|
Post by ajfriss on Sept 28, 2010 19:54:56 GMT
Regaining my composure from my last post, I believe tom said he hasn't been raising any characters to kill them off, so I doubt he'd kill parley. Unless killing parley is a recent decision.
|
|
|
Post by q3 on Sept 29, 2010 0:52:45 GMT
I wonder if elf guy was taken by a psychopomp. Maybe it's time to ask Muut for another favor? It might turn out to be quite fortunate that Andrew smacked that poor bird...
|
|
|
Post by zylonbane on Sept 29, 2010 1:03:11 GMT
Muut isn't the god of birds struck by a small gemstone who then fly away a bit dazed but otherwise unharmed as was clearly shown in the comic, q3.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Sept 29, 2010 1:03:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thereisnosaurus on Sept 29, 2010 2:00:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by purplemoon101 on Sept 29, 2010 2:12:18 GMT
I really like really love this book i think annie is just so preety
|
|
|
Post by q3 on Sept 29, 2010 3:12:12 GMT
Muut isn't the god of birds struck by a small gemstone who then fly away a bit dazed but otherwise unharmed as was clearly shown in the comic, q3. The bird guide could probably ring Muut on his cell phone. And the bird is clearly pining for the fjords.
|
|
|
Post by rhoffman12 on Sept 29, 2010 6:01:17 GMT
In the lead-up to this morning's comic (very early morning here), I'm increasingly worried that something very bad is going to happen to Parley. Maybe not death-bad, as other commenters have noted, but emotionally-psychologically-and-or-etherically-scarring-bad.
Here's to being proven wrong in a few minutes?
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Sept 29, 2010 6:40:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Max on Sept 29, 2010 6:55:43 GMT
That's creepy. In a good way. But still creepy.
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Sept 29, 2010 7:00:15 GMT
Mission accomplished!
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 29, 2010 7:04:12 GMT
Why are the sentences out of order?
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Sept 29, 2010 7:40:01 GMT
I wasn't aware that wasn't the intended order.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 29, 2010 7:50:48 GMT
[...] this gleaming heart of yours period.
|
|
|
Post by blinkerstoned on Sept 29, 2010 14:22:05 GMT
Box.net?Is it related in any way to Boxbot?Cuz that would be terrible ;D
|
|
|
Post by Goatmon on Sept 29, 2010 22:38:01 GMT
[...] this gleaming heart of yours period. Thank you Casey, I gathered that after your first post. The "Coddled Child" bubble kind of hovers in between the middle right and lower right panel, and the page lacks defined borders, so it was an easy mistake to make on my end.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Sept 30, 2010 16:15:35 GMT
Honestly, I don't think switching the order of those two clauses changes the meaning at all. I'd also read them backwards on the first run through, before I saw the period (thought it was a comma at first).
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 30, 2010 16:48:14 GMT
It changes the way it flows into the next page though... hence a lot of the confusion people had over what the "luxury" was that Jeanne was talking about. With the order switched, it seems to be referring to her being coddled, but with the order correct, it more clearly refers to Parley's gleaming heart (which Tom confirmed on Formspring, that her heart was the luxury Jeanne was referring to.)
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Sept 30, 2010 17:36:07 GMT
Heh, maybe I'm oddball, but at this point, I don't think it really matters which luxury she was referring to, either. ...or maybe I'm just still not down with this board's obsession with authorial intent. IMO, the Formspring page goes into way more detail than the story actually needs. I mean, Jeanne was referring to either: A) The luxury of having a gleaming heart, full of love. Afforded by her death, in what way? That the court is secured, so that Parley may live a coddled life, and allow love to flourish? Doesn't follow. The Court was not secured when Jeanne herself had nurtured that same kind of love, while living a life of duty and service as a soldier. Regardless, she sees the luxury (the 'gleaming heart') should be hers to take B) The luxury of living a coddled life. Afforded by her death, by protecting the court without necessarily requiring the duty and sacrifices that were necessary in her time. Frankly, makes more sense to me. Here, the luxury is Parleys' life, which Jeanne is currently trying to take. I've never seen the importance of the clarification. Isn't it the same story?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 30, 2010 17:48:44 GMT
Your A doesn't make sense. Jeanne's own love flourished at a time before there was a "terrible squabble" between the Court and the Forest... one that became so bad that Coyote had to step in and separate them. (see Coyote Stories, and Jeanne's flashback that just finished)
Jeanne also wanted nothing to do with the squabble and didn't understand why the rest of the Founders had to insist on being at war with the Forest (see Sky Watcher and the Angel) but was compelled by duty and employment to follow through.
