|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 17:48:27 GMT
What's more, Coyote isn't an imperfect human being, he's an actual physical god. This implication that he's somehow incapable of giving people powers without fucking it up somehow is laughable. Yes, it is laughable. That's why that kind of narrative is in so many of the stories about Coyote: he's a trickster figure, and most of his stories are intended to be humorous. Here's a typical plot: - Coyote gets bored.
- Coyote tries to occupy himself by doing something crazy, dangerous, or magical.
- Coyote bumbles his attempt at whatever it is he's trying, causing chaos for everyone involved.
- Penis joke.
- Coyote runs off laughing.
Coyote is well known for messing up. Trying to give other canine trickster figures some of his powers so that he has equals to do play tricks with, only for those gifts to backfire sounds like the kind of thing Coyote would try. I did not know that, thanks for telling me. I guess you guys might have a point here, if Coyote is actually known for this sort of thing. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 17:50:36 GMT
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.
|
|
monte
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by monte on Nov 1, 2010 17:51:07 GMT
What's more, Coyote isn't an imperfect human being, he's an actual physical god. This implication that he's somehow incapable of giving people powers without fucking it up somehow is laughable. Now that i find that to be a misconception... Only in monotheistic religions are gods viewed as beings of perfection. You look in most any mythology however you will find that many god's are indeed imperfect. They have their own shares of Flaws and limitations, hell they can even be slain. Coyote is indeed very powerful, and he is likely very wise, but he is not necessarily perfect just because he is referred to as a god... I might even go so far as to say the whether or not he is a god is subject to interpretation, as any extremely powerful being could be commonly viewed as a "god", including by the being himself. All in all, there is nothing saying That Coyote's powers are absolute and perfect... though his power is great there could easily be limits to what he is capable of... Afterall Coyote's story about the stars, and the creation of the shadows just further points out that he is imperfect
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 17:53:55 GMT
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. Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 17:56:42 GMT
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. Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life? The court thought he was a threat... and they have a habit* of killing things to solve problems. Maybe Surma's solution was the better one. *yeah yeah, ONE lousy death does not make a habit but it sounds cooler that way
|
|
|
Post by Per on Nov 1, 2010 17:57:19 GMT
She was kind of verging into Mary-Sue territory there for awhile. Mary Sue-ness implies a lot more than just being pretty and well liked by all. BLUUHH So anyone want to take a guess as to what the thing they're working on is? Electric bluh machine
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 18:01:05 GMT
If you may judge someone by the company they keep... Anja isn't nasty, Donald isn't nasty, James isn't nasty, so its likely that Surma wasn't nasty either, and lets add Anthony too for that matter. I'll go with Anja and Donald's opinion and assume their friends were basically okay people.
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 18:08:48 GMT
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. Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life? You mean her not responding to him immediately after implying he'd stolen her heart by calling him Reynardine? Yeah, bitch move. I read the thread; in the earlier example of the drug store the act of stealing is still wrong. The justification of "it's for my dying wife" might make people forgive the wrongful act, but it doesn't make stealing right.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 18:10:13 GMT
You do not have to be direct to just "lead someone on"; you can be much more subtle... She knows for certain that Renard loves her. not only does she make no attempt to dissuade Renard but she continues to act very close to him. And really a line like "I'll call you Reynardine because it's the name of a demon who steals young girls' hearts" is a not-so-subtle way of saying "you've stolen my heart"; It's not direct but its pretty obvious hint... That combo is enough to let Renard to jump to the wrong conclusions, to make him think that Surma likes him enough to believe that he has a real chance of wooing her... And this would lead Renard to possibly going to the court in order to get even closer to her There still exists the possibility