|
|
Post by requiemarc on Aug 27, 2015 20:40:52 GMT
Okay, that's really... the opposite of what I would say, and I think it relates how different our experiences are. No, not every story where somebody tries to resurrect/save their loved ones is a story of vanity, but those people are in very different situations. Orpheus didn't have children. Odysseus was separated from wife and child, and fought to get back to them both. Simon gave up his career for River, but it's made clear that she is much more important to him. Anthony's story looks like theirs, and all the pain he goes through makes it look very similar, but it's really not. Not only because he isn't successful, that's just the cherry on top. No, he had a greater duty. He had a child, who needed him, who even could have helped him, and he went away letting her believe it's because of something she did. He can love Antimony all he wants, but he always prioritised his love for Surma, his pain of losing her, his efforts in getting her back, and if he doesn't believe he has a shot, he basically sacrifices his daughter for not even a chance at saving his wife. He didn't do anything to alleviate Antimony's pain, on the contrary, he added to it because he couldn't take the five seconds out of his day to tell her that he was going away, that he loved her but had important business to take care of and not to wait for him.
So, a case of very screwed up priorities, you say, but vain? Yes, it's vain and egocentric. Vain, because he can't face that he wasn't successful, that for once, he wasn't good enough - he couldn't save Surma. Instead of facing that fact, and facing everyone who knows him or even might blame him for Surmas death (Eglamore? Rey? Antimony?) and accepting help (that guy needed help even before he went on the journey - grief counselling or whatever) to be there for his daughter, he goes on, believing if he just applied himself enough, he could do the impossible. Egocentric because of the reasons I mentioned before - if you don't have a child, go on a self-destructive journey to save your wife all you want, but he has a daughter who needed him. Crazy journeys to the end of the world just have to wait until she's old enough.
Obligatory Disclaimer: No, I don't believe he is irredeemable. No, I don't think he's the evil incarnated, he's just very screwed up. No, I don't want him to die a fiery death f doom. Yes, I know people aren't perfect, but these are the priorities in life you have to get right - crazy journey to maybe save your wife or care for your daughter. That's easy. Acknowledged, and accepted. Tony screwed up big time because he set aside very real responsibilities. And here's the but which will make me seem not only argumentative, but sociopathic: "But, quark, is there an objective rule that someone must give up on their dead wife and spend their life with a daughter that effectively killed her?" Even having written that, I feel sick, because I'm " sure" I would make the " right" choice to protect my children in the event of my wife's passing, should the situation ever arise. But I don't know how I'll be down the road, and I don't know how much of my mind is twisted away from logic and toward desperation and fruitless hope. And it becomes a matter of who receives more love: my wife, who I hear through the grapevine could truly be brought back at some cost (though this information came from very questionable sources), or my children, a directly involved component in the significant other's demise. If it's a matter of love, is it " wrong" to have a deeper bond with someone I married? If it's a matter of responsibility, do I have to make choices that say I'm not just letting go, I'm shutting down any possibility of reclaiming what was lost, when the possibility was actually there?My tone, I hope, has changed. I earnestly want opinions on what others think of love, rights, and responsibility. Consider this: should Tony have reclaimed Surma, and Antimony spared the bone laser surgery that made it all so deadly, would the family be capable of being happy again? Was he truly wrong for giving up chances to contact Annie for the sparse years she was in boarding school in order to try and make his family whole again? Alright, I've held my piece for quite some time now, mostly due to wanting to watch the story and people's opinions develop and I finally think I'm at the time where I want to broach this topic. That said, this is going to be one large post by me, and I want people who want to participate in this conversation to not have to worry about other comments not relating to it or of it being lost as we jump to a new thread hence this one. I think the conversation above sufficiently summarizes all of the opinions I've seen of Tony thus far (that are constructive and further the conversation) and I thank Quark and Nepycros for them. They also serve to represent the general 'scale' of how people seem to feel about Tony for me (I speak in general terms here) and thus again serve as a great reference point for me to jump off of. My original post was going to contain my entire response to all of this, but I have now noticed it is now over 2 1/2 pages and still going. I'm going to finish it and edit it before posting here in several hours and am having this as a place holder in the time being. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Aug 28, 2015 8:06:00 GMT
"And here's the but which will make me seem not only argumentative, but sociopathic: "But, quark, is there an objective rule that someone must give up on their dead wife and spend their life with a daughter that effectively killed her?"
