26 Jun-05 Jul 2015: "Not-Walter" screams like a little girl

[Morgaln]

The point is, the comic makes fun of a person getting mind controlled and tortured to death, and that doesn't sit well with a lot of people for good reasons.

Actually, I think it sits really well with most people, for equally good reasons, being this is a work of comedic fiction.
In EVERY piece of comedic fiction I've read, played or watched, torture is ALWAYS played for laughs, just like every other thing which is normally tragic or sad is played for laughs. A person falling down a mountain and breaking his legs, crippling him for life ? Tragic, of course, but let the same action take place in a National Lampoon film and you've got the audience laughing. Or look at how much violence there is in slap-stick, violence that the audience may have experienced themselves, violence that takes place all over the world, every day, crippling and killing people, people with families, etc. Yet, should be ban ALL violence from comedy as long as it's not treated "dead" seriously ?
How about other types of tragedy ? Loss of a job, house, money, friends, family. Depression, serious psychological problems, addiction. These are also important staples of comedy, as well as tragedy.
Without tragedy or evil, there is very little left of comedy...

So, the point is, bad things=comedy IF world=comedic. Even Donald Duck comics have used torture as a joke.

-Mindlink

Personally, I consider none of these examples funny. The misfortune of others does not hold amusement for me. Most of what is labeled comedy these days is missing the denominator "failed" in my eyes. If an audience is laughing at people getting crippled for life, that doesn't make it funny to me, it just raises contempt toward that audience. My personal feelings alone are no reason to change the whole system though.

But there is also a general consensus that some things are too serious to be used in comedy. Rape jokes, as I mentioned before, are completely off-limits these days (unless they are targeted at men, because raping men is a laughing matter apparently). As I explained several times now, torture is on par with rape in seriousness; if one is exempt, there is good reason to extend that exemption to the other.

[SuperVaderMan]

So yeah, it was drawn in 2006. It's, um, not exactly a mature portrayal of a female character. I winced too, but then made allowances. Thunt has advanced a lot since 2006. If he were to draw the same plotline today I'm sure it would be a lot different. The dolls would be way creepier, Not-Walter would look far more dangerous, and Greena would be considerably less shallow.

Meanwhile rabbit girl is dressed in little more than a thong and some rags.

But hey, at least she's not super-busty. Progress.

[Krulle]

P.S.: just noticed that Not-Walter actually used the wording of his phrase "it's not as if I'm going to..." which is actually a lie.

A lawful evil character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie, although he may mislead or withhold information.

What makes this frame an even worse writing.

He might be torturing her differently. E.g. only using the pain chair, or not using the painchair while the other parameters remain the same.
Then he would not be lying.

[Kyubey_dota]

Is anyone else a little miffed that she didn't have protection from evil or some other way to defend herself from Charm Person? Especially considering that charm person may be used in desperation to call off the dolls. She is smart enough and have resources to know non walters phobia, and prevent his escape but not enough to defend herself being charmed?

[Glemp]

It's black comedy - done well, almost anything can be made funny. For example, Futurama had an entire song dedicated to how Bender was going to hell to be tortured forever, and I found it funny. Darker comedy can be found in, say, Catch-22 - Major Major refuses to deal with anyone's problems by jumping out of the window of his office, and Doc Daneeka "dies" because he forged some paperwork that said he was in a fatal crash and no-one will believe him. All of those examples are made funny by their delivery, despite -as the story itself also shows- also showing how flatly insane and suicidal the military had become in the name of war. A major so insecure that he takes every opportunity to duck out, literally? A system that values papers over people? And yet, until the final chapters, we laugh. And we're not bad people for it.

[SpeaksManyLanguages]

Is anyone else a little miffed that she didn't have protection from evil or some other way to defend herself from Charm Person? Especially considering that charm person may be used in desperation to call off the dolls. She is smart enough and have resources to know non walters phobia, and prevent his escape but not enough to defend herself being charmed?

Yes. A lot of russian readers are.
Actually, one of the russian readers is thinking that Greena used to do her demon-hunting (more like demon-torturing) with some sort of partner and this is what happenned after she was alone.

[nikohl]

P.S.: just noticed that Not-Walter actually used the wording of his phrase "it's not as if I'm going to..." which is actually a lie.

A lawful evil character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie, although he may mislead or withhold information.

What makes this frame an even worse writing.

