So you've come back from the dead... let's talk about that Doug...

[icon_uk]

From CBR's preview for New Mutants #38


It's nice to see this kind of thing addressed, isn't it...



What follows is not what you might expect, but it does help if appreciate that Doug has been learning to speak "dream". An interesting issue, which does feature the return of a not-remotely-missed (by me) former New Mutant, some interesting personal developments, and does some nice set up for the story.

Comments

[djt2445.livejournal.com]

I hate Bird-Brain. That is all I want to say. That was about the time I said "See ya!" to the X-Men in general.

[ian_karkull]

"the syntax of my life"...? Jesus, the linguistics "puns" are awkward and kind of painful.
Most people are already convinced that your powers are pretty cool Doug, you really don't have to try so hard anymore.

Props to the therapist not being Doc fucking Samson for once though.

[freezer]

Has Samson resurfaced, post-Civil War?

[nyadnar17]

I thought Loeb killed him off.

Who is this new guy? I would really like to see him, the guy at Utopia, the Sentry's therapist, and Doc Sampson get their own one shot comic some day.

[icon_uk]

This is the guy from utopia, calling in Gus Grim was Dani's idea in the first place.

[ian_karkull]

He.. he did? Oh thank Jeebus, that might actually be the only worthwhile thing Loeb has ever done.

[nyadnar17]

You are the first person I have ever met who hates Doc Sampson. Why? I really love the idea of a superhero therapist and I love the issues where the writers use him to give psychological rundowns of teams.

[ian_karkull]

While the concept itself is solid, I've always found the character himself to be pointlessly aloof and rather irritating. It's largely irrational I suppose, but I've never read anything in which Samson came off as interesting or even remotely likeable. The function of walking confession box for super-heroes could be filled be virtually any character.
And then there's that stupid ponytail...

[philippos42]

I like the Incredible Hulk issue PAD & Bill Jaaska did (#380) that's purely a Doc Samson story. Can't link to it here.

[nyadnar17]

Warren Ellis's use of him on Thunderbolts was also great

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/1217691.html?#cutid1

And those scans don't even actually cover the well written, therapist sessions with Speedball.

[wizardru]

Ellis' use of Doc Samson in Thunderbolts ranks amongst some of his best appearances in comics. He's an actual GOOD therapist, who helps Penance reach some understanding and acceptance of his pain and move on...without having to be a 'super' therapist to do it. That he also cuckolds Norman Osborn in the process? Sweet.

[stubbleupdate]

In Ellis's Caged Angels


and leading group therapy for people replaced by Skrulls

[icon_uk]

The context helps when you realise that, at some level, Doug is talking to himself, language analogies (rather than puns) make a certain degree of sense.

[ian_karkull]

I'm assuming that's what you're hinting at when you're saying he's learning to "speak dream", in which case.. interesting? Either way, yes, they aren't really puns, hence the quotation marks, but I do feel that the writing is getting a little bit too cutesy (for my tastes anyway) with the references, especially when they come up as frequent as in the above example.
Also, for someone who supposedly has an innate understanding of languages to reference punctuation is kind of missing the mark.

[icon_uk]

I dunno, the Ani-Mator certainly gave Doug a "full stop", though it sort of turned out to be more of an ellipsis.

[leoboiko]

Yeah, treating punctuation as a “kind of sintax” is really mixing apples and oranges and kind of jarring. Compare the following:

I came, and conquered.
I came; and conquered?
I came—and conquered!

The syntax is the same. The punctuation serves more or less the same purpose as prosody and intonation in speak (the full stop, for example, more or less correspond to a falling, concluding intonation, while the question mark correspond to a rising tone). It’s true that the structures delimited by punctuation are somewhat related to syntax, but at the end of the day the text-grammar of writing is a different beast than the grammar of the language itself, including its syntax.

[ian_karkull]

Yes, thank you. Exactly my point. My inner linguistics nerd always wants to rage-quit when I see people conflating punctuation (or even spelling) with grammar.
A pun involving finiteness would have been much more apropos.

[icon_uk]

Now, I'm not a linguist, so I may be about to embarass myself mightily, but here goes.

You're looking at this as writing, rather than language no? He's not treating it as a kind of syntax, he's saying it's a part of the overall syntax of his life.

Syntax is "the study of the principles and rules for constructing phrases and sentences in natural languages", and that should include the natural rhythm of the language, no?

In spoken language, punctuation can also assist in the rhythm of speech, commas being essentially an audible distinct pause, a full stop being a natural break when you take a breath.

[leoboiko]

Commas and full stops definitely have nothing to do with pauses. (Though they do have something to do with syntax, actually! But it’s a bit complicated.) Unfortunately I can’t demonstrate it in writing, but * I could make a large pause right at that place with the asterisk, were I speaking, and it would be totally natural; by contrast, a comma or period would be prohibited there. No matter how long the pause, you wouldn’t take it for a full stop; you’d know the sentence was unfinished, and would (perhaps uncomfortably) wait for me to finish it.

By the same token, I could say several full utterances, in a row, without pausing at all, and you’d have no trouble in telling where each one begins and ends (among other things, you’d get the hint by the falling intonation concluding each sentence, and by the syntax). People talk like that all the time (get your friend worked up on some controversial topic and see!). You’re just kind of primed by the structures of written language, being used to see and think about it, so it takes deliberate effort to notice properties of speaking.

If you’re curious, you can find more data and examples in the book I linked above. But really, all you have to do is to take the time to examine people talking. Pay attention to where they pause. Pay attention to how the intonation flows. You’ll find the relationship to writing and punctuation is far from direct. Perhaps looking at a conversation transcript will help to illustrate the point.

