2019/08/14 - (After) Midnight Caller

[Amazee Dayzee]

No I meant that we wouldn't see Marion in the comic after the arc switches to another character for a bit before switching back to Marion.

[dr_eirik]

No I meant that we wouldn't see Marion in the comic after the arc switches to another character for a bit before switching back to Marion.

I knew what you meant, but I was just joking that Rick can be cruel to his characters, just not to us...

[Amazee Dayzee]

Oh well OK. Now I get it. And yeah, good point. That does mean it is a good thing that the characters aren't real or they would be lining up to tar and feather Rick.

[Champion Wallace]

The biggest twist ever would be if they have some kind of history. One thing Housepets needs is soap opera drama. Like King is Lois's long lost brother! Her name is Lois Robinson. Maybe not that, but some kind pre-existing history that would make things super awkward and raise scales. I mean we are going to get that with Fido finding out about King but something that really ties Lois and Marion into the characters lives beyond the present story.

I agree that would be an interesting twist. Finding out that Lois (or Marion for that matter) is a distant relative. It's been suggested that it would be interesting to see Lois be the owner of one of the pets we know. Tarot would be the most fun, but it would be tough to see how that would work retroactively.

For me, this has always been a major turn off in a serial. I much prefer that an author introduce a new character and weave them into the story than try to retroactively justify their existence. It always seems to come across as a plot convenience that makes it harder for me to buy into the story. Maybe that's just because I've only ever seen it done poorly, but I've never liked this trope >_<

How did you feel about when Housepets! did this before? *coughBaileyMungocough*

I agree that, handled badly, it would come off ham-handed. Look at just about any TV show that introduces a best friend or relative about four season in when you're wondering where they've been all this time. I think the only show I can think of where this worked (albeit as a one off joke) was one of the X-files episodes that had a character that claimed to be part of the original group, and then they digitally added him into the intro and old footage.

I think it can work with Lois in this strip. We see a lot of pets that are completely apart from their owners. We've never seen the vast majority of them and don't know how they interact. It does become an issue if this happens and it's a character that would have traits that are hard to hide (like Tarot) or is someone that would kind of break the story (like any of the K9's).

We don't need her to be in the background the entire time but a relationship would help not unlike being the owner of a pet in the cast. But the more I think about it the more it would be easier and more convenient just to have her start fresh. I mean we don't even know if she lives in Babylon Gardens or not. Even if she was an owner, would it even matter? There wouldn't be anything to gain. For example she was Leter's owner. Okay and.....nothing.

Different people can find enjoyment from different things in literature. Take King's age, for example. To one part of the fanbase it's like "Ok, so he was 27 when he was transformed and.....nothing. Such new information wouldn't inform his decision making anymore than the characterization we've already seen of him". However, to another part of the fanbase it recontextualizes what they've done till now and affects how they view the character and how much they enjoy reading about them.

With the way King sometimes comes across in certain situations and how he freaks out at almost anything, I am half-expecting Bailey to haul off and smack him sitcom style one of these days.

I don't think so. That would seem out of character for Bailey to me. She's had the opportunity before, but her reaction to King was relatively tame (more comic than sitcom style). In the end she forgave him and accepted him for who he is including his tendency to "freak out at almost anything".

I'm almost surprised that Rick has managed to go this deep into the story without giving us a reason for the transformation. I actually am thinking that, while we will find out eventually, it won't be in the next arc. I suspect that even Kitsune is either not going to know, or won't tell since that's more his style.

It's not that surprising considering with King it was 7 months for part of the reason and 2.5 years until we got the whole story. The only difference is with King we were fed a red herring.