I'm not participating in the rest of the discussion any more than I already have because I don't have the energy for a debate right now, but I'm just going to weigh in on this - I would say that "it's not as if I'm going to..." would count as sarcasm rather than a lie. Because he's clearly going to. He knows it, she knows it, etc. I have more of a problem with the fact that "hey I'm gonna kill you" should allow her to resist the Charm Person than a Lawful Evil evil character being sarcastic in his gloating victory speech. As per that spell you can't make someone obey an obviously harmful order or suggestion, but might be able to convince them that something dangerous is worth doing - I guess she could have failed her Sense Sarcasm check and really thought they were just going for a nice trip round Hell, but that's gotta have been some epic-level oversight on her part.

I mean, it's no worse an oversight than her not having Protection from Evil cast, yeah. But I, like many others (apparently including the Russian forum - hi guys!), have concluded that she was 'designed' as an overly cocky, ill-prepared hunter who thought her trap was perfect, didn't plan properly, and therefore failed quite miserably against this CR20 monster. I don't like the story, but I think at least some of the point of it was that she messed up.

If we're talking "why didn't people do...", I haven't figured out why Not-Walter didn't Greater Dispel Magic whatever was going on with those dolls in the first place. He'd have probably been able to drop the golem-thingy to an inanimate pile of blah again. Or Hold it, or Summon up some buddies to help him deal (and then kill 'em if they threatened to talk about his doll phobia), or... You know, just Wish it into non-existence with his yearly. A Pit Fiends' SLA list (while not featuring Charm Person in any way, meaning Not-Walter must have at least one level of a caster class) is pretty good. He could've got rid of it while still running away like a big baby, long before he set it on fire out of blind terror and then found his swordy strength and beat it up. But I guess I think like a utility caster and not a fireball-chucker.

[ForgetsOldName]

I'm kinda bummed that something that was meant to be a bit of fun has turned out this way.

My personal belief is that once she gets to hell she will have an arsenal of memorized spells at her disposal, and begin a rip-roaring adventure which ends with her leveling up four times, getting into a library containing two hundred custom and unique demonic spells, and leave with an especially hungry and stupid imp as her new familiar. After all, she belongs to the Great Herbert.

[Simon]

I'm a bit worried that this conversation will have to be moved to controversy if it gets too detailed/far away from the actual comic, but my opinion on the last panel is that it's supposed to be 'black' or 'dark' humour. Obviously, not everyone will find the same type of humour funny, which is fine. But it doesn't necessarily mean the comic is bad if it has some elements in it or anything. Just that you don't like that specific part, which is perfectly fine.

I also think the torture is just torture. This goblins comic isn't unique in showing demons/devils that torture people. You've got lots of things, like in religious stuff (e.g. the Bible) or tv shows (e.g. supernatural) or films (e.g. Hellraiser) or books (e.g.
the Discworld series) or whatever. It's like a trope, that these creatures are evil and do bad things. Of course, just because a lot of things that mention demons shows how they torture people, doesn't necessarily excuse it. But it's a very easy way to show someone is evil. I think it's interesting in Goblins where lot's of stereotypically 'evil' aren't actually evil. But not-Walter is evil, and we can see he is evil and there's no doubt about it. Whether we think torture is funny or not, it could be argued, is irrelevant, as not-Walter (probably) thinks it is. I see this as character building, and it's an interesting juxtaposition of not-walter's fear (being scared of dolls and put in a situation out of his control humanises him and can make us feel sympathetic) and that he's not a nice person and finds joy in horrible things.

But I think it could be argued that the humour here (if indeed, we're supposed to derive merriment from the last panel, and not instead some sort of bitter-sweet feeling) isn't derived from the torture, but it's from the irony present. "Oh it's not like I'm going to do XYZ" from a person from a group that has been stereotypically portrayed as doing XYZ in lots of media. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily the torture here that's funny, but it could just be the sarcastic comment. You could replace it with something like "It's not as if I'm going to stab you in the back as soon as you look away" when the audience knows full well that, yes, he is going to do that.

But anyway, the comic ends there, so we don't know what happens afterwards. His last comment could be too unbelievable and she snaps out of it. Or any number of things could happen. It is left somewhat to your imagination and unless Thunt specifically says what happens afterwards, we'd still just be guessing.

[RocketScientist]

Everyone please remember to stay polite.

(This is not directed at any individual user. It's a general message to everyone.)

