|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 13, 2010 14:19:55 GMT
Those last two posts make me wonder what could've happened if Diego was never involved but Jeanne chose her duty over her love and so stayed separated from Forest Guy. Was their love the fairy-tale sort where they would've just pined away and died of broken hearts if they couldn't be together? Or would they have just gotten over it after a while? From the themes within this comic I am guessing the latter. I'd expect a realistic outcome where Jeanne eventually moves on, finds another handsome man, and then spends the rest of her life telling him, "Forest Guy didn't wear socks so he would never have left socks on the bathroom floor," and "Forest Guy would never work late when we have opera tickets" and other things of that nature.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 13, 2010 16:12:37 GMT
Few audiences have scorned Romeo for placing his love for Juliet over the feud between his family and hers, so maybe the former (though the two situations are not identical). Those audiences kind of miss the point that Romeo & Juliet is supposed to be a plea *against* the folly of romantic love. No, it's a plea against the folly of acting rashly. Romeo and Juliet didn't die because they were in love; they died because they pursued that love in an incredibly stupid way and didn't think ahead.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 13, 2010 16:50:38 GMT
Those audiences kind of miss the point that Romeo & Juliet is supposed to be a plea *against* the folly of romantic love. No, it's a plea against the folly of acting rashly. Romeo and Juliet didn't die because they were in love; they died because they pursued that love in an incredibly stupid way and didn't think ahead. Which is what is generally understood in the idea of "romantism"
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 13, 2010 17:09:17 GMT
Romanticism was an artistic movement in the late 18th century and early 19th centuries, and it has nothing to do with Shakespeare, and it especially has nothing to do with Romeo and Juliet, since neither the romantics nor Shakespeare would associate the word "romance" with amorous love.
EDIT: Also, Romeo and Juliet is an awful play. Just throwing that out there.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 13, 2010 20:00:37 GMT
I was speaking ex post facto.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 13, 2010 20:07:58 GMT
Those audiences kind of miss the point that Romeo & Juliet is supposed to be a plea *against* the folly of romantic love. No, it's a plea against the folly of acting rashly. Romeo and Juliet didn't die because they were in love; they died because they pursued that love in an incredibly stupid way and didn't think ahead. No, Juliet had Friar Laurence send a message to Romeo. But if the story is against the folly of Romeo or Juliet, then why do the events cause the end of the feud? The play didn't have a single message, it was meant to be ambiguous. So that people would talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 13, 2010 20:21:47 GMT
No, it's a plea against the folly of acting rashly. Romeo and Juliet didn't die because they were in love; they died because they pursued that love in an incredibly stupid way and didn't think ahead. No, Juliet had Friar Laurence send a message to Romeo. And? Because their love was a good thing. The way they pursued it* was the folly. * They married after knowing each other for a day, ten years younger than the average marrying age at the time. They let their passions rule them completely, which is why they end up dead at the end. While the play had more than one message, it was in no way ambiguous. It was simplistic and had very clear messages, most of which are stated plainly in the opening and closing speeches. The only reason some modern readers think it's ambiguous is because the language had changed so much that it seems more complex than it is.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 14, 2010 1:26:53 GMT
Actually, guys, Romeo and Juliet had no messages. It was written to entertain an Elizabethan audience, who found such stories very entertaining.
Most literary analysis is worthless because it tends to interpret a historical work in terms of modern values. The Elizabethans just liked a good tragedy. Don't overthink it.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 14, 2010 2:50:29 GMT
In college, I had the choice of an English class about Shakespeare or about Science Fiction. I enjoy Shakespeare but I didn't want anyone ruining it for me by making me analyze the symbolism. I took the sci-fi class and it was a lot of fun!
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Oct 14, 2010 13:06:44 GMT
Actually, guys, Romeo and Juliet had no messages. It was written to entertain an Elizabethan audience, who found such stories very entertaining. Most literary analysis is worthless because it tends to interpret a historical work in terms of modern values. The Elizabethans just liked a good tragedy. Don't overthink it. The fact that Elizabethan authors found such stories entertaining does not preclude a work from having meaning. Macbeth, for example, was largely about kissing King James' ass, and you can see that in every line about how great the true royal bloodline of the Scotland is and the praise heaped upon James' ancestors. Romeo and Juliet, while part of a popular genre at the time, still had themes that would have been recognized by the audience. It wasn't high brow by any means, but it wasn't devoid of meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 14, 2010 16:28:49 GMT
Important difference between "devoid of meaning" and "devoid of a message".
