Tintin Forums

adonis1960
To my knowledge, Winnie The Pooh was never a comic strip, it was a children's book series. If it ever did appear in comic strip form, it certainly wouldn't have been the same kind of strip as Tintin.

It’s a moot point as far as this discussion is concerned anyway, as to whether the example of Pooh as a comparison is invalid because it wasn’t a cartoon strip - they are both well known fictional characters, and both were primarily aimed at children.

Tintin was never marketed exclusively to children.

A.A. Milne actually had quite an established canon of adult-oriented work, who would have recognized the Pooh stories as continuing his humorous sketches from Punch, whereas Hergé wrote no specifically adult material; I think therefore Milne, if anything, will always have had more adult readers for his children’s work than Hergé.

how very desperate you are to dismiss the possibility of homosexual undertones in The Adventures of Tintin.

No, I think he is commenting on the fact that people can sexualize anything - Tintin or Pooh - and make it mean what they want it to, and his position seems no more or less desperate than any part of the ongoing discussion.

It certainly undermines your position that you have to resort to cat-calling, rather than offering any sort of robust rebuttal if you strongly disagree with his opinion.

<<It's a moot point as far as this discussion is concerned anyway, as to whether the example of Pooh as a comparison is invalid because it wasn't a cartoon strip>>

Next you'll be telling me that a live-action feature film is the same thing as a color cartoon! You're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it. Regardless of how many adults may have read the Pooh books, those books were NEVER marketed to adults. They were aimed not primarily, but EXCLUSIVELY at children.

<< . . . people can sexualize anything - Tintin or Pooh - and make it mean what they want it to . . .>>

Excuse me, but isn't this topic a discussion of the character's sexuality? You're so eager to discredit me, you'll even resort to attacking me for treating the topic at hand!

<<It certainly undermines your position that you have to resort to cat-calling, rather than offering any sort of robust rebuttal if you strongly disagree with his opinion.>>

In my assessment, he has no real opinion, just a desire to dismiss the topic of Tintin's sexuality rather than address the evidence (which I've previously touched on) that there are homoerotic undertones in the Tintin strip. A desire you obviously share! In case you hadn't heard, a forum is a place where contrary views can be aired. If you can't stand it when others express views contrary to yours, maybe you shouldn't participate.

adonis1960
If you can't stand it when others express views contrary to yours, maybe you shouldn't participate.

Come come adonis1960, keep your temper! It seems more the case that you can’t stand it when others express views contrary to yours. I don’t believe anybody is “attacking” you. Just questioning your statements and giving their own opinions which they are fully entitled to do.

You’ve said several times that you’re not hell bent on changing anyone else’s opinion so why get so upset when someone holds a different view or questions what you have to say?

I think that you’ve made a very good case that there might be a sub-text within the books that others can’t see (a fact, incidentally, that I don’t think anybody can deny - I fully accept it myself). There’s no need to bite people’s heads off about it though.

adonis1960
You're comparing apples and oranges, and you know it.

No, I - and the original poster - are using two equally well known sets of fictional characters; I see reasonable parity in the assessment of whether or not these kind of icons of fiction can be used to determine sexuality. Not difficult in my opinion; and I wouldn't have ruled out inclusion of other fictional characters, no matter what the medium used: the relationship between Mainwairing and Wilson in Dad's Army would be equally valid.
You are certainly entitled to disagree, but you might want to do so less shrilly.

Regardless of how many adults may have read the Pooh books, those books were NEVER marketed to adults. They were aimed not primarily, but EXCLUSIVELY at children.

And Tintin has been marketed to adults exclusively? You have provided nothing to back up this assertion; I have given mention of the fact that Hergé never wrote for adults, and Milne wrote for both. And there is no need to shout.

Excuse me, but isn't this topic a discussion of the character's sexuality? You're so eager to discredit me, you'll even resort to attacking me for treating the topic at hand!

No, I have no intention of discrediting your opinion, I was merely taking you to task for shouting down another member, and disagreeing with you - not the same thing, and all part of a debate. As far as I can see, the poster who introduced the Pooh example was dealing with the topic too, but you didn't wan't to give them the credit you want others to give you.
This thread is indeed the discussion of the character's sexuality, and it is perfectly possible to express the view that to look for sexuality in cartoon characters is far fetched.

A desire you obviously share!

You obviously read a lot into a little, as I have not made a comment one way or the other, as it happens. Please don't make assumptions; like H'n'H, I thought you were making a fairly strong case, but your methods of doing so were being unduly harsh on other posters (basically anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, it would seem). Now I am not so sure.

In case you hadn't heard, a forum is a place where contrary views can be aired. If you can't stand it when others express views contrary to yours, maybe you shouldn't participate.

Thank you for your opinion; I think you should absorb your own wisdom in this case.

<<Come come adonis1960, keep your temper! It seems more the case that you can’t stand it when others express views contrary to yours.>>

That's not what jock123 was doing. He was making false statements. Falsehood #1: That Winnie The Pooh and Tintin are the same type of character targeted at the same audience. Falsehood #2: That I was "sexualizing" Tintin, when the topic being discussed is Tintin's sexuality. Falsehood #3: That I engaged in "catcalling", which I didn't. I think you may be showing bias here.

