|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 16, 2013 17:01:06 GMT
He is? What lie(s) was he telling, then? First and foremost, that he is Jolly Elfberry. Because no, he is not. Not even on a "he fully and completely makes himself into Jolly Elfberry" level because as the second of the three pages shows, he is not doing that and is actually Coyote underneath the mask. Liars may like to play with the idea of truth by saying that it is merely misdirection and misleading rather than lying, but purposefully using misdirection and misleading to plant a completely false idea in someone else's mind is, yes, lying. Liar semantics are just further attempts to misdirect and mislead people from uncovering the lies underneath. His second lie is "you can trust me". Because no, you can't. Not Jolly, not Coyote, not the Seed Bismuth any form he takes. In any case, equating his statement of "I don't exist!" with that of "I am Jolly Elfberry!" doesn't quite jibe, as from what little we know about how the ether works, he may very well be telling the truth in that particular instance. In which case he would be lying on two layers in those pages, as he would be neither Jolly Elfberry or Coyote, but merely a mass figment of imagination empowered by etheric energies. But now I say "whatevs". I can already see that what I have started is going to undoubtedly turn into yet another big Internet Semantics Debate, and blah on ISDs. They are as boring and stupid as Ysengrin is.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 16, 2013 18:15:33 GMT
I seem to have forgotten the exact wording of Coyote's original promise to Annie. I probably wouldn't live very long in the Forest. Which original? 285: "No harm will come to you, I swear it." Of course, that was in the context of referencing her visiting him in the forest. On a later occasion, he threatens that her hand will be snipped off if she tells anyone in the Forest about Coyote's tooth. 487: "We hope friendship can be born anew!" Between whom, he doesn't actually specify. 687: "Handsome Lord Coyote is very fond of you!" ... oh, I believe it! 822: "I will grant her every protection! Ysengrin will look after her!" Of course, that was in the context of her stay in the forest that summer ...
|
|
maximkat
Full Member
Look at my face, my face is amazing
Posts: 111
|
Post by maximkat on Sept 16, 2013 18:15:56 GMT
Paging Admiral Akhbar... Admiral Akhbar, please proceed to the bridge immediately.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 16, 2013 18:18:00 GMT
He is? What lie(s) was he telling, then? First and foremost, that he is Jolly Elfberry. Because no, he is not. Hi there, I'm the Sidhekin. Yes, I am. No lie. I have other names besides, but that doesn't make this one a lie.
|
|
|
Post by exuberancium on Sept 16, 2013 18:32:41 GMT
I'm not sure that the Seed Bismuth is an illusion by Coyote. Rather, I think Coyote has become aware of this interaction and is now trying to stop it by injecting suggestions into Annie's thoughts such as LIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIARLIAR...
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 16, 2013 18:37:35 GMT
Hi there, I'm the Sidhekin. Yes, I am. No lie. Indeed you are, and you are not lying, because you are not also trying to convince me that you are someone other than who you are. Further, the generally accepted social structure of the internet is that most people are not using their birth names but screen names, so it's not even a lie by misdirection. I was born Roland Lowery, I go by Jim North on the 'net, and both of these are my name, and since I am even right up front about it, in my case it couldn't even be a lie by omission. If you were, under your birth name, to then claim you were not Sidhekin or if I were to do the same about Jim, then we would indeed be lying. Coyote, on the other hand, was concealing his identity from Eglamore. It was not known to Eggers or Annie that Jolly was one of his aliases, or that it could possibly be an alias, alternate personality, or whatever else similar at all. And more importantly, his intent was deception. A lie by misdirection and omission is still a lie.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 16, 2013 18:39:05 GMT
Yeah, aliases are a legit thing. Especially for a being like Coyote: "Coyote" is just one of his more recently popular names, he's had a a billion billion identities throughout history.
Altering your appearance is a sort of "lying through omission", but clearly if you're gonna have a "untrustworthy trickster god who can't tell direct lies", lies-through-ommision aren't going to count.