that her motivation was to save Renard and not to trick/trap him. The following is still possible and not in any way made unlikely by anything we've been told so far: "I really do care about Renard, although I don't feel for him the way he does for me, and if I don't get him away from Coyote, then eventually Coyote will get him to take his power, and then the Court will kill him! I don't want my friend to be killed so we've got to try to get him to come live in the Court... and I don't want to reject his advances just yet because to do so might cause him to never consider moving to the Court, so for now I have to keep silent, even though it might hurt him, because it's more important that I save him from the Court by getting him away from Coyote so that he isn't a threat." If Surma were truly stringing Rey along, why does she not feign reciprocation? The above possibility is one that would explain both why she doesn't claim to reciprocate, and why she doesn't reject him. And it's out of kindness and caring for her friend, not simply because "she's a huge bitch bluh bluh!" So forgive me if I choose to take the more mature, patient, and forgiving point of view. And I'm not saying that theory is right, or another theory is wrong. I'm saying we can't know. This is a running, recurring idea in Tom's story. We don't KNOW whether Rey intended to possess Annie. We didn't KNOW whether Diego was good or bad, or whether Jeanne was a hot-headed bitch to him. We didn't KNOW whether Jack was "just bein' honest" about Annie, or whether he was under the influence of a malevolent force. And now, we don't KNOW that Surma truly tricked Renard, or if it was something altogether else. Someone should start a list of things that turned out to be not as they first seemed in the comic. Then maybe people will remember not to go off half-cocked all the time. So you aren't saying your (entirely made-up and unsupported by evidence) theory is the correct one, just the more 'forgiving', 'patient' and 'mature' one. Right.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:10:19 GMT
Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life? You mean her not responding to him immediately after implying he'd stolen her heart by calling him Reynardine? Yeah, bitch move. I read the thread; in the earlier example of the drug store the act of stealing is still wrong. The justification of "it's for my dying wife" might make people forgive the wrongful act, but it doesn't make stealing right. I could not help but notice that you injected your own perception/opinion, while avoiding actually answering my question.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:12:00 GMT
There still exists the possibility that her motivation was to save Renard and not to trick/trap him. The following is still possible and not in any way made unlikely by anything we've been told so far: "I really do care about Renard, although I don't feel for him the way he does for me, and if I don't get him away from Coyote, then eventually Coyote will get him to take his power, and then the Court will kill him! I don't want my friend to be killed so we've got to try to get him to come live in the Court... and I don't want to reject his advances just yet because to do so might cause him to never consider moving to the Court, so for now I have to keep silent, even though it might hurt him, because it's more important that I save him from the Court by getting him away from Coyote so that he isn't a threat." If Surma were truly stringing Rey along, why does she not feign reciprocation? The above possibility is one that would explain both why she doesn't claim to reciprocate, and why she doesn't reject him. And it's out of kindness and caring for her friend, not simply because "she's a huge bitch bluh bluh!" So forgive me if I choose to take the more mature, patient, and forgiving point of view. And I'm not saying that theory is right, or another theory is wrong. I'm saying we can't know. This is a running, recurring idea in Tom's story. We don't KNOW whether Rey intended to possess Annie. We didn't KNOW whether Diego was good or bad, or whether Jeanne was a hot-headed bitch to him. We didn't KNOW whether Jack was "just bein' honest" about Annie, or whether he was under the influence of a malevolent force. And now, we don't KNOW that Surma truly tricked Renard, or if it was something altogether else. Someone should start a list of things that turned out to be not as they first seemed in the comic. Then maybe people will remember not to go off half-cocked all the time. So you aren't saying your (entirely made-up and unsupported by evidence) theory is the correct one, just the more 'forgiving', 'patient' and 'mature' one. Right. I am saying that my proposal has just as much evidence as yours based on what has actually been said, and that mine takes a broader view. Yes. And you are starting to come across like a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 18:12:38 GMT
Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life? You mean her not responding to him immediately after implying he'd stolen her heart by calling him Reynardine? Yeah, bitch move. I read the thread; in the earlier example of the drug store the act of stealing is still wrong. The justification of "it's for my dying wife" might make people forgive the wrongful act, but it doesn't make stealing right. Are you younger than 25?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 18:23:16 GMT
So you aren't saying your (entirely made-up and unsupported by evidence) theory is the correct one, just the more 'forgiving', 'patient' and 'mature' one. Right. I am saying that my proposal has just as much evidence as yours based on what has actually been said, and that mine takes a broader view. Yes. And you are starting to come across like a jerk. Maybe I am kinda, but you're being contradictory and perhaps a bit disingenuous when you say on one line that you don't necessarily think your theory is necessarily better than the others while on the next you say in different words that, actually, it is better. I might say yours is less cynical, but I wouldn't go further than that.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:26:09 GMT
I am saying that my proposal has just as much evidence as yours based on what has actually been said, and that mine takes a broader view. Yes. And you are starting to come across like a jerk. Maybe I am kinda, but you're being contradictory and perhaps a bit disingenuous when you say on one line that you don't necessarily think your theory is necessarily better than the others while on the next you say in different words that, actually, it is better. I might say yours is less cynical, but I wouldn't go further than that. Fair enough, I can't argue with you about your perspective. If you don't agree, you don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:28:06 GMT
Actually I will say that I never addressed which one I thought was "better"... what I said was that neither one is more or less likely to be -right-.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 1, 2010 18:31:49 GMT
Wondering if you read the thread at all. Case in point: Would Surma simply not responding when Renard professed his love still be a bitch move if her motivation for remaining silent were that she was trying to save his life? You mean her not responding to him immediately after implying he'd stolen her heart by calling him Reynardine? Yeah, bitch move. I read the thread; in the earlier example of the drug store the act of stealing is still wrong. The justification of "it's for my dying wife" might make people forgive the wrongful act, but it doesn't make stealing right. Ah, black-and-white morality. The sign of a mature philosophy. So, if "not responding to him immediately" after implying that Rey might have a chance is such a bitchy thing to do, what should she have done? Gush at him about how much she loves him? That seems much worse. Ignore her own feelings and just get down and dirty with a fox because that's what he wants? That's not fair to her. There's nothing about this situation that's clear-cut, and there's no reason to flip out on characters for acting ambiguously in a morally grey area.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 1, 2010 18:35:18 GMT
Actually I will say that I never addressed which one I thought was "better"... what I said was that neither one is more or less likely to be -right-. To call your own approach "the more mature, patient, and forgiving point of view" implies that it is better. I'm not saying I don't agree with you in this particular case, but you're clearly implying that your interpretation is better.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 18:38:08 GMT
Actually I will say that I never addressed which one I thought was "better"... what I said was that neither one is more or less likely to be -right-. 'better' and 'right' are pretty much synonymous in this context. It leads to the unfortunate situation of you looking like you are trying really hard to say something while also not directly saying it. The implication you make when you claim yours is better is that you think it is more valid/correct than the others.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:42:50 GMT
Looking like, implication, you think, yadda yadda, been down this road too many times to get upset about it anymore.
Look. If anything, what I'm saying is that looking back over the history of this particular comic, and the discussion thereof, statistically speaking the point of view that looked at the larger picture, and held judgment when things were not clear--and heck, even when things did appear clear (S1)--tends to be the point of view that ends up being accurate more often.
