Kathleen2point0 said: But you were part of the process that made us into people who asked better, of OURSELVES, as well as everyone else. How can you be surprised when we act as the just, conscious individuals you helped make us into? Wasn't that your intention from the start?
Truthfully, no. (Thank you for your calm and reasoned response, by the way.) Our intention from the beginning was - and we have said this often - to tell the best story we can, to put forth a vision of a world not of the world as it is, but as we would like it to be. Not a perfect world, but one at least in which characters try to operate from their higher, rather than their baser, impulses. We are eternally grateful that some, maybe many, people have taken Elfquest to heart and been transformed by it. But that was never our intention in the creation and continuation of this long, long work.
Leanan said: You heard me speak my opinion. Perhaps "should" was the wrong word to use, and I'm sorry for that.
Apology accepted. It would be very nice if humans could "send" like the elves, but we can't, so Wendy and I do our very best to make words - the only possible expression of one's inner self on paper or online - as clear as we can. "Should" is a red-button word and concept, tricky and dangerous especially as casually tossed about these days. It implies obligation or correctness (rather, one person's notion of those things, as expressed to another). Having spent more than half our lives fighting to maintain our vision in an ever-changing, increasingly-chaotic and me-me-me social milieu, you may imagine we won't react well to fan - or professional - expressions of "you should..." or "you owe..."
All that said...
RedheadEmber said: I just don't see why one line should matter so much.
I have to agree. Wendy and I understand - as best we can - where those who have fastened upon that line may be coming from. We understand - as best we can - that they are speaking perhaps on behalf of themselves, perhaps on behalf of others who they think may read that line and react the same as they have. But they're doing two things that, in reality, have no basis. One, they're taking a single line of dialog out of the larger, as-yet-unknown context, and spinning a massive, unwieldly, and to be frank, totally subjective what-if out of it. By itself, playing in a what-if world is the very basis of all speculative fiction, and that's fine. But here's number two: They then expect that their "what-if" concern will ripple outward to negatively affect others - and then chide us for an imagined unhappy outcome. That's just presumptuous. There's a world of difference between "I'm not happy with what you did and here's how and why I feel that way" and "I'm not happy with what you did and I'm saying that you should have done it different or better."