When we talk of “principles and rules for constructing phrases”, we are just saying “word order” in a fancy way. Syntax, to put it simply, means which words go first and which go next. (As it happens, their order ends up building complex hierarchical structures; but that’s beside the point for now). Syntax is a property of all languages. The confusion is that you’re mixing natural languages with writing; there is no such thing as “punctuation in spoken language”—punctuation are not pauses, they’re tiny marks on paper! Now this kind of mixup is quite common for literate people, who tend to be more conscious of writing than of natural (spoken) language; but to call punctuation “syntax” is WTFey for language enthusiasts, which is why it feels weird to see Doug do it.

Sorry, I didn’t want to sound professorial. I can’t help it, I ended up absorbing this style :)

[icon_uk]

Commas and full stops definitely have nothing to do with pauses.

It's not their only use certainly, but they can do.

I'm not talking about one required by grammar, but one added by a speaker for emphasis. That sentence paragraph above is actually a case in point, there's a pause for emphasis caused by the comma.

That's what our commas apparently developed from, a physical mark to indicate a pause in written text.

I was always taught specifically to consider how a piece of writing would sound when spoken aloud and, where a pause occurred, to use a comma to indicate a pause. (In that last sentence the two commas are used to indicate an aside, an non-essential piece of text that can be omitted completely without disrupting the overall flow of the sentence, and which would, when spoken, have a short pause for emphasis)

That's distinct from their specific grammatical purpose as separators, but it's a valid one nevertheless.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what that conversation transcript is trying to explain or convey (or even what the notations mean) so thank you, but it's not that much use to me as a layman.

there is no such thing as “punctuation in spoken language”—punctuation are not pauses, they’re tiny marks on paper!

That's approaching sophistry, no? A question mark is a tiny mark on a piece of paper yes, but it has the same meaning to a reader as the raised intonation of a question has to a listener, in fact it's the only way that certain sentences can be identified as being questions (just as the raising of the voice changes the sentence into an enquiry when speaking).

If someone were transcribing someone saying a sentence, they'd add a question mark at the end to indicate that a question was meant rather than a statement.

[northstarfan]

...I love this community.

[icon_uk]

Re-reading my last reply, that may have come across as rather more combatative than it was intended to be when I was running it through my head last night.

My apologies if this was the case and I offer my "The Black Cat happy Terry" icon by way of apology.

[dorksidefiker]

Wow. People weren't kidding when they told me the book was turning in to "Everyone Wants to Sleep With Dani", were they.

[protogarrett]

Who is Dani spoken for by?

[lascoden]

Sam?

[icon_uk]

She and Sam were engaged in a bit of a "thing" earlier in this series.

[daningram.insanejournal.com]

So Doug's looking back on his death...and not one mention of Rahne.

...what the hell?

[freezer]

Or Kitty.

[icon_uk]

Or Betsy... or Cyndi... or notionally Tarot...

[icon_uk]

He might still be smarting because she hasn't been to see him since he got back.

[batman]

For someone whose mutant power allows him to understand all language, Doug's use of his own native language is remarkably sloppy. Those are truly terrible metaphors that aren't carrying across what he means at all well, which is a shame.

[glprime]

Not to mention he can't master basic grammar. "An unpleasant," not "a unpleasant."

/snark

[batman]

Or even know the meaning of the word "syntax".

His metaphors are just so messed up though - what would it mean to have a major case of punctuation? How does this convey to the reader what he actually thinks, because what he is saying obscures his point? He doesn't have to be poetic in his language (though his language here is rather tortured and certainly lacks elegance) but he does have to be precise. This is sloppy because it is not the exact, precise words that he would need to convey what he wants to say.

It's a shame, because under a competent wordsmith, Doug would come across as a gem of a character who can communicate exactly what he means, using words precisely and accurately to convey his meaning, regardless of their length. Right now he just comes across as a self-important kid who doesn't know half as many words as he thinks.

[icon_uk]

what would it mean to have a major case of punctuation?

LIke I said elsewhere, he got a full stop in the middle of his sentence, possibly with an exclamation mark, and a couple of jarns and grawlix thrown in...

I agree though, that when a character's power is language, you really need to take care when writing him.

[batman]

No kidding. I just have this image of his death being instead the punctuation laden comments that you see commenting to news articles online with lots of ??????!!!!! and !!!!11 and hyperbole, which (while undeniably hilarious) rather underscores the tragedy of his death. He's not trying to be wry, he's trying to be serious and the mental picture his words convey is not helping him with that.

I do sympathise with the writer, because a character like that is hard. You'd spend more time crafting his lines than anyone else because it would have to be correct. But man, I'm being drawn out of a traumatised man's discussion about his death because of his inability to describe his experiences, which is a shame and a bit of a failing on the writer's part.

[icon_uk]

"So Doug, how was your death?"

"Tabloid-y...."

[djt2445.livejournal.com]

I always figured Doug could communicate quite well to others, but that -feelings-, in being chaotic, illogical things, are slippery to explain. So one can explain quite well facts, opinions backed by analysis, and such, but anything emotional requires being able to understand -feelings-, and such things are like trying to grasp water - you can sometime get it in your hands and control it, but one slight move, and it slips through your hands.

Doug's power is, to me, linguistic, but not empathic.

[icon_uk]

I think DnA are doing something a little different with them. When he came back Doug was able to reassure Amara that he'd never hurt her by basically inventing a private language on the spot which only he and she would be able to comprehend. (How that works is anyone's guess), so correct intuiting of other peoples (in some cases subconscious) feelings are part of his power.

Here he mentions that he can read body language, micro-expressions, chemical pheromones and spot the feelings, but has issues when it comes to his OWN feelings.

[eyz]

Interesting!