You guys are the ones pinning all this "I'm better than you" BS onto me, and at this point... whatever gets your jollies, I don't care.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 18:44:03 GMT
You mean her not responding to him immediately after implying he'd stolen her heart by calling him Reynardine? Yeah, bitch move. I read the thread; in the earlier example of the drug store the act of stealing is still wrong. The justification of "it's for my dying wife" might make people forgive the wrongful act, but it doesn't make stealing right. Ah, black-and-white morality. The sign of a mature philosophy. So, if "not responding to him immediately" after implying that Rey might have a chance is such a bitchy thing to do, what should she have done? Gush at him about how much she loves him? That seems much worse. Ignore her own feelings and just get down and dirty with a fox because that's what he wants? That's not fair to her. There's nothing about this situation that's clear-cut, and there's no reason to flip out on characters for acting ambiguously in a morally grey area. How about let him down easy and tell him the truth about why she's allowing him to persist in his current deluded state (in other words, 'leading him on')?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 1, 2010 18:45:43 GMT
Someone should start a list of things that turned out to be not as they first seemed in the comic. Then maybe people will remember not to go off half-cocked all the time. I'm not sure that's really the case here, though - this seems to be a development of a situation we've known about turning out to not be what we'd thought. Previously, we thought that Rey's love was unrequited. Now, it appears that he was fooled (and that this, not being trapped by the forbidden eye, was what coyote was referring to when he said that Rey was tricked). The conversation in this thread reminds me a bit of the scene in Firefly when Mal finally confronts YoSaffRidge - sure, she never killed anyone, she just put people in a situation where they could die easy. The fact that Surma hasn't told a lie doesn't mean she's not being deceptive. Now, being deceptive doesn't necessarily mean being deceitful. But love's a powerful emotion, and stringing someone along is a dangerous game. I will say that Antimony has less reaction to this revelation than I would've thought. Looking forward to Wednesday.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:49:31 GMT
How about let him down easy and tell him the truth about why she's allowing him to persist in his current deluded state (in other words, 'leading him on')? Are you saying she should have said "Look Renard, that's sweet, and although I don't love you in the same way, as your friend I'm really worried about you, because the Court thinks you will become a threat if you take Coyote's powers, and I'm afraid of what they'll do to you. Why don't you instead just come live with your friends in the Court, and we'll work through all this personal infatuation stuff once you're safe?" Yes, if she had said that, that would have been just fine and probably effective. But it wouldn't have made for as interesting of a story. We don't want to get into a Smitty's-powers-of-probability-break-the-laws-of-entropy kind of discussion here, and lose sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a compelling story.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 18:50:22 GMT
Looking like, implication, you think, yadda yadda, been down this road too many times to get upset about it anymore. Look. If anything, what I'm saying is that looking back over the history of this particular comic, and the discussion thereof, statistically speaking the point of view that looked at the larger picture, and held judgment when things were not clear--and heck, even when things did appear clear (S1)--tends to be the point of view that ends up being accurate more often. You guys are the ones pinning all this "I'm better than you" BS onto me, and at this point... whatever gets your jollies, I don't care. No one's pinning anything on you; I'm pointing out that you made some disingenuous statements and that I think you should say what you mean in plain language instead of coaching it in this mealy-mouthed rhetoric. Edit: and I think you probably could have made an interesting story out of that even if she had taken the high road. Also, trying to excuse or apologize for a character's behavior because it serves to advance the plot seems to me to be missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 18:53:39 GMT
Looking like, implication, you think, yadda yadda, been down this road too many times to get upset about it anymore. Look. If anything, what I'm saying is that looking back over the history of this particular comic, and the discussion thereof, statistically speaking the point of view that looked at the larger picture, and held judgment when things were not clear--and heck, even when things did appear clear (S1)--tends to be the point of view that ends up being accurate more often. You guys are the ones pinning all this "I'm better than you" BS onto me, and at this point... whatever gets your jollies, I don't care. No one's pinning anything on you; I'm pointing out that you made some disingenuous statements and that I think you should say what you mean in plain language instead of coaching it in this mealy-mouthed rhetoric. Ok now you're bordering on being a jerk again. I am neither disingenuous nor mealy-mouthed, I have not said anything that wasn't direct, and the word is 'couch' not 'coach'. I would appreciate you not trying to devalue my words, which I have explained in greater detail than should be required of anyone, by calling them mealy-mouthed and disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 1, 2010 18:59:07 GMT
How about let him down easy and tell him the truth about why she's allowing him to persist in his current deluded state (in other words, 'leading him on')? Maybe, but we don't know what Surma's intentions are in this instance. Does she think she's saving his life? Is she worried he might be a danger to the Court? Is she being coerced into doing this? Is she simply trying to ingratiate herself to the Court higher-ups? We simply don't know, and I wouldn't pass judgment until we do. And let's not kid ourselves; there is no letting him down easy. Anyone with experience in a similar situation (the unrequited love part, not the whole setting up a honey pot to trap a talking fox thing), regardless of whether they were on the giving end or the receiving end of the heart break, will attest that there's no real way to let someone down easy. If you can think of one, feel free to let me know.
