|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:45:14 GMT
That label takes all the nuance out of the discussion and turns the characters into either Dudley Doright or Dr. Evil. Well, sometimes a generic label is useful when you can't tack it down better. But yeah, there's no elegance to it.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 20:48:33 GMT
What about those people who refuse to dirty their hands by doing evil, even if they truly honestly think that by doing so they would avert more evil in the future? In short the people who prefer to sacrifice the world rather than their principles?
Are they "bad guys" too?
Because if we include them as bad guys also, then by definition every single character ever is a "bad guy". Since we've both included as bad guys those who are willing AND those who are unwilling to commit a lesser evil in order to avert a greater one in the future.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:53:34 GMT
What about those people who refuse to dirty their hands by doing evil, even if they truly honestly think that by doing so they would avert more evil in the future? In short the people who prefer to sacrifice the world rather than their principles? Are they "bad guys" too? Because if we include them as bad guys also, then by definition every single character ever is a "bad guy". Since we've both included as bad guys those who are willing AND those who are unwilling to commit a lesser evil in order to avert a greater one in the future. Its not intended to be black and white... there are degrees. I would consider those people to be bad guys but someone actively doing evil would be bad to a greater degree. Using this, Ghandi would be a bad guy by a degree of -65.... (range from 100 bad to 100 good) And Darth Vader would be a good guy by a degree of -65 if he's as bad as Ghandi is good.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 20:56:18 GMT
Have we reached "silly" yet?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 20:57:50 GMT
Have we reached "silly" yet? About two pages ago, I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by fjodor on Nov 3, 2010 20:58:23 GMT
Have we reached "silly" yet? That was 5 pages ago
|
|
|
Post by fjodor on Nov 3, 2010 20:59:21 GMT
haha! Now we need to spend 18 more pages on why we disagree on the number of pages, Hal!
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 21:02:56 GMT
AHA, we have reached an agreement.. lets stop now!
|
|
|
Post by fjodor on Nov 3, 2010 21:05:12 GMT
All those terms (and others) can be wrapped in a generic label: "Bad guys" since we don't have enough information to further categorize them. We can take it one step further and categorise them all as 'guys'. Or, to make it gender-neutral: 'characters'. ;D
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 21:22:29 GMT
I don't get it though... all that Jayne and I (with a little input from others) have been trying to say from the outset was that the characterization of Surma as being a "HUGE BITCH bluh bluh" and to call her actions "a bitch move" or "a dick move" or whatever else, that characterization -IS- looking at the story with a one-dimensional point of view. We've been trying to give examples of some other possible explanations for things, and all we seem to have been met with is people saying that no those interpretations ARE NOT POSSIBLE because they see X, Y, and Z as meaning A, B, and C, and by God any other interpretation is wrong/naive/twisting the truth/etc. For my part, I just don't see how having a good reason - even a really good reason - keeps it from being an underhanded move. Let me try another way - if what we've been shown is true, and making some reasonable assumptions (e.g., Surma was widely liked, and also not a sociopath), it appears in the simplest terms that Surma has decided that she would rather Rey be safe than happy. As far as I can see, that's the best case scenario, and even that has only a 50/50 shot of being right. I'd rather not break down each potential scenario, but that seems about right, doesn't it? The kicker is that she also has a 50/50 shot with the reader. The reader is going to either empathize with Rey's life (supporting Surma) or Rey's happiness/self-determination (opposing Surma). Surma could have the best motivation in the world, and still be wrong in some people's minds just because making any decision was, itself, the wrong decision. And yes, that discussion probably does deserve more subtle treatment than it was given at first. But, again speaking only for me, that first image was a great way of saying, "What a twist!"
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 21:40:59 GMT
For my part, I just don't see how having a good reason - even a really good reason - keeps it from being an underhanded move. Let me try another way - if what we've been shown is true, and making some reasonable assumptions (e.g., Surma was widely liked, and also not a sociopath), it appears in the simplest terms that Surma has decided that she would rather Rey be safe than happy. As far as I can see, that's the best case scenario, and even that has only a 50/50 shot of being right. I'd rather not break down each potential scenario, but that seems about right, doesn't it? The kicker is that she also has a 50/50 shot with the reader. The reader is going to either empathize with Rey's life (supporting Surma) or Rey's happiness/self-determination (opposing Surma). Surma could have the best motivation in the world, and still be wrong in some people's minds just because making any decision was, itself, the wrong decision. There's nothing here that I would patently disagree with. Of course, not everyone has been as introspective as this.