I said the latter, not the former.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 14, 2010 22:10:34 GMT
I wonder if Tom simply didn't connect Jeanne's being a soldier with her intent to escape the Court. I know that, in stories that I've written before, I've sometimes forgotten to see Facet A and Facet B of such-and-such a character together until someone else pointed it out to me, and didn't realize how one led to a different stance to the other. Maybe the same thing happened with him, so that he didn't realize that Jeanne's act could be considered desertion or betrayal.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 14, 2010 22:25:58 GMT
I think if a soldier of a country deserts during a war, that's one thing.
I think if a security guard of a company quits due to harrassment, even in a bad neighborhood, that's something altogether different.
Though I have found this entire conversation trying to equate the second with the first very entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 14, 2010 22:47:19 GMT
Yeah, the court isn't a country or kingdom...um... I think.. is it?
|
|
|
Post by Elaienar on Oct 15, 2010 1:53:02 GMT
We haven't really seen where the Court stands on the political or geographical scale in relation to the rest of the world, but as far as interactions with Gillitie Wood go, the two seem to act as independent countries. We've certainly never seen the Court consulting Great Britain's government, but given that the main characters are mostly students we most likely wouldn't see that even if it was happening.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2010 6:32:32 GMT
It's up on the Word of Tom that the use of the word "court" in Gunnerkrigg Court means a formal gathering of people/beings. There hasn't been a nobility in the USA as such for a very long time so the idea of a "court" as a seat of government may sound a bit strange to us Americans. If you check the definition there are several similar but distinct arrangements that could fit; I'm unsure which applies to the Court at Gunner's Craig but am hopeful we will someday find out in the comic. That aside, the Court meets every criteria that I can think of for a nation-state (though city-state would probably be more accurate). They send agents to other nations, make "arrangements" with foreign powers, they have offices and office-holders, soldiers, a school, mass-transit systems, jails, and so on. They even have "something like WMDs." Eggers was knighted by a queen of some sort, though we are as yet unsure how exactly that fits into this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 15, 2010 6:48:13 GMT
That sounds to me a lot like making data fit a theory.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2010 6:56:47 GMT
That sounds to me a lot like making data fit a theory. I'm willing to listen to alternative theories. Your notion that Jeanne is more like a security guard for a company is based on..?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 15, 2010 7:09:31 GMT
Based on the fact that Gunnerkrigg Court is not a sovereign country?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2010 7:21:20 GMT
Based on the fact that Gunnerkrigg Court is not a sovereign country? I believe taking that position would be self-defeating in the context of this discussion because if the Court isn't sovereign then it has a sovereign somewhere else so Jeanne would just be soldiering for that state instead, still with Young as her superior. Also there have been a number of hints in formspring that the Court has made arrangements with foreign powers to be left alone. That does suggest de facto sovereignty. Why do you think the Court isn't sovereign?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 15, 2010 7:26:49 GMT
Oh my god circular arguments make me tired. Listen man, no offense, but I see no value in my continued participation in this topic.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2010 7:36:16 GMT
Oh my god circular arguments make me tired. Listen man, no offense, but I see no value in my continued participation in this topic. Sorry, maybe the lateness of the hour made my last post strange. Let me try again: What would the Court need to have to be a soverign state that it doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 15, 2010 9:13:26 GMT
What I really don't understand I why a security guard quitting a job he doesn't like is normal, but a state soldier doing the same is desertion.
|
|
|
Post by blinkerstoned on Oct 15, 2010 11:43:46 GMT
What I really don't understand I why a security guard quitting a job he doesn't like is normal, but a state soldier doing the same is desertion. the degree/severity of the offence is the key.a security is charged with maintaining the security of a company.even if the guard quits and a robbery(or something) does occur,the number of deaths(assuming there are any) will be low,compared to what happens if soldiers desert their posts.The security of the entire nation could be jeapordized.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 15, 2010 11:56:13 GMT
And?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 15, 2010 14:06:53 GMT
Its like the difference between dating and marriage. One is a greater commitment. If you're dating (security guard) and you break up... sad but oh well, on to the next adventure. If you're married (soldier) and promised to be there until death do you part...