Remember, this whole "coyote can't lie" thing came from Jones. She's the one who first told Annie that Coyote doesn't tell direct lies... that you can take his promises as gospel but that doesn't mean you can trust him.
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 16, 2013 18:39:52 GMT
It is my clear impression that Jones, when declaring that Coyote is no liar, was not employing Jim North's definition of the word.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Sept 16, 2013 18:44:10 GMT
So....I was thinking. Do you think the tictocs were grown along with the Court? And the Seed Bismuth uses it as a way of keeping an eye on the people in the Court? I'm still guessing that the Tic-tocs are Kat's creation, sent back in time for purposes as yet unknown!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 16, 2013 18:53:16 GMT
Oh, I missed Jim North's latest post. Coyote, on the other hand, was concealing his identity from Eglamore. It was not known to Eggers or Annie that Jolly was one of his aliases, or that it could possibly be an alias, alternate personality, or whatever else similar at all. And more importantly, his intent was deception. A lie by misdirection and omission is still a lie. I think the thing is, simply: He never said that he wasn't coyote. He just failed to mention that he was. He's had billions of identities, and Jolly Elfsberry is probably an identity he's used before. So, it's true that he is Elfsberry and Coyote, but he deceptively only revealed the former to Eglamore. I know this technically makes him a liar through more reasonable, flexible definitions of a "lie", but for the purposes of the comic character Coyote, the thing he can't do is tell a direct lie. According to Jones, that's the line he can't cross. Just because the line isn't where you think it should be, doesn't mean there isn't a line at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 16, 2013 19:03:48 GMT
Altering your appearance is a sort of "lying through omission", but clearly if you're gonna have a "untrustworthy trickster god who can't tell direct lies", lies-through-ommision aren't going to count. On the contrary, lies-by-omission should count extra, since because of that particular ability, you can never be certain whether you're dealing with Coyote or not. The fact that he can be such a convincing liar-by-omission does not exclude him from being a liar. A lie by omission is still a lie. Another reason "Coyote isn't a liar" is suspect to me. He may have always been totally upfront with Jones, but that doesn't mean he's upfront with everybody. Her testimony to the fact, while certainly trustworthy in itself, may also come from Jones not being in complete possession of all the facts. It is my clear impression that Jones, when declaring that Coyote is no liar, was not employing Jim North's definition of the word. I do agree that it may be possible Jones is using a different definition than I am. I'm simply using the actual, standardized definition, myself. As per Dictionary.com: 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture. 3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood. 4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie. 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. 6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. Definition 2 is the most pertinent here, I think. And thus things have slipped even further into the semantics abyss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2013 19:12:51 GMT
I bet that it would be a dark and twisted version of Yakety Sax. Which would be awesome. Haha, I like your idea! Say, if the Seed's theme goes something like this, then judging by Annie's headache, Coyote's growing presence must feel like a wholly different theme fading in on top of the first. Edit from the Distant Future: The first link is apparently dead, but luckily for you, the historian, whoever you may be, I remember which song I had picked there. Who's the black trickster god that's a mystery to all the Court?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 16, 2013 19:27:54 GMT
Jim, I think the key thing here is still: even if the line isn't where you think it should be based on the word "lie", the line still exists. Call it something other than "cannot lie" if it bothers you -- Coyote can "lie", but he can't "utter an explicitly untrue statement or make false promises".
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Sept 16, 2013 19:41:09 GMT
Hey, call it "lie¹₁"/"lie¹₅" (referencing the dictionary.com definition):
Coyote doesn't lie¹₅. He tells no lie¹₁.
B-)
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Sept 16, 2013 20:11:10 GMT
Eh, I always figured it was fae-type lie. Meaning something along the line of "I will answer what you asked and only what you asked because you are a lowly and limited human and it amuses me". This is generally the type I think you run into with stories, since it adds drama. At least I don't remember a "can't lie, even by omission or implication". No wait, Extras by Scott Westerfeld had that, but that was done by brain surgery. Just imagine Coyote with a lawyer-type mind (you know, the kind that will follow the rabbit trail of semantics ), who can't tell a direct lie (lie 3).