[thesilence]

We have enjoyed this story more since it occurred to us to imagine that the roomful of animate dolls (the one on the door appears to have been inert, presumably serving as a test-check before the "main event") were not only crawling toward Grinorraracen and staring at him with beady button-eyes, but also meeping and piping in chorus the whole time.

P.S. Pit Fiends don't have "Charm Person" in SRD, that's more house rules and deus ex machina-style twists, by the way.

It's a first-level spell available to sorcerers, and there are probably feats that can give you access to these in some Monster Manual somewhere. There's no reason to assume that any high-level monster is exclusively limited to the "standard package" of its race's abilities. (Plus there has been ample evidence that THunt has an imperfect memory for the rules, and/or doesn't care about the rules when they get in the way of his intended plot.)

[thesilence]

On the "beat a little to easy": by the way, pit fiends in DnD are one of the top-level devils in the Baator hierarchy. If I'm not mistaken, only the 9 lords of hell are above them

Even better, the 9th lord of Hell is a Pit Fiend (or at least was one, and still looks much like any other), albeit an advanced one. Bel, Lord of the First has 26HD according to the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness, while the 3.5 Fiendish Codex 2 lists an "Aspect" of Bel as having 22 HD, both outstripping the 18HD of a normal pit fiend, but not by much (and falling far short of the 54 HD which you're allowed to advance a Pit Fiend to, according to the Monster Manual). He has much the same abilities as any other PF - disease bite, wings and tail slap, damage reduction and regeneration, fear aura, etc. etc. He's tougher, obviously, but not drastically different; saying whether he actually qualifies as a member of the same species is mostly a matter of sophistry.

Also, I don't think we've seen the last of Greena.. I think it would darkly comical for Not-Walter to show up in the main comic with his succibus assistant 'Not-Greena', get asked -"why's she with you?"; to get only a shrug out of Not-Walter and a, "I changed my mind... having a demon-hunting demoness is far more useful in the Abyss than a Kyton-chew toy! Now I have my very own... 'doll'...!"

This is brilliant and is now part of our headcanon.

If you read this old filler about Thuntonian Demons, you'll notice that the Demons need some anguish to feed themselves off....

Thank you for providing this brilliant link. We wonder what other glorious Thuntonian works we have missed which are no longer easily found in the archive.

It's very much not funny, and torture is as serious a topic as rape.

We do not wish to become embroiled in a heated debate, but we must say this much - it is a very dangerous slippery slope to allow any form of artistic expression to be censored based on the idea that it is "going too far". Part of the purpose of all art is to disturb the status quo, to challenge dominant attitudes and to stir intense feelings, not necessarily positive ones, in the audience. We believe that if an audience finds a work of art unpleasant, they should simply avoid it, but not attempt to prevent it from existing or being distributed, based solely on their feelings. Doing so rapidly waxes Orwellian, and it does not become more acceptable as the number of people who agree with the censor becomes larger.

[Sessine]

My personal belief is that once she gets to hell she will have an arsenal of memorized spells at her disposal, and begin a rip-roaring adventure which ends with her leveling up four times, getting into a library containing two hundred custom and unique demonic spells, and leave with an especially hungry and stupid imp as her new familiar. After all, she belongs to the Great Herbert.

I like this sequel. For it to happen, though, she'd have to be a player character. Not-Walter is Herbert's NPC. The story works very well if viewed as the intro episode for a solo adventure. It even explains her dumb outfit; the player must be a teenaged male making the usual rookie mistakes when trying to play a female character.

And he's overconfident. He figured he'd thought of everything. He was planning to use his knowledge of Not-Walter's name to demand an escorted tour of Hell, he was all primed for it... but then Herbert noticed there was a small but important angle he'd forgotten to cover. Woops! His entry into the promised Hell-adventure was far less dignified than he'd expected.

The Charm Person will break, of course, as soon as he gets to Hell.

[thesilence]

Re-reading the page where Greena was introduced, we now think perhaps she was a somewhat immature woman-child who developed sorcerer powers (she doesn't look old enough to be a high-level wizard capable of casting binding spells), arrogant and immature, with her blatantly sexual (but, in our opinion, somewhat sloppy and un-calculated) appearance serving mostly as a way of bluntly manipulating patriarchal authorities so that she can get her own way. Essentially a spoiled brat and more than a little sociopathic, grown-up only in the physical sense, hence why she "wants to play" with her captive. We think it is a rather brilliant character design, actually. Fits with the same characterization of sorcerers that Giant In The Playground makes - being powered by Charisma and likely dumping Intelligence to affort it, they're probably attractive and dimwitted, resorting to crudely manipulative presentation as a simple way to gain short-term social cachet.

