So I read the first 120 strips, which took me up to the temporary defeat of the lich. Fans of a story seem to get a kick out of the reactions of an uninitiated reader, but I don’t know if that holds true for critical reactions. I don’t mean to bait anybody. Just presenting an outsider perspective.
OOTS represents a kind of test case for the power of story telling. The other variables have been controlled: considering the crude art and all-dialogue presentation, Burlew can’t dazzle the reader with great prose or pictures. So the fans must be coming for the story. What are its features, and how does it work?
My predictions, having sampled maybe a dozen strips from random points in the story: there’ll be very clearly defined character traits, a lot of shockers/cliff-hangers, and a few will-they-won’t-they dynamics in the main cast.
Onto the reading:
Tons of metafiction. This is “have your cake and eat it too” stuff – make fun of these stereotypes while presenting them. In #45, after encountering the bizarro party, the cast speculates about their origin. One of the suggestions is “hackneyed plot device?”
It’s not really funny, either. But it’s not aggressively or off-puttingly unfunny, so I guess it’s fine; it just feels like a padding. Easily skipped over.
The plot engine seems to be the sequence of clear challenges to be overcome, the long-distance set ups.
Characterization
Roy
Roy is the only reliable one, as quickly laid out in #15. He is also uptight and domineering, according to Elan and Belkar (#38).
Durkon
Not too much known about Durkon in the early going. He’s the cleric, and worships Thor. Talks with a scottish accent, and really hates the undead.
The tryst with Hilgya shows him as inflexible, obedient, and traditionalist. Also not in touch with his feelings. (#84)
Vaarsuvius
V is wordy and pretentious, as seen when he lulls a room of bad guys to sleep while ramping up for a spell.
Belkar
Belkar’s an idiot. Doesn’t understand that he should track the chimera. Belkar is vain (#42). Psychotic and violent as well. The strip enjoys its violence.
Elan
Elan’s an idiot. Thinks he’s naked while not wearing clothes. His music is obnoxious.
By #109, we’ve got the first hints at a main-cast couple.
Haley
Haley is materialistic and manipulative. In #29, she cleans out a dungeon room before the others can, and claims that there was nothing of value in it. A giant sack of loot sits behind her, and she says it’s feminine products to gross out the guys. In #35, the lads lick their lips while Haley checks for traps… sexily. Perhaps this is naïve, or perhaps she’s just messing with them. (Consider the context of this comic, I’m not sanguine about the representation of women in this story.)
One weird thing to note: Haley is being described as attractive when the art cannot corroborate this. Her body is a potato with breasts in a midriff-baring top, and her legs are two straws. That’s not that much of a problem for OOTS, since the story doesn’t depend on the reader “buying” Haley’s attractiveness. (If it did, we’d be distracted as we are by many TV shows and movies, which pair unattractive men with gorgeous women.) But interestingly, if Haley was supposed to be gorgeous, and the reader was supposed to feel that, then the artist’s skill level sets a ceiling on how attractive characters can actually be. That’s a double-edged sword. Text can, at best, assert physical beauty, but it can’t prove it. Art can represent it: therefore the standards are higher, but the payoff is greater. (An idea I’m paraphrasing from Roland Barthes.)
Haley also has a head for numbers. In #45 she does some number crunching.
Suspicious of others (#46). Doesn’t like other women (#53).
Hilgya
Hilgya hoses Durkon, then beds him. During pillow-talk, she reveals that she tried to poison her husband, to whom she is still married (#83). Hmmm…
Thog
Thog is Lenny from Of Mice and Men. He butchers a woman while fantasizing about owning a puppy. It’s kind of dark.
Techniques
#31: An interesting opportunity, like #15, to have the author assign attributes to the characters. So far I’m seeing a lot of figural explicit altero-characterization – a very jargony phrase drawn from the work of a narratologist named Pfister. All it means is that a character (figure) is explicitly characterizing someone else (altero). So by picturing the brains of each of the party members as a food, Burlew can very quickly symbolize their relative intelligences in a visual way. It’s cool, because it’s something that only works with the accompanying visual.
One upside to working in a world as well-defined as D&D and classic fantasy: the reader knows all the shorthand. So Roy can be defined as being an atypical fighter. Vaarsuvius is an elf, and acts like one would expect. I’d say it only takes about 50 strips for the reader to be totally up to speed on all the characters and their major attributes, which is impressive. I wonder if the characterization will get deeper, though.
Enigmas
I think this is Burlew’s bread and butter. I was trying to read a Jack Reacher book, and noticed a lot of the same techniques. One interesting thing about OOTS: since it breaks the 4th wall, it is allowed to highlight the enigmas. Two benefits: readers can’t miss it this way, and by pointing out just how mysterious it is, the reader’s curiosity is inflamed. It’s kind of weird that this works – you’d think that by not taking itself seriously, the reader wouldn’t take them seriously. But I do want to know what that monster looks like.
[ul]
[li]Belkar wasn’t affected by an Unholy Blight spell. The question is asked, then quickly avoided – maybe Belkar, the least competent character so far, has some hidden destiny, in keeping with the laws of generic fantasy. (A quick check of the rules of Unholy Blight clarifies my confusion: it only affects good or neutral characters. So Belkar is evil.)
[/li][li]When the goat turns red, strike true… foreshadowing from ghost dad. Playing around with Chekhov’s gun, hinting that the chimera will in fact come back.
[/li][li]V does not sleep. Also, his name is V. Probably short for something with lots of apostrophes in it… wait, just short for “Vaarsuvius”. In #30 I find out he’s an elf. Yeah, I probably should have looked at his ears a little more closely. That also explains the sleeplessness.
[/li][li]The appearance of the bizarro party. Is it just by accident, or is there something else going on? (You literally get a “dun-dun-dunnnnh.”)
[/li][li]What’s the horrible monster that the lich has in the shadows?
[/li][li]#120 sets up a bunch of long-term enigmas: what’s Nale’s plan, Xykon’s plan, who’s the guy in the blue cowl, etc.
[/li][/ul]
Random notes
Cease and Desist
What the hell? Did WOTC actually send a cease and desist order to Burlew re: Mind Flayers? I could see it being used for one joke, but it carries over into the next strip.
Metafiction
Is it easier to break the 4th wall in comics? I think yes. Comics are between movies and text. Movies obviously have no problem with verisimilitude, since they depict real people doing real stuff. (And the fake people doing fake stuff do it very convincingly if the CGI budget is high enough.) Text has no visual element, which is actually a blessing: the reader provides his or her own visuals, and therefore can’t be disappointed with them. A comic strip like OOTS has very basic art, so the falsity of the world is apparent at every moment, so much so that it almost has to acknowledge this to the reader. Which leads to the halfling character making a joke about Elijah Woods, or some goblins asking for a 401k.
Nothing Permanent
Because this is a story which also plays by the rules of D&D, it seems like the dramatic stuff can be undone pretty easily. Impalements are cured with scrolls, etc. So you get, again, to have your cake and eat it too. Crazy stuff can happen, and then it can be undone.
Women in the Story
Lot of lame, hacky comedy about the women. “Ugh, lines in the bathroom, amirite!” I’m curious to see if the women get a little more shrift as the story goes along.