[Obbl]

For me, this has always been a major turn off in a serial. I much prefer that an author introduce a new character and weave them into the story than try to retroactively justify their existence. It always seems to come across as a plot convenience that makes it harder for me to buy into the story. Maybe that's just because I've only ever seen it done poorly, but I've never liked this trope >_<

How did you feel about when Housepets! did this before? *coughBaileyMungocough*

I mean, Bailey's a pretty poor example of this trope, non? ^^ She was introduced in the first color comic ever, so her intro to King is more of a deep callback. That intro would've worked for me regardless, but still *waggley eyebrows*
Bailey and Mungo are pretty solid examples of what I mean by "introduce a new character and weave them into the story". They don't really need much of a reason for being there, and their pre-existing relationships with other characters don't attempt to justify their being. Fox goes with Bill to visit Bill's family, and Baily is there because reasons. She is also Fox's cousin, but that's not why she's there*; it's mostly just extra padding and no big deal is made of it. Mungo is a K9 force member because he is, and has been for years. We haven't met every member of the K9s, but now we've met one more and his name is Mungo. The detail of him being in the riot squad the past few years really isn't necessary to explain his absence in the comic, and no further attempts to justify his existence are made.
Lois's being related to Joel or being Tarot's owner (or what have you) are just fishing for some deeper justification for her being, some deeper connection to the story. It's back to that desire for everything to wrap up in a nice narrative bow, like Rick was poking at in the Max-Rufus arc. But she doesn't need justification. She is Marion's boyfriend. That's all the connection she needs, and anything more is going to feel like it's trying too hard.
Like, if she ends up being the daughter of Daisy's owner or something, I'll be like, "eh, whatevs". But some people seem to feel like not enough ends are tied up unless she's already been thoroughly embedded in the Housepets! lore hiding just out of sight or something. Whereas for me, that high level of coinkydink just pulls me right out of the story.

*Sorta, but only in the not explicitly stated deep lore sense, like where we literally don't know precisely why Bill and his family happen to own related dogs even though we might be able to make a good assumption. But that still only justifies Bailey's being Fox's cousin, and not her being there

[SeanWolf]

For me, this has always been a major turn off in a serial. I much prefer that an author introduce a new character and weave them into the story than try to retroactively justify their existence. It always seems to come across as a plot convenience that makes it harder for me to buy into the story. Maybe that's just because I've only ever seen it done poorly, but I've never liked this trope >_<

How did you feel about when Housepets! did this before? *coughBaileyMungocough*

I mean, Bailey's a pretty poor example of this trope, non? ^^ She was introduced in the first color comic ever, so her intro to King is more of a deep callback. That intro would've worked for me regardless, but still *waggley eyebrows*
Bailey and Mungo are pretty solid examples of what I mean by "introduce a new character and weave them into the story". They don't really need much of a reason for being there, and their pre-existing relationships with other characters don't attempt to justify their being. Fox goes with Bill to visit Bill's family, and Baily is there because reasons. She is also Fox's cousin, but that's not why she's there*; it's mostly just extra padding and no big deal is made of it. Mungo is a K9 force member because he is, and has been for years. We haven't met every member of the K9s, but now we've met one more and his name is Mungo. The detail of him being in the riot squad the past few years really isn't necessary to explain his absence in the comic, and no further attempts to justify his existence are made.
Lois's being related to Joel or being Tarot's owner (or what have you) are just fishing for some deeper justification for her being, some deeper connection to the story. It's back to that desire for everything to wrap up in a nice narrative bow, like Rick was poking at in the Max-Rufus arc. But she doesn't need justification. She is Marion's boyfriend. That's all the connection she needs, and anything more is going to feel like it's trying too hard.
Like, if she ends up being the daughter of Daisy's owner or something, I'll be like, "eh, whatevs". But some people seem to feel like not enough ends are tied up unless she's already been thoroughly embedded in the Housepets! lore hiding just out of sight or something. Whereas for me, that high level of coinkydink just pulls me right out of the story.

*Sorta, but only in the not explicitly stated deep lore sense, like where we literally don't know precisely why Bill and his family happen to own related dogs even though we might be able to make a good assumption. But that still only justifies Bailey's being Fox's cousin, and not her being there

I'm with you there. I honestly never bought into the notion that either Lois or Marion is related to any of the characters (like Steward) as it was just one of those theories that was just too outlandish, even for Housepets.