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 3, 2010 21:48:19 GMT
For my part, I just don't see how having a good reason - even a really good reason - keeps it from being an underhanded move. Let me try another way - if what we've been shown is true, and making some reasonable assumptions (e.g., Surma was widely liked, and also not a sociopath), it appears in the simplest terms that Surma has decided that she would rather Rey be safe than happy. As far as I can see, that's the best case scenario, and even that has only a 50/50 shot of being right. I'd rather not break down each potential scenario, but that seems about right, doesn't it? The kicker is that she also has a 50/50 shot with the reader. The reader is going to either empathize with Rey's life (supporting Surma) or Rey's happiness/self-determination (opposing Surma).
Surma could have the best motivation in the world, and still be wrong in some people's minds just because making any decision was, itself, the wrong decision.There's nothing here that I would patently disagree with. Of course, not everyone has been as introspective as this. Yeah, that's pretty much what I said on page four, albeit more crudely. Surma knowingly leading on Renard is a bitch move on her part. She might not be a bad person overall; we've all done things we regret at one time or another and she almost certainly has complex motivations for doing it. But it's still a bitch move. Straight up.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 21:53:52 GMT
I don't think anyone has disagreed that Surma did an underhanded move. As far as we know, she absolutely tricked Rey to get him to come to the court. He would have stayed in the forest but Surma tricked him so he would come to the court instead.
This is the action of which we speak. Surma's action... she tricked him.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 21:59:55 GMT
I don't think anyone has disagreed that Surma did an underhanded move. As far as we know, she absolutely tricked Rey to get him to come to the court. He would have stayed in the forest but Surma tricked him so he would come to the court instead. This is the action of which we speak. Surma's action... she tricked him. Actually, no. That's where you and I differ. We both have proposed that Surma's reasons for tricking Renard, if she tricked him, are too complex to be simply called mean, bitchy, etc. In addition to that, though, I have advocated the possibility that not even that conclusion is necessarily foregone, for two reasons. The flashback we saw doesn't show Surma expressing a feeling she doesn't possess, it shows her tactfully avoiding the topic. And we don't see Anja coming right out and saying Surma deliberately deceiving Renard, we see her hesitantly agreeing to Annie's base characterization and summary of whatever Anja told her off-screen. I feel like I've made a case for that being at least a plausible alternative, and other people rejected even the possibility of that out-of-hand, simply because it didn't agree with what they had already decided was "obvious" to them. And that's what I don't get.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 22:02:52 GMT
I don't think anyone has disagreed that Surma did an underhanded move. As far as we know, she absolutely tricked Rey to get him to come to the court. He would have stayed in the forest but Surma tricked him so he would come to the court instead. This is the action of which we speak. Surma's action... she tricked him. Actually, no. That's where you and I differ. We both have proposed that Surma's reasons for tricking Renard, if she tricked him, are too complex to be simply called mean, bitchy, etc. In addition to that, though, I have advocated the possibility that not even that conclusion is necessarily foregone, for two reasons. The flashback we saw doesn't show Surma expressing a feeling she doesn't possess, it shows her tactfully avoiding the topic. And we don't see Anja coming right out and saying Surma deliberately deceiving Renard, we see her hesitantly agreeing to Annie's base characterization and summary of whatever Anja told her off-screen. I feel like I've made a case for that being at least a plausible alternative, and other people rejected even the possibility of that out-of-hand, simply because it didn't agree with what they had already decided was "obvious" to them. And that's what I don't get. No, good point.. its possible she didn't actually trick him but it sounds like that to Annie and Anja can't see enough reason to deny it. Still, we don't have enough information.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 22:04:57 GMT
Now, using this as a format:
Assume Surma has some really good reason: Surma was morally obligated to (trick Reynard) In this particular case, (tricking Reynard) is the right thing to do even though in general cases, (tricking sentient beings) is the wrong thing to do. ****************** Now, assume Surma has a lame, Nixon-like reason: ...
