by Do I need a username? » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:40 pm
I almost gave up on the comic early on, and I'm glad I didn't, it gets significantly better early on. There's one big flaw in the comic, and unfortunately, that is the character "Zach". As a regular reader (and huge fan) of SMBC I know that you have substantially better knowledge of the law and government than the average layperson (if not the knowledge of your brother who has a PhD in the field). Having the Zach character pop in with his supposed complete lack of knowledge seems disingenuous, worse, it insults the intellect of the reader because Zach is the character that is most supposed to represent the reader. For example, when Zach says he thought impeachment is a kind of fruit I feel insulted either because A. I'm knowledgeable enough to know about impeachment, and I find the insinuation that I don't to be insulting or B. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know about impeachment, but I find the idea I thought it was a fruit insulting. Basically the Zach character comes off like poochie the dog.
I think the Zach character would be better used to ask why things aren't a different way. Things that could work in theory, but ignore how our political systems historically developed. Or, fixes that sound good at first but could lead to unintended consequences. For the current Zach role, use students! Create a few regular students, and have them ask genuine questions that don't accidently belittle the reader. If desired, there can even be different personalities (a know it all, someone not typically interested, liberal, conservative etc.)
I almost gave up on the comic early on, and I'm glad I didn't, it gets significantly better early on. There's one big flaw in the comic, and unfortunately, that is the character "Zach". As a regular reader (and huge fan) of SMBC I know that you have substantially better knowledge of the law and government than the average layperson (if not the knowledge of your brother who has a PhD in the field). Having the Zach character pop in with his supposed complete lack of knowledge seems disingenuous, worse, it insults the intellect of the reader because Zach is the character that is most supposed to represent the reader. For example, when Zach says he thought impeachment is a kind of fruit I feel insulted either because A. I'm knowledgeable enough to know about impeachment, and I find the insinuation that I don't to be insulting or B. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know about impeachment, but I find the idea I thought it was a fruit insulting. Basically the Zach character comes off like poochie the dog.
I think the Zach character would be better used to ask why things aren't a different way. Things that could work in theory, but ignore how our political systems historically developed. Or, fixes that sound good at first but could lead to unintended consequences. For the current Zach role, use students! Create a few regular students, and have them ask genuine questions that don't accidently belittle the reader. If desired, there can even be different personalities (a know it all, someone not typically interested, liberal, conservative etc.)