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Sept 16, 2013 20:26:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Sept 16, 2013 20:26:50 GMT
I bet that it would be a dark and twisted version of Yakety Sax. Which would be awesome. Haha, I like your idea! Say, if the Seed's theme goes something like this, then judging by Annie's headache, Coyote's growing presence must feel like a wholly different theme fading in on top of the first. Who's the black trickster god that's a mystery to all the Court? I approve of Coyote's new theme.
|
|
|
Post by dliessmgg on Sept 16, 2013 21:16:25 GMT
I bet that it would be a dark and twisted version of Yakety Sax. Which would be awesome. Haha, I like your idea! Say, if the Seed's theme goes something like this, then judging by Annie's headache, Coyote's growing presence must feel like a wholly different theme fading in on top of the first. Who's the black trickster god that's a mystery to all the Court? Mixing them together works surpringly well.
|
|
|
Post by feraldog on Sept 16, 2013 21:37:13 GMT
He is? What lie(s) was he telling, then? First and foremost, that he is Jolly Elfberry. Because no, he is not. Not even on a "he fully and completely makes himself into Jolly Elfberry" level because as the second of the three pages shows, he is not doing that and is actually Coyote underneath the mask. My conclusion was that acting/playing a part doesn't count as lying. He said you can trust him, not that you should. (Bwahaha, semantics fight...)
|
|
Pig_catapult
Full Member
Keeper of the Devilkitty
Posts: 171
|
Post by Pig_catapult on Sept 16, 2013 22:01:21 GMT
The problem with avoiding a semantics debate is that semantic debates are all that Coyote's particular brand of fae-truth run on. So if "Coyote doesn't lie" doesn't work, let's just call it something like "Coyote tells fae-truths", defining fae-truths as "things that are always interpretable as at least sort of, kind of 'true', for maximally-inclusive definitions of 'true', if you tilt your head and quibble at it really, really hard", such as Obi-Wan Kenobi telling Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader killed Luke's father.
|
|
|
Post by Stately Buff Cookie on Sept 16, 2013 23:08:10 GMT
I had forgotten about the Coyote not being a liar thing.
The possibility this isn't Coyote testing Annie makes me nervous. I'm right back to wondering if this is going to end in a throwdown. Given the forest's apparent definition of their medium's function, I wonder if that's the point.
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Sept 16, 2013 23:55:01 GMT
I'll just throw another idea out there, just to be silly. Maybe Coyote's saying that SB is lying, because Annie couldn't hide it away in secret because it's so bright. Or maybe she could somehow hide it away, but it still couldn't cross the bridge. Either way, the statement would be a lie. :-)
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Sept 16, 2013 23:56:20 GMT
Actually, in more seriousness, now that I read the SB's statement, it seems like the conditional clause order is backward:
"If you could take me back to my brethren... you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge".
If SB's brethren are on the other side of the Annan waters, then shouldn't it have said this?:
"If you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge... you could take me back to my brethren".
Doesn't that make more sense? Tom is always careful in his writing, so I wonder if he's trying to hint at something?
|
|
|
Post by nero on Sept 17, 2013 0:11:26 GMT
Now that fairy looks more like a butterfly and its friends do look like some weird bugs. It looks like Coyote is coming closer warning Annie that the fairy thing is lying. Hopefully it won't harm Annie.
|
|
|
Post by 0o0f on Sept 17, 2013 0:17:04 GMT
Actually, in more seriousness, now that I read the SB's statement, it seems like the conditional clause order is backward: "If you could take me back to my brethren... you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge".If SB's brethren are on the other side of the Annan waters, then shouldn't it have said this?: "If you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge... you could take me back to my brethren".Doesn't that make more sense? Tom is always careful in his writing, so I wonder if he's trying to hint at something? That, or Annie would first have to take the SB to its brethren before she could hide it away (for some reason). Makes me wonder who these brethren are supposed to be.
