Bonobashi wrote, [on 5/23/2009 7:05 PM]:
> Next, if we enumerate these bits of information and knowledge, we find that
> these do not form a cohesive, intermingled whole; instead, what we have is a
> set of bullet-points, like so:
>
> * India is a low-cost location for voice-based BPOs;
> * Chennai is a typical Indian city;
> * All Indian cities resemble one another; (implied in the depiction of
> buildings, denizens, and descriptions of available food)
> * Chicken tikka is an Indian dish (as opposed to regional, or faux-Mughlai);
> * Curry is another generic Indian dish;
> * There are no female Indians in real life;
> * There are mythical Indian females, and these are seductive entities which
> cannot be resisted;
> * There are mythical Indian female deities, and these may or may not be the
> same as mythical Indian females;
> * The iconology of Indian deities is easy; multiple limbs, an aggressive
> attitude, imminent danger to mankind;
The issue is that, if one is to apply a strict standard of accuracy and
cohesiveness, this needs to be applied to the rest of the strip's story
arcs as well (such as the recurring characters from HP Lovecraft, and
the AI, and the dustbunny and so on)
The whole thing falls apart then. I suppose this could be taken as a
generic comment on the nature of the implied contract between reader and
writer ("willing suspension of disbelief") and so on, but there seems to
be more to it that this - and I am not able to put my finger on what
this is.
The whole story arc obviously piqued Giancarlo's curiosity enough that
he asked twice what our thoughts on it are. I don't really have any
thoughts on it at this point, I'm afraid, as I don't know what the
cartoonist is trying to say.
Udhay
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