See? It really depends on that reason that we do not know.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 22:34:35 GMT
Keep on beating that dead horse, guys.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 22:36:10 GMT
Keep on beating that dead horse, guys. I have to admit the chances of Surma having a really good reason seem slimmer now BUT lets see how it goes. Wanna compromise and say maybe she had a moderately good reason for tricking Rey and that means she's moderately good/bad?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 4, 2010 0:36:17 GMT
Keep on beating that dead horse, guys. You've already made it clear that you reject any possibility other than the one you've decided must be right, so it only stands to reason that you would interpret any continued effort to demonstrate that there are other reasonable interpretations as "beating a dead horse". It is, however, not beating a dead horse just because you are personally tired of being presented with reasonable alternatives that don't happen to match your own personal view. In short, the conversation isn't over just because YOU have decided that no one else is saying anything you think is worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 4, 2010 1:16:56 GMT
Keep on beating that dead horse, guys. You've already made it clear that you reject any possibility other than the one you've decided must be right, so it only stands to reason that you would interpret any continued effort to demonstrate that there are other reasonable interpretations as "beating a dead horse". It is, however, not beating a dead horse just because you are personally tired of being presented with reasonable alternatives that don't happen to match your own personal view. In short, the conversation isn't over just because YOU have decided that no one else is saying anything you think is worth listening to. It's a dead horse because this thread is 11 pages long and you guys aren't really saying anything new at this point.
|
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Nov 4, 2010 1:18:16 GMT
In short, the conversation isn't over just because YOU have decided that no one else is saying anything you think is worth listening to. And others are enjoying the show! You know what keeps popping into my head about this situation? Annie isn't entirely open and honest with the people around her, especially if they're adults, and specifically not in relation to what goes on in the Forrest. She does 'tell Kat everything'... except for, you know, that copying answers thing a while back. There may be other, bigger things in the future that she'll have to hide from Kat -- either for her own safety (since Annie is a medium and working with dangerous gods and equally dangerous humans) or through some bad judgment on Annie's part, or a host of other reasons. Frankly, Annie's reserved enough about her feelings that she may tell Kat exactly what happened with something, but withhold her own opinions and reactions to it. Now, Surma was also established in the story as someone who also isn't entirely on the up-and-up in the honesty department. Elgamore specifically mentions that Surma broke rules, but was ace at not getting caught. Anja, as her best friend, undoubtedly got first row tickets to Surma's actions, feelings, and secrets... when they were teenagers. What about when they became adults? When Surma became a full-fledged medium with all the dangers associated? And even if Anja did, still, know nearly everything her best friend thought and felt, how much of that would she straight out tell Surma's teenage daughter? Anja has no reason to lie to Annie, but she does have reason to either parse the truth, or just not know the truth herself. I think others may have mentioned and I definitely concur; she's unreliable narrator.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 4, 2010 7:59:41 GMT
You realize that no one evaluates an answer to that question based on whether or not you say it's wrong, right? What matters is how you explain your answer. pardon? The question is used to evaluate how mature a person's moral philosophy is. During this evaluation, whether or not a person thinks it's right or wrong to steal the medicine doesn't matter. What matters is why the person thinks it's right or wrong.
|
|
|
Post by q3 on Nov 4, 2010 14:09:24 GMT
Theory: Surma really did love Renard. However, she was horrified when he killed that guy in order to be with her, so when the Court imprisoned him her fear and newfound dislike (of Renard and also perhaps of the Court) led her to announce that capturing him had been her plan all along. Then she got the heck out of there as quickly as possible.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 4, 2010 14:20:13 GMT
The question is used to evaluate how mature a person's moral philosophy is. During this evaluation, whether or not a person thinks it's right or wrong to steal the medicine doesn't matter. What matters is why the person thinks it's right or wrong. Yes, it was a very interesting class... one of my favorites, I think. A classmate answered: "He's charging too much for the medicine, so its right for me to steal it" Teacher: "But he's charging more because he has 7 kids to feed and he's barely making it" Classmate: "That's not my fault..."