Jeanne wanted to divorce herself from the court and go with Greenguy.
|
|
|
Post by Elaienar on Oct 15, 2010 14:45:44 GMT
Nice analogy. The difference between deserting and quitting your job also has something to do with honour and social perception ... for a soldier to leave his duties and his country is dishonourable because he's (presumably) sworn an oath to be loyal, but a security guard quitting isn't the same: his job is just a business contract, no swearing involved, nothing special or fancy or patriotic.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2010 15:00:27 GMT
What I really don't understand I why a security guard quitting a job he doesn't like is normal, but a state soldier doing the same is desertion. Hmmm... I suppose the key point is that a private security guard is theoretically employed at will while a soldier gives up a large number of civil rights and can't quit. "Mall cops" and night watchmen, as far as I know, can indeed walk off the job at any point. However, if you're talking about an armed security guard those people are certified and usually under contract; if they are guarding highly valuable things they're bonded as well. If they walk off the job and something gets stolen it's paid for out of their bond. If someone gets killed they will probably face a civil lawsuit for wrongful death from the survivors, plus maybe criminal charges. The folk who're prior military service who sign on with those overseas security contractors in conflict zones have it even worse. I suppose the appeal of this line of thought is that if you can either make Jeanne less of a soldier or the Court's employ less like a "real" military (or both) then you can say Jeanne planning to sneak away under cover of darkness was perfectly fine; there was no casting away of honor involved. That eliminates any moral gray areas and makes Jeanne an innocent victim and Young, Steadman and Diego filthy murderers. Of course, in the process you've reduced Jeanne from a warrior to "mall cop" status. ...but all that is really academic. It's been Formspring'd that Jeanne was a soldier, a good soldier, and employed by the Court. Therefore the Court must be a sort of organization that can employ a soldier. I guess there are two ways you could try to argue for it anyway but I think both of them will blow up in your face. The first way would be to say that Gunnerkrigg Court is a place of anarchy. It is a strange sort of anarchy with office-holders, school, mass transit, science programs, etc. but then again it is a very strange place. There is no government here, it is not part of and there is no substantive connection with any government elsewhere. What passes itself off as government in the Court is really more like a business operation or private expedition or some sort of hippie commune. Therefore by technicality Jeanne couldn't have been a real soldier. She may have been called a soldier but she wasn't. People could have had "offices" and a hierarchy but they must have had no real power. However if that were the case then everyone would've decided to listen to the people in charge or not as they chose, yet Jeanne had to obey her orders and her relatives had to go along with the cover-up. There is a slew of indications I mentioned earlier in this thread that suggest the Court is operating as a government or quasi-government. I am not aware of any support for the idea it isn't in the comic, Formspring, or the old Questions threads so I was very curious as to what Casey could possibly come up with. The second way would have been to say that no matter how progressive the Court was in that day and age Jeanne is a woman thus she wasn't a "real" soldier. There is some historical justification for that since women were immune to conscription so it is a little stronger than that first theory, but it really diminishes Jeanne's character and conflicts with what we know about her being a good soldier. Besides, I think if anyone had tried to argue that they'd have been flamed right off the forum. ...and that's pretty much all I can think of on this topic. Usually I can play devil's advocate better than this but I think I'm pumping a dry well. Can anyone else come up with something?
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Oct 15, 2010 15:18:40 GMT
I'm not quite clear, why is everyone assuming she deserted? Yes, there was the note saying "escape" and giving a time, but she also didn't want to go to the annan waters. Doesn't that indicate (along with her face when she was lowered) that her boyfriend was the one "escaping" the forest? Why would he swim across the river if she was the one escaping?
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 15, 2010 16:54:03 GMT
Yeah well, being a soldier sucks then, don't be one.
|
|