<<You’ve said several times that you’re not hell bent on changing anyone else’s opinion so why get so upset when someone holds a different view or questions what you have to say?>>

I'm not the one who's upset, believe me. Talk to jock123. He's the one who got hot and bothered because I addressed the topic in a way he doesn't care for.

<<I think that you’ve made a very good case that there might be a sub-text within the books that others can’t see (a fact, incidentally, that I don’t think anybody can deny - I fully accept it myself). There’s no need to bite people’s heads off about it though.>>

Show me, please, where I "bit people's heads off." I did not do any such thing. I called attention to certain people's desperate attempts to deny the possibility (and I stress the word "possiblity" here) of homoerotic undertones in the Tintin strip. Elsewhere in this forum, I've admitted that may have been a heterosexual character. I'd like to see the same amount open-mindedness from others.

>>No, I - and the original poster - are using two equally well known sets of fictional characters; I see reasonable parity in the assessment of whether or not these kind of icons of fiction can be used to determine sexuality.>>

No, what you're doing is throwing up straw arguments as a distraction from the subject at hand. We're supposed to be talking specifically about the sexuality of Tintin, not that of any other fictional character. If you want to speculate on Winnie The Pooh's sex life, I'm sure there's a forum somewhere you can find to indulge that desire.

<<You are certainly entitled to disagree, but you might want to do so less shrilly.>>

And you might want to do so a little more honestly.

<<And Tintin has been marketed to adults exclusively? You have provided nothing to back up this assertion; I have given mention of the fact that Hergé never wrote for adults, and Milne wrote for both. And there is no need to shout.>>

There's no need to lie, either. I never said Tintin was marketed exclusively to adults, and you know it.

<<No, I have no intention of discrediting your opinion, I was merely taking you to task for shouting down another member, and disagreeing with you - not the same thing, and all part of a debate. As far as I can see, the poster who introduced the Pooh example was dealing with the topic too, but you didn’t wan’t to give them the credit you want others to give you.
This thread is indeed the discussion of the character’s sexuality, and it is perfectly possible to express the view that to look for sexuality in cartoon characters is far fetched.>>

Far-fetched, eh? What about evidence of sexual orientation in strips like Modesty Blaise, Flash Gordon, Speed Racer, Archie, Dick Tracy, etc? Once again, you try to twist reality to support your arguments. Pointing out inconsistencies in another's statements certainly does not constitute "shouting down another member." And, let me remind you once again, Winnie The Pooh was not conceived as a cartoon character.

<<You obviously read a lot into a little, as I have not made a comment one way or the other, as it happens.>>

As if I couldn't scroll back to your previous posts and see where you've pooh-pooh'd (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun) the idea of Tintin characters being homosexual. You have no shame at all.

<<I think you should absorb your own wisdom in this case.>>

Here's a little more wisdom for you: Before you try to trip someone up, make sure your trip wire isn't visible.

As if I couldn't scroll back to your previous posts and see where you've pooh-pooh'd (sorry, I couldn't resist the pun) the idea of Tintin characters being homosexual. You have no shame at all.

You protest to much, I fear; I have done no such thing.

What I countered was the falacious logic that was being used that because there was no overt heterosexuality in the books, that the characters were therefore homosexual; that is absurd - it just means that you can't tell (leastways by that argument). It is not to say that there wouldn't be other evidence.
As I said at the time it is a trope commonly applied to pairs of (usually) males in fiction (any branch of fiction), and it is usually founded on nothing more than that, and that is tiresome and hackneyed.

As to your accusations of dishonesty, well, I as I said before, you are entitled to your opinion.

And my opinions, like my arguments, are based on evidence. Your previous statements did more than counter "fallacious logic", but nobody has to take my word for it. They can read and evaluate what you wrote for themselves.

Adonis1960 And my opinions, like my arguments, are based on evidence. Your previous statements did more than counter "fallacious logic", but nobody has to take my word for it. They can read and evaluate what you wrote for themselves.

Oh Adonis! I know Jock123 doesn't need help defending himself, but you're beginning to look a little bit silly, trying to shout down one of the respected voices of reason and logic on this site. Perhaps you're reading something in the sub-text of his posts that just isn't there! Can we just agree (I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) that you have misunderstood Jock's posts and get back to the subject at hand. :)

adonis1960
And my opinions, like my arguments, are based on evidence.

Could you please tell us how you come to the evidence Tintin is 'gay'?
Did you rely on human sciences, occultism?

Or did you work with some 'algebra-like' science based on linguistic avatars* ruled by foreign authorities*? In that latter case, maybe you just misinterpreted 'joy' with the fact of being 'gay'?

Maybe sympathetic characters such as Tintin are far too cryptic to be caught, and you should start with the 'not so sympathetic' ones, e.g. military* who are somehow more directly connected with Julius Caesar* and his secret writings?