Even having written that, I feel sick, because I'm "sure" I would make the "right" choice to protect my children in the event of my wife's passing, should the situation ever arise. But I don't know how I'll be down the road, and I don't know how much of my mind is twisted away from logic and toward desperation and fruitless hope. And it becomes a matter of who receives more love: my wife, who I hear through the grapevine could truly be brought back at some cost (though this information came from very questionable sources), or my children, a directly involved component in the significant other's demise. If it's a matter of love, is it "wrong" to have a deeper bond with someone I married?"
Riddle me this. Who gets to choose the course of action that leads to a child being born? The parents or said child?
The answer is the parents due to intercourse.
Now again, there's a time and place for a parent or parents to be selfish and focus on their needs, but if the idea of dividing up time between a spouse and child is out of the question, then why have a child (I mean vasectomy is a sure fire way to eliminate that problem)?
If you want a cute little thing that you can fuss over, without having to assume actual responsibilities, then get a plastic doll. Cute and without the needs of life form.
You don't get to bring a child into the world and then whine about how you have to actually take their needs into consideration.
I apologize for getting tense, but in this scenario unless anyone can prove otherwise, Tony and Surma had a say in the events that would likely lead into the latter's death. Annie didn't have a choice in the matter.
"Was he truly wrong for giving up chances to contact Annie for the sparse years she was in boarding school in order to try and make his family whole again?"
Trying to get Surma back, not necessarily wrong, but not being on the level with Annie is. If there was a chance, then fine, take it. But at least be damn well sure that Annie was cared for personally like approaching the Donlans to take temporary custody of Annie so to at least lessen any feelings of abandonment she would still have.
Had he done so, I might still question whether he would succeed, but I'd find it easier to respect his course of action.
And look at it this way. Even if there is no way to bring Surma back entirely, a part of her lives on through Annie. If Annie can grow up to be safe and happy, then Surma's death isn't entirely in vain.
|
|
|
|
Post by smurfton on Aug 28, 2015 9:15:36 GMT
It is possible that Anthony thought he would be back within a year or two... or maybe even able to contact people.
|
|
|
|
Post by knightingale on Aug 28, 2015 20:04:53 GMT
Riddle me this. Who gets to choose the course of action that leads to a child being born? The parents or said child? The answer is the parents due to intercourse. I wanted to address this point specifically because as you say, it's parents that decide the course of action ... but it's quite possible for the information they're working with to be asymmetric, and it's possible that Antimony was not planned. It's perfectly possible for partners to lie to each other and sabotage methods of birth control and so on, or for those methods to fail because of pure, simple bad luck. In this case, it might be as simple as Surma not telling Anthony that one tiny little detail. Or the Court could have interfered. There was also the possibility to terminate the pregnancy, I suppose, but does that elemental essence gets transferred at the moment of conception, making that not even an option in the first place? Not to mention the possible ethical/physical hurdles you'd have to deal with. In any case, what I'm saying is that it's possible Anthony may not have had full, working knowledge of what having a baby with Surma would mean for her (he doesn't seem to understand the passing on of Surma's fire elemental nature). I don't think we have the information to say that definitively (I'm happy to be corrected if there's anything already stated in the comic or in Tom's answers that would indicate otherwise). But if Anthony loved Surma as much as we've been led to believe he does, I don't think he would have done anything that would have risked her life because of his direct involvement. I mean, I can imagine a man willing to cut off his hand to bring back his dead wife totally getting a vasectomy if he thought it would keep her from dying in the first place. We focus a lot on Anthony because he's the parent who's physically here, but what was Surma's knowledge/involvement with this? We know Surma was willing to trick Reynardine, using his love for her to manipulate him for the Court's gain. We've mostly seen her as a benevolent force/presence in the story so far, but that's because we've seen her perceived mainly through the lens of people who loved her deeply. The worst we've heard is Coyote implying that she had a temper (but who wouldn't, dealing with Coyote), but we haven't seen blow-ups happen yet. Could conceiving Annie have been her own attempt to manipulate Anthony for her own ends, or at least have begun that way? We haven't seen the story of how they got together, much less how Antimony was conceived in the first place (again, please