In other words, we see nothing wrong with Greena's appearance or behavior, and no reason to assume that she is played by an immature male - she need only be immature as a character, possibly a deliberate choice on her player's part. (Then again, a player with especially good taste likely would not tolerate Herbert as a DM, so maybe Sessine is right, but we certainly do not think this ought to be the default blanket assumption.) We certainly do not think that just because she exposes a little cleavage and underboob, that makes her exclusively a sexual stereotype; we do not find her especially sexual-looking (certainly less so than Idle, or even Kin in her original slave-Leia appearance - did people complain when Kin was first introduced, before her character had been developed? we were not around back then).

And if she is indeed a sorcerer, well...take a look at pretty nearly every female magic-user in D&D artwork over the years. TSR was blatantly pushing a work of sexploitation pretty consistently throughout the game's first two editions, and Wotco taking over didn't change matters much. Even Mialee the wizard shows a fair amount of skin, and sorceress-types (particularly if they're Drow, but even otherwise) are usually dressed in little more than candyfloss. Actually, although we recognize that "but the guys are also objectified" is largely a false equivalence, we think it marks an interesting artistic choice on Wizards' part that the iconic 3E sorcerer, Hennet, is a male, and is consistently depicted shirtless and the like - pretty solidly embracing the idea that sorcerers trade on their looks, but at least not limiting this behavior to the fairer sex and the straight-male gaze.

[SpeaksManyLanguages]

I'm not participating in the rest of the discussion any more than I already have because I don't have the energy for a debate right now, but I'm just going to weigh in on this - I would say that "it's not as if I'm going to..." would count as sarcasm rather than a lie. Because he's clearly going to. He knows it, she knows it, etc.

yeah, i agree, my comment was a bit too far fetched. It's just that Not-Walter acted more like a child, making a decision on a whim, than a serious LE person that follows a certain agenda. Although, I guess that works too. I agree with Simon that it was a bigger exposure of Not-Walter's character.

If we're talking "why didn't people do...", I haven't figured out why Not-Walter didn't Greater Dispel Magic whatever was going on with those dolls in the first place. <...> A Pit Fiends' SLA list (while not featuring Charm Person in any way, meaning Not-Walter must have at least one level of a caster class) is pretty good.

I thought about this too. He was having a full scale panic attack that blocked his ability to think reasonably and use dispel (or to charm person earlier).

[sunphoenix]

Also, I don't think we've seen the last of Greena.. I think it would darkly comical for Not-Walter to show up in the main comic with his succibus assistant 'Not-Greena', get asked -"why's she with you?"; to get only a shrug out of Not-Walter and a, "I changed my mind... having a demon-hunting demoness is far more useful in the Abyss than a Kyton-chew toy! Now I have my very own... 'doll'...!"

This is brilliant and is now part of our headcanon.

{BIG GRIN!}

Thank you I'm glad someone decided to mention my attempt at some light-heartedness of a seriously dark moment for our arrogant, cocky, demon hunter!

And.. I must have missed it cause I thought Not-Walter was a Balor.. but clearly its obvious {don't see how I missed it}, he is a Pit fiend. So it really should be more like... 'Not-Walter shows up with his Sexy Erinyes assistant, 'Not-Greena'... "having a demon hunting Erinyes is far more useful against the Abyssal hordes than a new Kyton-chew toy! They can get their Own doll if they want one... this one is mine!"

But on the subject of Rape/Torture.. in D&D games, Demons and Devils are Very Bad villains.. and it was ALWAYS assumed in our games that there was no fate worse then being dragged to Hell or the Abyss the prisoner of one of those fiendish types...cause the LEAST you could expect was one or the other..likely both! It was Never played out in-game... there are some subjects that are terribly unpleasant and a DM must always be mindful of the comfort level of his/her players. but in some games... such subject matter was addressed and in fact as we all matured in game-style even role-played, but in good taste.. and mostly in the development of the character~ especially after the 'Book of the Damned' for 3.5 came out ... many players wanted to take a step on the darkside. That was the era of 'Vile' gaming as the Dragon Magazine defined Adult Games that players involved with such 'themed' games might find a bit interesting as long as EVERYONE playing knew beforehand of the darkly Adult Themes that would be present in said game.

