|
Post by Mezzaphor on Oct 10, 2010 20:18:14 GMT
After listening (often because they're so loud) to them on the various bus rides I have to take in my town, I can tell you, they don't. You DO have an overly positive view of teenagers. Bus ride vs actually talking and working with kids... well you take whichever one you think is more indicative and I will too. The bus is a biased sample. Also, loud kids are a biased sample. I can't say for sure whether the kids Casey is working with are a representative sample.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 10, 2010 20:22:49 GMT
Bus ride vs actually talking and working with kids... well you take whichever one you think is more indicative and I will too. Edit: if you've ever heard a teenage boy say on the bus to his friends how he was dejected because a girl stopped holding his hand, I'll give you a dollar. The busride (for me) means they're more honest with each other, rather than with an authority figure, even if it's a volunteer. You hear things described in the way they would among themselves, rather than having to be careful and get in 'trouble' (even if the environment that YOU endorse wouldn't have any.) And anyway, I don't think Parley was the one who actually let go. Given Smits facial expression and the fact that in the previous panel Parley stood up and gave her ultimatum (or first half of) it looks more like SMITTY broke contact because he's not comfortable with her choice. I got/get the impression that he would rather tell the adults, and had hoped to get some support. Instead, Parley is all determined to do it her way.
|
|
|
Post by Elaienar on Oct 10, 2010 20:35:49 GMT
The thought had occurred to me, but I think it's probably Parley who let go. If Smith had let go, I think we'd see an instant reaction from her (as she seems to be the one who decides the parameters of their relationship), but from her face Jeanne is the only thing on her mind.
In my opinion, the horror of her experience with Jeanne made her forget about the deal with Smith, but now that she's got the facts and has a plan, she's unconsciously reestablishing the distance between them, and I think Smith realizes that.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 10, 2010 22:15:16 GMT
On a related note, Annie's statement in the fourth panel not withstanding, I find it hard to believe the Court actually tried to suppress all records of her, despite what Sir Young said. The sudden disappearance of a well known person is bound to raise questions, especially if the authorities respond by pretending there never was such a person. Maybe the Founders used some etheric device to rewrite the memories of everyone except themselves in the Court so as to erase Jeanne's existence from them. (A bit far-fetched, I know - but after some of the things we've seen in the webcomic, not that improbable.) For that matter, we don't know how many people besides the Founders were living in the Court at the time, which would also make a difference; if the Founders were most of the human population then, covering up Jeanne's very existence might not have been so difficult.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 10, 2010 22:50:41 GMT
The Court is a group of people. This group of people killed Jeanne and confined her to a fate worse than death. That group of people is also DEAD in its entirety. Jeanne was not killed by "the Court" she was killed by a collection of individual people, all of whom are responsible for their decisions. Just because someone works for Gunnerkrigg Court now, that doesn't make them a part of that group that killed Jeanne. No, but the group of individuals that killed Jeanne could be referred to as "The Court" in the past. Since Annie was using the past tense when she said, "The Court killed Jeanne and tried to wipe out her memory," there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she said in the first bubble in panel 4. Since the organization's past reflects on its present, her conclusion in that panel is fairly logical, especially when you consider the fact that many modern organizations get antsy about what they did long before anyone currently heading them was alive. Just ask Turkey about the Armenian genocide, and that was committed by the government Turkey's current governing system replaced.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 10, 2010 23:15:31 GMT
For me it comes down to George's use of the word 'how' instead of 'what' in the first panel. "What do you know about her?" could be read as "What else do you know about her besides her name?" On the other hand, "How do you know about her?" could be read as "How do you know about her?" which implies prior knowledge on George's part. That's how I read her words. Of course, her line could have several other meanings or interpretations, depending on which word you choose to stress. On a related note, Annie's statement in the fourth panel not withstanding, I find it hard to believe the Court actually tried to suppress all records of her, despite what Sir Young said. The sudden disappearance of a well known person is bound to raise questions, especially if the authorities respond by pretending there never was such a person. Far easier to keep what actually happened to Jeanne a secret, and offer up a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she's gone. For example, "Jeanne was lowered to the shore of the Annan Waters on a routine mission. While there, for reasons not yet known, she tried to swim to the opposite bank. The current overwhelmed her, and her body was swept away. A memorial service will be held tomorrow to honor her memory and her service to the Court." Time alone would do the rest. I wouldn't be suprised if there are stories and legends about all the founders of the Court, including Jeanne, even if the stories about her are officially regarded as myths. Jones hasn't heard anything about her, and considering the fact that Jones knows so much about the other founders and almost every other aspect of the Court, including things that are kept secret from most students, I'd say that strongly supports the idea that Young and company proceeded to do exactly what they said they'd do. Also, note that Parley does not react to the name Jeanne in any way. And why would there be myths about her? She seems to have been skilled with a sword, but that doesn't make her unique. It certainly doesn't make her worthy of myths. If Tom wanted to imply that Parley knew about Jeanne or that Young wasn't very successful at covering up Jeanne's death, he had the opportunity to foreshadow this revelation. Instead, Tom has consistently implied the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by blinkerstoned on Oct 11, 2010 0:46:57 GMT
