Reply to comment

So, at the beginning of this week I inteded to create a comic strip exploring the life of Stewie Griffin (the character I became during our discussions). A rough draft was made, but never made it to a presentable stage. I am glad to speak on the individual practices of the panelists involved this week. Monday was interesting because it seemed that students were less comfortable taking on the personas of historical characters. This may have been because they went first, but it happened more and more that people would slip out of character. Overall, looking at the historical figures' practices it seemed they were more theoretical. Yes, there were characters like grace hopper and amelia earhart who put their views into practice. Just from observation most of the panelists from monday were writers or thinkers. Wednesday, however, brought a group of mostly fictional characters. These characters were mainly "doers". Cyborgs, cartoons, wizards... each chracter acted out both gender and technological roles. Even the panelists existing from this realm on Wednesday enacted their technological and gender roles. Dr. Ray and Maria Abramovich are perfect examples of this. I think the reason that most of the fictional characters were able to enact their roles focused on the fact that ficitonal characters can be made to do whatever the creator wants. It is possible in fictional reality to have characters be cyborgs or an evil baby genius. Also, I feel that fictional authors also put their characters into harms way, which most of the historical characters never encountered. More of the fictional characters fit into a masculine role, which would fit with our society's idea of people/characters in dangerous situations. I think the separation between fictional and historical figures made for interesting topics within the panels.