Your argument is that Jeanne is an example that love can flourish when the Court isn't secured, and therefore it doesn't follow that Jeanne's sacrifice is what allows love to flourish now. The counterargument then is that the Court didn't need to be secured when Jeanne's own love flourished, and indeed the tragic end of that very same love would pretty sharply indicate that no, in fact, it could -not- flourish once the Court started hostilities towards the Forest.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Sept 30, 2010 18:02:03 GMT
Did not does not imply could not.
IMO, the story is so much more tragic for Jeanne's sacrifice not being needed. After all, they killed her after Coyote had already separated the Court from Wood.
Edit: And, again, I'm not trying to argue that point A is the truth. It's clearly not, as it's been clarified in another channel. I just don't see any impact to the story one way or the other. If you do, that's great too, since my entire point is that, given what we've been shown, believing either way doesn't seem to impact the story at all.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Sept 30, 2010 18:12:40 GMT
Either way, it implies Jeanne is not rational. She'll kill you because you're happy, she'll kill you because you've been coddled, she'll kill you because you're in love, and she'll kill you if you quietly sit on the ground and ask her " Are you from the other shore?"So, talking to her will do no good.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 30, 2010 18:16:11 GMT
I don't think Jeanne's sacrifice was necessary either, but the subject at hand is whether Jeanne was referring to Parley's love/heart being the thing that Jeanne felt she had the "right" to take away because of her sacrifice. And for that, you have to look at it from Jeanne's point of view, not our own fully aware point of view. I brought up earlier how pissed she must have been that a bridge was being built between the Court and the Forest, thereby effectively negating the need for her vigilance... and yet she remained vigilant, because she is compelled to and because what's left of her mind (if truly anything at all) still believes, or has to believe, that her sacrifice was necessary and was/is the only thing keeping the Court from annihilation. And from that point of view, the statement that she made to Parley is completely sensible and valid.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Sept 30, 2010 18:27:46 GMT
When robot was in S1's body, he felt hatred. "I had such hatred for it"There was no hatred in robot before and after, only while in S1's body. This hatred is not rational, as in, there is no reason for it. It has been programmed into the S1 body. Now Jeanne has an irrational hatred after being effected by Diego's device.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Sept 30, 2010 22:17:08 GMT
Let's not forget that all that's left of Jeanne, according to her own words, is her fury. I don't think her statement is going to be entirely rational.
The precise meaning is less important, I think, than the overall state: Gunnerkrigg Court and its inhabitants owe their comfort and safety to Jeanne's sacrifice - a sacrifice that she never consented to - and that she hates them for it. It makes no difference to her that the Founders are long since dead and that the present inhabitants weren't even born at the time of her death - she probably takes an attitude of "Then their descendants must pay! I will have blood for blood!"
|
|
|
Post by sandjosieph on Oct 1, 2010 3:13:32 GMT
I must say that I felt that the tears seemed a little out of place.
|
|
|
Post by Max on Oct 1, 2010 3:58:38 GMT
I must say that I felt that the tears seemed a little out of place. Sorta felt the same way. But they worked out well in the page afterward.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Oct 1, 2010 4:19:37 GMT
Man what is reading this is hard.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 1, 2010 4:50:51 GMT
I must say that I felt that the tears seemed a little out of place. The girls were empathizing with Jeanne. What happened to her and Greenguy was heartbreaking, after all
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 1, 2010 6:29:49 GMT
That's so like a girl for you to say! *grin*
No, I'm kidding, I'm just pointing out that the two folks who said the tears seemed out of place were guys, and the one who said they weren't is a girl. I think a girl probably knows better what would be going through a girl's mind, so I'm going with Jayne on this one.
On the other hand, the fact that Tom, who is a guy, knows what goes on in a girl's mind means that he's an excellent writer.
|
|