correct me if I'm misremembering this). Would Surma have had experience of this happening with her own family/mother? Having said all that: nah, it doesn't absolve Tony of being a crap-tier dad. As the parent who was present and alive, should he have been doing more? Should he have been more present for his child? Does he have a lot of making up to do that he might never actually be able to accomplish? I think so. Even within the restrictions of his own personality type, Tony has the agency to choose how he acts towards his own child, and he should own his failures in that regard. But I also think we just don't have enough knowledge about what he knew or the circumstances under which Annie was born or options they had, and there's a strong possibility that Tony's own nature was used against him, though it's unclear to what end. Tom's playing the asymmetric information game here too, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 30, 2015 21:47:41 GMT
I wanted to address this point specifically because as you say, it's parents that decide the course of action ... but it's quite possible for the information they're working with to be asymmetric, and it's possible that Antimony was not planned. It's perfectly possible for partners to lie to each other and sabotage methods of birth control and so on, or for those methods to fail because of pure, simple bad luck. In this case, it might be as simple as Surma not telling Anthony that one tiny little detail. Or the Court could have interfered. There was also the possibility to terminate the pregnancy, I suppose, but does that elemental essence gets transferred at the moment of conception, making that not even an option in the first place? Not to mention the possible ethical/physical hurdles you'd have to deal with. In any case, what I'm saying is that it's possible Anthony may not have had full, working knowledge of what having a baby with Surma would mean for her (he doesn't seem to understand the passing on of Surma's fire elemental nature). I don't think we have the information to say that definitively (I'm happy to be corrected if there's anything already stated in the comic or in Tom's answers that would indicate otherwise). But if Anthony loved Surma as much as we've been led to believe he does, I don't think he would have done anything that would have risked her life because of his direct involvement. All of which is about the exact form and distribution of responsibility for Annie's birth (and Surma's death) between Tony and Surma. Antimony's responsibility remains zero. I'd add that one speculated reason for Surma choosing Anthony over James is which of them agreed to give her a child. If that is the case, a vasectomy would be a major betrayal. |
|
foggy
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by foggy on Aug 31, 2015 10:12:47 GMT
Tony ignored his daughter completely while her mother was alive, then deserted her as soon as Surma died.
He repeatedly avers his distrust and disdain for the Court, yet abandoned his daughter to be raised by them. And when he finally does return, he believes everything he is told by the court without bothering to question it or talk to ANYONE who has actually been involved in his daughters life the whole time he was gone.
Tony's narcissism is ongoing and constant, everything becomes about him. It is about HIS need to cure his wife, HIS quest to regain her, HIS pain and HIS loss and HIS relationship with the Court. His excuses are the self-serving whines of one deflecting blame, and his drunken maudlin self flagellation is still about HIM.
All the bad stuff he did since he got back was to save Antimony? From what? From the one place she has been completely accepted and happy? From people who have given her more love and support than she ever got from Tony? To rescue her from her position as Medium for the Forest?
What is Tony saving her FOR? What does he envision her life will be? He hates and distrusts the Court, but does all this to ensure that Antimony will remain there? And can't be arsed to discuss ANY of this with the people he apparently trusts enought to spill his guts to but not enough to ASK about his daughter. For 4 years. Nope. Not reasonable if he really had any interest. At this point he is putting on shows for everybody.
And when Coyote has been a better father than he has - that is MESSED UP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 31, 2015 16:36:20 GMT
Put her in a boarding school in accordance with her mother's wishes. There's a big difference in Britainland. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Aug 31, 2015 18:03:25 GMT
Assigning blame and responsibility for Surma's death in this situation is never not going to be a circular argument.
Yes, no child ever asks to be born, but also yes, there are numerous situations where parents didn't ask or plan to become parents. What we know about THIS situation, via both the comic itself and Word of Tom, is that 1) Surma wanted to have a child, 3) she could have waited to have one when she was older, but choose not to, 3) both Surma and Tony knew that having a child was going to kill her, 4) Tony promised he could help, though whether that was prevent her death or slow it down is uncertain.