|
|
|
Post by cannister on Sept 17, 2013 1:19:13 GMT
The 'trickster who technically can't lie' is a well established motif in literature. I would link to TVtropes, but I will not desecrate our forum. I'm well aware of that trope, as I'm sure most folks here are . . . the thing that has me wondering about him not being a liar is the fact that in the pages I linked there, he is lying. He doesn't actually lie. The closest he comes is saying "I'm Jolly Elfsberry!" which is still arguably fair play, since he is taking the form of 'Jolly Elfsberry.' Nobody ever said Coyote isn't dishonest. His second lie is "you can trust me". Because no, you can't. Not Jolly, not Coyote, not the Seed Bismuth any form he takes. Boo, you're not playing the game! Of course you can trust him! You can trust anyone! You'd be a fool, but you totally can!
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Sept 17, 2013 1:39:03 GMT
I totally though that the ribbon with LIARLIARLIAR was runes at first. Hmm. I honestly wasn't expecting Coyote, but I did have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 17, 2013 2:47:47 GMT
Actually, in more seriousness, now that I read the SB's statement, it seems like the conditional clause order is backward: "If you could take me back to my brethren... you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge".If SB's brethren are on the other side of the Annan waters, then shouldn't it have said this?: "If you could hide me away in secret and I can travel with you across the bridge... you could take me back to my brethren".Doesn't that make more sense? Tom is always careful in his writing, so I wonder if he's trying to hint at something? I just read it as SB musing aloud. First it expresses a desire to rejoin its brethren, then it starts brainstorming ways to achieve that goal.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Sept 17, 2013 10:32:46 GMT
It is my clear impression that Jones, when declaring that Coyote is no liar, was not employing Jim North's definition of the word. The red herring in all of these recurring discussions is that people insist on reading Jones' "Coyote is no liar" to say "Coyote never lies", which is not the same thing, or even "Coyote is incapable of lying", which is not the same thing either. You can lie on occasion without "being a [habitual] liar".
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Sept 17, 2013 14:59:44 GMT
The problem with avoiding a semantics debate is that semantic debates are all that Coyote's particular brand of fae-truth run on. So if "Coyote doesn't lie" doesn't work, let's just call it something like "Coyote tells fae-truths", defining fae-truths as "things that are always interpretable as at least sort of, kind of 'true', for maximally-inclusive definitions of 'true', if you tilt your head and quibble at it really, really hard", such as Obi-Wan Kenobi telling Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader killed Luke's father. The red herring in all of these recurring discussions is that people insist on reading Jones' "Coyote is no liar" to say "Coyote never lies", which is not the same thing, or even "Coyote is incapable of lying", which is not the same thing either. You can lie on occasion without "being a [habitual] liar". Pig and Per are gettin' it. See, this is the main problem I have with the whole idea that Coyote never lies, that people are clinging to said idea so tenaciously even though it has only a thin foundation in the first place. It's based on a statement made by someone who may not be in possession of all the facts (as I said before, just because Coyote may not have lied in Jones' experience does not mean he has never or is not capable of lying), and even if she were, "Coyote never lies" is not the only or even the most likely interpretation of her statement. But the attachment to this idea is still there, so much so that when it's demonstrably shown that, yes, Coyote actually has lied before - and not by some flexible, more expansive definition of the word "lie" but by its actual, rigid definition - folks start trying to move the goalposts. Oh, well, he can lie like that but he can't lie like this, you see . . . but Jones never gave any qualifications at all as to what kind of lies Coyote could or couldn't tell. And even if it were the case that he absolutely couldn't lie in one particular way, he did still lie in another, and that ultimately means he can, in fact, lie. Further, I could go on to argue that he has indeed lied directly, but I feel pretty certain at this point that someone would still try to back even further into that corner with yet another argument about how that particular instance doesn't count on some etheric technicality. But these technicalities and the goalpost moving, it's all predicated on the same kind of justifications and rationalizations that liars use to justify and rationalize their own lies. Semantics games that try to confuse the issue while not actually changing it. Coyote does indeed tell the truth more often than not, I will agree with that. His truths can be dangerous for the unwary, I agree on that point as well. But he is capable of lying, and neither Jones nor anyone else in the comic ever said that he wasn't.
|
|