To be sure a player character, YES a female character - Cleric of a War Deity.. and player, was captured taken to Hell and Rape/Tortured/Killed as a event in the game... we are all powerful high level characters..who bit off a little bit more than we could chew, the bad-guys upped their game.. and we were confronted by her Cambion off-spring as a foe. MY character... A male paladin - of the same war deity {though NOT romantically involved with the Cleric}, took it upon himself to avenge her death- kill the Cambion ...invade Hell and recover her body to put her spirit at rest recovering her soul... all as a partial side-plot of the published adventure, "A Paladin in Hell".

The female player was not 'happy' of the end of her character but expected it and was ok with using the event as a story plot for her next character. She was quite impressed by the heroic efforts not only of my character.. but of the party to cut a bloody swath of vengeance across hell in her honor!

And before some one screams, "But your trivializing such a terrible thing...!", there was much more to this game story than my brief synopsis here... and ANY of our characters could have had a similar fate... she, the player, was not singled out cause she was a girl, and there were two female players in that game... who both agreed this was the character's likely fate. I'm just not interested in belaboring the point of it all on a subject that was CLEARLY NOT Thunt's intention to trivialize, torture or whatever by evil fiendish villains...

My point is.. such elements can and are a part of the game ... and as long as they are addressed in good taste with the acceptance and agreement of all those playing.. they can Still be good games.

...And I agree Thunt was merely trying to show the folly of an over-confidant demon hunter who thought she was better prepared than she actually was.

[Morgaln]

I have no problem at all with the way you used torture in your campaign, sunphoenix; it sounds like it was a great game. After all, my RP of choice is Werewolf: the Apocalypse, where the depravities humans are capable of are one of the main plot points and we often touch on these issues in our games. I never said torture and similar issues should not be featured in fiction; that would be bad as it would mean turning a blind eye to them.

What I do take exception to is how this comic cheerfully tells us that Greena is going to be tortured to death because she totally deserves it. The whole idea that someone does deserve torture is very dangerous territory. There's not even any moral ambiguity about it. The final panel is very clearly designed to make the audience laugh, and laugh at Greena, the victim (although not an innocent one). It's a clear example of schadenfreude, and schadenfreude depends on thinking someone gets what they deserve. In my eyes, that does trivialize torture.

[sunphoenix]

I have no problem at all with the way you used torture in your campaign, sunphoenix; it sounds like it was a great game. After all, my RP of choice is Werewolf: the Apocalypse, where the depravities humans are capable of are one of the main plot points and we often touch on these issues in our games. I never said torture and similar issues should not be featured in fiction; that would be bad as it would mean turning a blind eye to them.

What I do take exception to is how this comic cheerfully tells us that Greena is going to be tortured to death because she totally deserves it. The whole idea that someone does deserve torture is very dangerous territory. There's not even any moral ambiguity about it. The final panel is very clearly designed to make the audience laugh, and laugh at Greena, the victim (although not an innocent one). It's a clear example of schadenfreude, and schadenfreude depends on thinking someone gets what they deserve. In my eyes, that does trivialize torture.

Your point is valid and were that what I thought Thunt was doing.. I'd have to agree with you.

But, I think you should consider giving Thunt a little benefit of the doubt here. Thunt in the past with his story plots has shown us a D&D trope and twisted it into some very different than what would be apparent on the surface... Kyn {'nuff said}, the Bug-bear.. heck the goblin HEROES themselves! They are NOT the maniacal, laughing cruel foes that they are portrayed as int he D&D Games. Try to keep in mind Thunt's comic takes the D&D 'venue' and in a twist of point-of-view turns the entire concept on its head while poking fun at some of the familiar themes of the D&D Genre.

So when Not-Walter says... "It's not like I'm going to {litany of terrible tortures and humiliations}... I feel that is Thunt poking fun.. not at the idea of torture but AT US...cause though the Character Not-Walter said it in a sarcastic way.... I'm betting he's not actually being untruthful... that something completely unexpected is going to happen to the buxom, charmed female Demon Slayer... cause that is Just like Thunt's writing style!

Thunt has in the past to thrown at us what looks like a fast-ball only for it to turn into a curve-ball in a Most unexpected way!

I think ... that is what the other posters have been getting at...