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 18:59:44 GMT
Nope. Ah, black-and-white morality. The sign of a mature philosophy. So, if "not responding to him immediately" after implying that Rey might have a chance is such a bitchy thing to do, what should she have done? Gush at him about how much she loves him? That seems much worse. Ignore her own feelings and just get down and dirty with a fox because that's what he wants? That's not fair to her. There's nothing about this situation that's clear-cut, and there's no reason to flip out on characters for acting ambiguously in a morally grey area. I'm saying that the act, divorced from all moral justifications or ambiguities, is a bitch move. It was mean to Renard to lead him on in that manner. Perhaps Surma had a good reason for doing it. Perhaps she was just following orders, or she was trying to save Renard's life, or she was leading him on for the greater good of the Court. I imagine we'll find out eventually but the act itself was mean. Similarly, Jack was creepy as hell around Annie and Jeanne was being petty when she destroyed all those (presumably self-aware) robots. After we saw more of the story we could understand those actions, empathize with the characters, accept their internal justifications, and see the larger context in which the actions took place. It's a mark of good storytelling that people can do mean, petty, and/or creepy things and not have that be the whole of their characterization. But Jack was creepy, Jeanne was being petty, and, in my opinion, Surma was being mean.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 19:00:57 GMT
No one's pinning anything on you; I'm pointing out that you made some disingenuous statements and that I think you should say what you mean in plain language instead of coaching it in this mealy-mouthed rhetoric. Ok now you're bordering on being a jerk again. I am neither disingenuous nor mealy-mouthed, I have not said anything that wasn't direct, and the word is 'couch' not 'coach'. I would appreciate you not trying to devalue my words, which I have explained in greater detail than should be required of anyone, by calling them mealy-mouthed and disingenuous. You will note I did not call you 'disingenuous or mealy-mouthed', I said your language was disingenuous and mealy-mouthed. And to be clear, I'm referring primarily and specifically to the "mature, patient, and forgiving" statement.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 19:04:52 GMT
Hal just give it a rest, this makes me tired.
|
|
|
Post by fjodor on Nov 1, 2010 19:07:48 GMT
Gentlemen, would it be possible to have these discussions via PM? I think the forum would become a lot more fun without these word wars.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 19:09:17 GMT
Nope. Ah, black-and-white morality. The sign of a mature philosophy. So, if "not responding to him immediately" after implying that Rey might have a chance is such a bitchy thing to do, what should she have done? Gush at him about how much she loves him? That seems much worse. Ignore her own feelings and just get down and dirty with a fox because that's what he wants? That's not fair to her. There's nothing about this situation that's clear-cut, and there's no reason to flip out on characters for acting ambiguously in a morally grey area. I'm saying that the act, divorced from all moral justifications or ambiguities, is a bitch move. It was mean to Renard to lead him on in that manner. Perhaps Surma had a good reason for doing it. Perhaps she was just following orders, or she was trying to save Renard's life, or she was leading him on for the greater good of the Court. I imagine we'll find out eventually but the act itself was mean. Similarly, Jack was creepy as hell around Annie and Jeanne was being petty when she destroyed all those (presumably self-aware) robots. After we saw more of the story we could understand those actions, empathize with the characters, accept their internal justifications, and see the larger context in which the actions took place. It's a mark of good storytelling that people can do mean, petty, and/or creepy things and not have that be the whole of their characterization. But Jack was creepy, Jeanne was being petty, and, in my opinion, Surma was being mean. The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong?
|
|