[Champion Wallace]

I apologize if I'm simply missing the finer points of your explanation, but it seems to me like you have two different tropes for the same thing with the only difference being whether you liked it or not. Like really, what's the difference between weaving in and justifying other than how well it was pulled off. Given that, it's tautological to say you've never liked a character being retroactively justified when you define retroactive justification as weaving in in a way you didn't like.

[Obbl]

They're both introductions of a character, and the trope is just the version where the new character is written to be highly connected to the established narrative from the get go. I suppose that's a bit subjective, but that doesn't mean it's not worth pointing out. It's like plot contrivance but for new characters. Everything in the narrative is technically contrived by the author, but we still discuss works that cross some subjective line as being "contrived" and breaking verisimilitude. That's basically all I'm talking about here.

[fenrirblack]

We don't need her to be in the background the entire time but a relationship would help not unlike being the owner of a pet in the cast. But the more I think about it the more it would be easier and more convenient just to have her start fresh. I mean we don't even know if she lives in Babylon Gardens or not. Even if she was an owner, would it even matter? There wouldn't be anything to gain. For example she was Leter's owner. Okay and.....nothing.

Different people can find enjoyment from different things in literature. Take King's age, for example. To one part of the fanbase it's like "Ok, so he was 27 when he was transformed and.....nothing. Such new information wouldn't inform his decision making anymore than the characterization we've already seen of him". However, to another part of the fanbase it recontextualizes what they've done till now and affects how they view the character and how much they enjoy reading about them.

I made the same point about why King's age is important over a year ago but not as eloquently.
I'm not disagreeing with you but I will get on my soap box for a second and say Lois being an owner isn't what should contextualize how people see her but how she is as an owner, even if she was the owner of one of the cast members. Like my example, her being Lester's owner wouldn't matter but how we see her act and treat Lester is what is truly important because it says a lot about how she is as a character and an individual.

[SeanWolf]

We don't need her to be in the background the entire time but a relationship would help not unlike being the owner of a pet in the cast. But the more I think about it the more it would be easier and more convenient just to have her start fresh. I mean we don't even know if she lives in Babylon Gardens or not. Even if she was an owner, would it even matter? There wouldn't be anything to gain. For example she was Leter's owner. Okay and.....nothing.

Different people can find enjoyment from different things in literature. Take King's age, for example. To one part of the fanbase it's like "Ok, so he was 27 when he was transformed and.....nothing. Such new information wouldn't inform his decision making anymore than the characterization we've already seen of him". However, to another part of the fanbase it recontextualizes what they've done till now and affects how they view the character and how much they enjoy reading about them.

I made the same point about why King's age is important over a year ago but not as eloquently.
I'm not disagreeing with you but I will get on my soap box for a second and say Lois being an owner isn't what should contextualize how people see her but how she is as an owner, even if she was the owner of one of the cast members. Like my example, her being Lester's owner wouldn't matter but how we see her act and treat Lester is what is truly important because it says a lot about how she is as a character and an individual.

Throwing a coin in this: Does it matter if she's an owner or not? She could just be someone who doesn't have a pet. Honestly, like the whole Marion-is-related-to-Steward-cause-of-'ward' Theory, I THINK everyone is starting to look TOO deep into these new characters. Not everyone has to be connected/related to someone. They could just be regular people who just got wrapped up in a crazy situation.

[fenrirblack]

Different people can find enjoyment from different things in literature. Take King's age, for example. To one part of the fanbase it's like "Ok, so he was 27 when he was transformed and.....nothing. Such new information wouldn't inform his decision making anymore than the characterization we've already seen of him". However, to another part of the fanbase it recontextualizes what they've done till now and affects how they view the character and how much they enjoy reading about them.

I made the same point about why King's age is important over a year ago but not as eloquently.
I'm not disagreeing with you but I will get on my soap box for a second and say Lois being an owner isn't what should contextualize how people see her but how she is as an owner, even if she was the owner of one of the cast members. Like my example, her being Lester's owner wouldn't matter but how we see her act and treat Lester is what is truly important because it says a lot about how she is as a character and an individual.