Bus ride vs actually talking and working with kids... well you take whichever one you think is more indicative and I will too. Edit: if you've ever heard a teenage boy say on the bus to his friends how he was dejected because a girl stopped holding his hand, I'll give you a dollar. Heh.I'm a teen myself,and I've gotta say,the ones who act immature and such make the rest of us look bad.Well,I guess it depends on individuals....not all of us are that bad you know.Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 11, 2010 2:14:23 GMT
In this context the question is more than relevant even without any extra meaning. For me it comes down to George's use of the word 'how' instead of 'what' in the first panel. "What do you know about her?" could be read as "What else do you know about her besides her name?" On the other hand, "How do you know about her?" could be read as "How do you know about her?" which implies prior knowledge on George's part. However appealing it may be to think about Parley speaking in a lively and feminine version of Uncle Joe's own style all the time... ;D ...but when Parley wants to emphasize something, she just does it. On a related note, Annie's statement in the fourth panel not withstanding, I find it hard to believe the Court actually tried to suppress all records of her, despite what Sir Young said. The sudden disappearance of a well known person is bound to raise questions, especially if the authorities respond by pretending there never was such a person. Far easier to keep what actually happened to Jeanne a secret, and offer up a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she's gone. They purged records. Of course, some sort oral tradition could remain, but i wouldn't bet a lot on any coherent knowledge being translated this way in the Court. Unless it's something outstanding and very purposeful (like Steadman resenting his role or that guy who left trying to leave a trail and telling their heirs about this). Again, possible but not likely. What was the arrow that Steadman shot? How does it work? We think that she protects the court from the creatures of Gillete woods, and yet the only time we have seen her in action, she has been working against the court. Does her mere presence stop those of the wood crossing, or is there something else at work? There probably is something else "done to the water". But in the end it probably can be solved in the way resplendent Ms. Jones dealt with another spirit-trap. After all, deadly water or not, remote-control manipulators have no life to begin with. Even if kids will fail to extract "it" - remember Kat's and Jack's games? They can give that poor elf's remnants a fiery burial so bright that the molten part of Annan Waters' bottom will solidify back before the water would touch it again. Not very elegant, but heartfelt and [over]does the job. And why would the court do this given that Coyote himself created the divide to keep the two sides separate - is Jeanne their insurance policy? A border river is better than nothing, and the same plus a deep canyon is even better, but how well this can stop Glass-Eyed Men or determined sentient beasts, let alone other elves?.. "True Elfsberry" crossed Annan Waters simply by swimming. After listening (often because they're so loud) to them on the various bus rides I have to take in my town, I can tell you, they don't. You DO have an overly positive view of teenagers. You mistake "most loud" subset for "representative". These two are different more often than not. Just as with loud football fans, Twihards, neosocialists or other usual froth-mouthed folk: they may give a bad name to vast areas, but look closer, and how much of them really are there?..
|
|
lovecraft1024
Full Member
What does anything mean? Basically
Posts: 118
|
Post by lovecraft1024 on Oct 11, 2010 2:42:55 GMT
The thought had occurred to me, but I think it's probably Parley who let go. If Smith had let go, I think we'd see an instant reaction from her (as she seems to be the one who decides the parameters of their relationship), but from her face Jeanne is the only thing on her mind. In my opinion, the horror of her experience with Jeanne made her forget about the deal with Smith, but now that she's got the facts and has a plan, she's unconsciously reestablishing the distance between them, and I think Smith realizes that. Nicely stated. It will be interesting to see how Smitty reacts. I think his "have to tell someone" statement is a naive response and probably not one he is totally committed to, and going against the girls seems out of character for him, but we will see. Annie is certainly more sophisticated on this point, due to all her experience. Perhaps Parley too, but I'm wondering what has her making the bitter face in panels 2 and 5. Is it only her reaction to Annie's exposition, plus her sudden new experience with Jeanne? Or, is there something else we don't know about in her experience with the Court? We really don't know that much about her after all. Perhaps we'll see a "Parley's back story" arc...
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Oct 11, 2010 3:11:24 GMT
If Tom wanted to imply that Parley knew about Jeanne or that Young wasn't very successful at covering up Jeanne's death, he had the opportunity to foreshadow this revelation. Instead, Tom has consistently implied the exact opposite. I'd say he has one more opportunity: Monday's comic. Then it would be: Is that her name? How do you know about her? Don't tell anyone about her. Not until I can see her again... ...You see, my family has passed down a story of a girl named Jeanne. We always thought it was just a story, and the details were lost and yadda yadda we never thought she was real, but now that I know she is, I have to help her.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 12, 2010 1:45:02 GMT
The bus is a biased sample. Also, loud kids are a biased sample. I can't say for sure whether the kids Casey is working with are a representative sample. After about 7 years of going to and from at various points and schools, and sadly finding out that they are all the same... I dispute that. But then again, at about 30+ I have a sneaking suspicion that we haven't left high school. We still talk about the cool kids, and what they are up to, still gossip and chat behind their backs (And I'm saying both genders do this) only now, the cool kids are on a much broader stage. They're not just part of cliques, we call them 'celebrities'.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Oct 12, 2010 1:47:17 GMT
The thought had occurred to me, but I think it's probably Parley who let go. If Smith had let go, I think we'd see an instant reaction from her (as she seems to be the one who decides the parameters of their relationship), but from her face Jeanne is the only thing on her mind. I disagree, the mannerisms and facial expressions portrayed seem (to me) wrong for that. But meh. I need to refresh the window and go see todays (Mondays) strip.
|
|