with useful things. If he didn't miss the point, but his sarcasm was unappreciated, it could be dealt with cordially.
Honestly, Sandicomm's point appeared to me as uninformed and without great merit, so West's comment, though wry seemed appropriate. I interpreted the "once again" to refer to common overstatements that issue from a perspective with which West seemed to have some familiarity, but not necessarily Ragnell. But again, here is where my unfamiliarity with the two proves a deficit. Even so, had the "once again" been toward some proclivity on Ragnell's part to portray "the best thing that could happen to a female character is that she gets a mate" as a particularly egregious trope of sexist literature, it still wouldn't have merited anger.
*shrug* I fell like I'm missing something.
P.S. I think The Best Thing that can happen to a man is to find a good woman. And vice versa. I don't believe our careers, strength, or success defines us. It's in the relationships we nurture that we are proven as worthwhile human beings - and the most successful life is the one that nurtures such relationships best. And that is a life of sacrifice rather than selfish gain.
_______________________________
Incidentally, my wife was looking over my shoulder while I read the posts and comments and remarked that while Ragnell seems proficient in describing colourfully the effect her anger holds over her in this instance, she seems to miss the opportunity to actually explain to us what brought her to the state. Yes, the comment made her mad, but we are left out in the cold (at least for quite some time) as to why this could be. I imagine that she believed the slight to be obvious, but it isn't quite. Her revelation of the particulars comes late and is buried in the comments. By the time I arrived at it, I was so weary of the discussion that I couldn't possibly tell if there was any weight to her supposition. It was a frustrating way for her to go about things, in our opinion.
At September 10, 2006 1:50 AM,
kalinara said…
The actual accusation of sycophants and such wasn't made on Ragnell's blog. In an attempt at manners, I won't link directly to it, but it's pretty easy to find. (A hint: look at the participant's own blog).
It's actually not the only accusation either, which is very funny to me.
As for the discussion regarding the post. I stayed out of it personally for two reasons, one: I was not up to a debate and two: I could see both sides of the argument.
I can understand your position of course, but really, I also think that Ragnell didn't really need to explain her emotional reaction on her own blog. I think she was trying to open that post for means of further discussion, as well, to see where others' opinions stood. She wasn't saying that people should automatically agree with her.
But again, I'm both biased and much more inclined to stay out of this one. :-) I'm allowed my vote of "abstain" once in a while. :-)
The accusation of sycophancy though, that annoyed me. Because "sycophants" was the word used. I don't like seeing friends insulted, and that was an insult to both her and to the people who frequent her blog. It's one thing to be annoyed at so many people missing your point, it's completely another to accuse them of having no opinion of their own merely because they all happen to disagree.
At September 10, 2006 2:12 PM,
Anonymous said…
While there's plenty of sycophantic behavior elsewhere on the internet comics community (i.e. Millarworld, John Byrne Forum), I didn't detect any in the posts on Ragnell's blog. Alot more barriers would need to be crossed before it approached anything close to the fauning, worshipful boot-licking of the aforementioned sites.
At September 11, 2006 9:02 AM,
kalinara said…
mark: Heh. I tend to agree, but I'm biased.
Post a Comment
<< Home