So.. have a little faith in our Thunt! This IS the guy that made us all cheer and cry at the love romance of a stupid min-maxed objectionable character that no one would seriously think could ever be a hero {Minmax} and the sexually abused Yuan-Ti, who typically in D&D are vile evil monsters who take perverse delight in raping and forcing their abomination half-snake off-spring on any and all sentient beings just for the horror it causes {Kyn}!

Keep the Faith, Thunt is a great writer!

[BlueAmaranth]

I think it would darkly comical for Not-Walter to show up in the main comic with his succibus assistant 'Not-Greena', get asked -"why's she with you?"; to get only a shrug out of Not-Walter and a, "I changed my mind... having a demon-hunting demoness is far more useful in the Abyss than a Kyton-chew toy! Now I have my very own... 'doll'...!"

This seems less comical, and more creepy and upsetting. Does she have to be a succubus, of all things?

[SpeaksManyLanguages]

Keep the Faith, Thunt is a great writer!

I don't agree with this, though. He may excel at coming up with ideas like 218 variations of the same characters, but that's not enough to be a great writer.

It's author's responsibility to research the stuff that goes in the comic to make sure it's an accurate represenation of things from real world. Based on an informed opinion. I believe there were enough cases over the years, where Thunt didn't do a good job there. One can argue what boob-curtains outfit is representing. He doesn't have to wove any latest social justice trends into his creations, of course. It's entirely his right to write about whatever, in whatever way he likes. But a reader is also entitled to their own judgement of things, criticism, research and informed opinion. Not brushing things off with a "well, he's a good writer" argument.

The works of art can set a bad example, be a bad influence. The Not-Walter character is the main focus of the story and a reader identifies (i cannot recall the right term for this, sorry) with him. Especially a young reader ÔÇö Not-Walter acts quite childish, e.g. sticking out tongue. He's the one getting abused most of the story, the victim of "slayerin's" tricks to exploit him. The identifying reader feels quite good about the fiery display of pyrokinetics to follow and the pit fiend eventually winning over. And then comes the retaliation. And that's the bad influence part ÔÇö the hero of the story retaliates with overthetop abuse of his belligerent. There's a group rape suggestion.

I guess this is where I have the feeling that Not-Walter's words are CE and not LE. A "lawful" way to retaliate for him would be maybe not to exceed the harm done to him with the return harm. Like, make her tell her phobia and expose her to it the same way. The story ends instead with something much more extreme.

P.S. I guess i never commented on wether i liked this bonus story or not myself in this thread, not sure. I find it ok for a bonus, although with the issues covered in this topic. But i don't believe in Thunt as the great writer, so i acknowledge these flaws existing in the comic. And i can live with that (and continue reading the comic and doing all other things i do and whatnot)

P.P.S. also i'm angry at you calling Kin "Kyn".

[Simon]

In this bonus comic, Not-Walter is the 'Villain Protagonist', not the hero. His actions do not need to be good.

And I suppose the reader can interpret the comic in anyway they like, but it doesn't mean it's correct or what Thunt intended. The comic says she'll be ripped apart. I take that literally, that as part of the torture, she'll be literally ripped to pieces. Other's may think it's metaphorical. But unless Thunt tells us what he actually meant it to mean, we can't know for sure.

[BlueAmaranth]

And I suppose the reader can interpret the comic in anyway they like, but it doesn't mean it's correct or what Thunt intended.

It's the writer's responsibility to craft the story so that it will be read as they intended. If a bunch of readers are seeing rapey undertones that Thunt didn't intend, then he dropped the ball as a writer in that respect. The story should stand on its own; we shouldn't need to go and ask Thunt what he intended.

[Krulle]

Oh, one lure of stories for me is an "open ending" where my mind can fill in whatever.
If your mind fills in more than a pure minimum, then it's not the fault of the author.

[BlueAmaranth]

Intentional ambiguity is a totally different animal. That's not what this is.

A more skilled writer, who did not want people to get any rapey undertones from that scene, would have written the scene differently. It absolutely is the author's fault if a large fraction of readers get the "wrong" impression. Communicating effectively--crafting your work so that it conveys what you intend it to convey--is a writing skill that needs to be honed like any other if you want to be successful at it.

Understand, I'm not judging Thunt's character here. I'm judging his effectiveness as a writer. I'm not accusing him of intending to make the ending seem rapey.

[spiderwrangler]

I feel it says more about the reader/society if you read NW's comment as strictly meaning rape.