Throwing a coin in this: Does it matter if she's an owner or not? She could just be someone who doesn't have a pet. Honestly, like the whole Marion-is-related-to-Steward-cause-of-'ward' Theory, I THINK everyone is starting to look TOO deep into these new characters. Not everyone has to be connected/related to someone. They could just be regular people who just got wrapped up in a crazy situation.

Like Wallace said, it matters only if you want it to matter. Does it matter for the plot, not unless Rick decides it becomes important. Honestly, I personality think if she does come out and says "she has pet" and/or she had a previous connection to one of the characters, it would only matter if it becomes revenant to the plot or adds drama to the story which was what I originally wanted to happen. If none of those things happen then it is not important to me personality but that fact could change how someone else views her or her future interactions with the cast.

[Amazee Dayzee]

Admittedly I do hope that she has some sort of connection or is a pet owner because that would be really cool but like you all said that will only happen if that adds something to the story but at this point I don't think Rick feels it would. Not that I am speaking for him though.

[dr_eirik]

Admittedly I do hope that she has some sort of connection or is a pet owner because that would be really cool but like you all said that will only happen if that adds something to the story but at this point I don't think Rick feels it would. Not that I am speaking for him though.

I'm of a similar opinion. I think it could be interesting, even perhaps fun, to find out that she's related in some way to the cast. But unless Rick has some kind of reason to do it, then it risks being shoe-horned in. If there is a story reason to make her Tarots owner then great, but otherwise it would feel like hand waving a lot of history. I certainly am not going to stare at my screen in disappointment if we find out she's petless.

On the other hand, there are a lot of pets that we don't know any backstory on that could be in her household and it not make waves. If Dallas or Lester turned out to be living in her house, would it impact the story much? It could be an opportunity to fill out a little backstory on someone. Like, maybe Lois has grown to ignore her pet as she got older, which is why they do whatever it is they do. I'm thinking back to the end of Temple Crashers when the gamers were inviting Res to their game, which they do a lot because they don't have anything else to do.

[Amazee Dayzee]

Not sure how I would feel about Lois being neglectful to a pet if she did have one. Though I know it won't be as bad as Mr. Hartford but it just doesn't seem like something that she would do and I can't explain it. If she is a pet owner, I honestly can't see Rick going down that route. Once again not speaking for him.

Also, I thought that Tarot was pretty much the pet in everything but name to Stanley D'Angelo or at least that Sabrina was the one that had some sort of guardianship over her.

[samthorn]

Nice!
I like it.
Waiting for another chapter.

[dr_eirik]

Not sure how I would feel about Lois being neglectful to a pet if she did have one. Though I know it won't be as bad as Mr. Hartford but it just doesn't seem like something that she would do and I can't explain it. If she is a pet owner, I honestly can't see Rick going down that route. Once again not speaking for him.

Also, I thought that Tarot was pretty much the pet in everything but name to Stanley D'Angelo or at least that Sabrina was the one that had some sort of guardianship over her.

I'm not thinking that she's neglectful, but more that as she grew up and became a teenager she had less time for her pet than she did a few years before. More time in school, more time with homework, other projects, etc. That perhaps if she has a pet, she isn't there for him/her as often as before. Of course, if she has no pet then she has one now!

As for Tarot, I'm not sure that it's ever been established in the strip what her living arraignment is at all. She might live with Sabrina, or just hang out there a lot. Fox did go to Sabrinas expecting to find Tarot there with Sasha. I suppose we might get a little more information in the next couple arcs since both are at least going to be involved.

[Amazee Dayzee]

At least that is what we are assuming. For all we know, Rick might take a different route that none of us expected.

[dr_eirik]

At least that is what we are assuming. For all we know, Rick might take a different route that none of us expected.

Oh, when does THAT happen? Other than with almost every panel in this arc from the beginning? I mean, other than THAT?

[Amazee Dayzee]

You're right. It probably won't happen and we just need to think of what LOGICALLY could happen.