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 4, 2010 20:53:53 GMT
She didn't do it for the fun of it, or without regard for the consequences, Maybe. But she could do it for the fun of it and without regard for the consequences. For example, if she thought of Renard as a sort of more apt and less powerful Coyote, she could expect this to be inconsequential. I mean, just look at him when he's fully himself. The guy is a cute fox and his life story is a long series of funny anecdotes about petty theft and setting up bullies, no?.. Did she have any compelling reasons to assume he not just fancied her slightly more than other humans he deems "interesting" and didn't play "courtly love" mostly to flatter her, but "desperately fell for"? So far i saw exactly zero. What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. An illustration: behold the image of Surma in a foxhole * with her trusty Trench Broom - in lower right corner. Yeah, right. ;D (*) sorry for a lame pun. It was a military enemy maneuver; and it must be judged the way you'd judge a spy sent to trick and/or seduce enemy personnel. This sort of depends on whether it's done under some form of truce. Like diplomatic immunity. Because the only aggression we've seen from the forest has been in response to a child smacking their god. Uh... it was a "fairly transparent ruse". Also, you forgot shrub dogs. What concerns me more is that Surma seemingly abused her position not only as a neutral party, but a friend. The question, which may or may not ever be resolved, is whether what seems is what is.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 4, 2010 21:54:57 GMT
Not really - there's nothing to say that those bound dogs were recently from the forest. They were trying to return, not invade. It's possible that they escaped from a decon habitat, as we know of at least one bound dog that did not. How they got into the Court in the first place is a mystery. Yeah, Anja had to bubble the group, but those dogs were increasingly cornered. They fled the children just a few pages earlier. I think that's a good example of how there's definitely ongoing tension and intrigue between the Court and the Forest, but not a good example of which side (if either) is playing the aggressor.
|
|
|
Post by theweatherman on Nov 5, 2010 0:42:15 GMT
I was totally gunna read all this thread, but saw the 11 pages and my brain start to cry, so if I missed something I'm sorry.
Since when does Coyote give powers he knows are flawed, I thought he didn't know that they were flawed, Coyote doesn't lie remember? Granted that he probably doesn't need to, the best lies are the ones with the most truth in them.
Also, Coyote, imho, wants Rey to be at his level of power cos it must be soul-breakingly lonely at the top, everyone is scared to hell of you, and having a best bud who is also a trickster and at your level, well that fixes almost everything.
And just cos Surma did a bad thing one time don't make her bad, it means she did a bad thing once.
And I just noticed, so far, Surma hasn't said anything about loving Rey, instead she smiled and flew up. She hasn't lied to Rey yet. She hasn't led him on, she called him Reynardine, stealer of young women's hearts, but that could be in a different context.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 5, 2010 3:27:35 GMT
I was totally gunna read all this thread, but saw the 11 pages and my brain start to cry, so if I missed something I'm sorry. Since when does Coyote give powers he knows are flawed, I thought he didn't know that they were flawed, Coyote doesn't lie remember? Granted that he probably doesn't need to, the best lies are the ones with the most truth in them. Also, Coyote, imho, wants Rey to be at his level of power cos it must be soul-breakingly lonely at the top, everyone is scared to hell of you, and having a best bud who is also a trickster and at your level, well that fixes almost everything. And just cos Surma did a bad thing one time don't make her bad, it means she did a bad thing once. And I just noticed, so far, Surma hasn't said anything about loving Rey, instead she smiled and flew up. She hasn't lied to Rey yet. She hasn't led him on, she called him Reynardine, stealer of young women's hearts, but that could be in a different context. Nope you didn't miss anything, you just summed up the whole 11 pages in one post. Kudos!
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 5, 2010 20:52:51 GMT
We remember he doesn't lie. But do *you* ever remember him claiming that he *didn't* know the powers would be flawed?
Remember that he can mislead people quite well with the truth, that's what makes him dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 5, 2010 21:39:29 GMT
We remember he doesn't lie. But do *you* ever remember him claiming that he *didn't* know the powers would be flawed? Remember that he can mislead people quite well with the truth, that's what makes him dangerous. That's one of the things I really like about him as a character... its like watching a magician... he's going to try something at some point... its just a matter of catching him at it.
|
|