Pregnancy and childbirth -- even with normal human bodies and no etheric whatevers -- is inherently risky and dangerous. Lots of couples decide to have children even when there are health issues that could lead to the death, long-term illness, or crippling of literally anyone involved. Lots of perfectly healthy couples have something go unexpectedly and terribly wrong. If everyone held back from having kids unless they were 100% certain both parents would be alive and available to care for them for the next 18 years, no one would have kids at all.
So I'm not a big fan of "it's Tony's fault for getting Surma pregnant!", and how that dove-tails into defenders speculating "well what if she tricked him!" It doesn't matter. Tony and Surma didn't do anything wrong by deciding to have a child together, and the only thing responsible for Surma's death is the inherent nature of her body.
NOW, what would have been ideal is if Tony and Surma, having the foreknowledge that Surma was only going to be around for 12 or so years and would be increasingly sick for the majority of it, arranged their lives to prepare for that eventuality. This could cover such ground as making sure that Tony had friends and an emotional support system to help him through his grief and take over looking after Annie when he's not able to, that Annie had a community to turn to and which included someone responsible for informing her and helping her through the knowledge of why her mother died, that SURMA had the best possible quality of life given her situation.
But it turns out that BOTH Tony and Surma were very vain and prideful people. Surma was too proud to let herself be seen wasting away, so she isolated herself from her old friends and from making new ones, thus isolating Annie and apparently Tony too. Tony committed himself to saving Surma and while admirable by itself, he never came to terms with his inability to do so, and instead ventured out alone onto a self-destructive path with the full intention of never seeing nor interacting with his daughter ever again.
We can talk around and around about whether sending a child to a boarding school in the same area as your old school chums, with room, board, and clothing provided counts as 'abandonment'. It's purposefully missing the point. Fully self-sufficient adults in their 30s-40s feel abandoned when their parents abruptly stop talking to them and vanish off with no means of contact. Hell, lots of us feel that way when a close friend does the same thing and that's nothing compared to a parent. Tony absolutely abandoned Annie emotionally.
Which brings me all back around to this question:
From the start, this sits on some erroneous supposition. Tony, in his own words, declared his unwillingness to be in contact with Annie and exactly why; because he decided she wouldn't want to be around the man that killed her mother. He was not giving up chances to contact her in order to save Surma, he did it because he didn't want to talk to her. Even if those chances were available, he wouldn't have willfully taken them, and may have even gone out of his way to be in situations where contact wasn't an option. (Thinking of her when it came to calling someone for supplies wasn't a willful act.) Regardless of his motivations for trekking across the world, there was never a higher purpose to him emotionally dropping Annie like a hot rock.
That being the case, it's really tough for me to answer the question as anything other than a thought experiment that doesn't have anything specific to do with the Carvers. Just a general; if saving your spouse's life meant completely cutting yourself off entirely from your underage child for three years, would you do it? Well, not on a CHANCE, I wouldn't. Even on a sure bet, I'd be really dicey about it. My wife and I are pretty big on the importance of emotionally supporting children, since we had shitty childhoods ourselves, so if I in anyway sacrificed our child's happiness and well-being for her life, she would've sooner stayed dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Aug 31, 2015 20:08:36 GMT
From the start, this sits on some erroneous supposition. Tony, in his own words, declared his unwillingness to be in contact with Annie and exactly why; because he decided she wouldn't want to be around the man that killed her mother. He was not giving up chances to contact her in order to save Surma, he did it because he didn't want to talk to her. Even if those chances were available, he wouldn't have willfully taken them, and may have even gone out of his way to be in situations where contact wasn't an option. (Thinking of her when it came to calling someone for supplies wasn't a willful act.) Regardless of his motivations for trekking across the world, there was never a higher purpose to him emotionally dropping Annie like a hot rock. That being the case, it's really tough for me to answer the question as anything other than a thought experiment that doesn't have anything specific to do with the Carvers. Just a general; if saving your spouse's life meant completely cutting yourself off entirely from your underage child for three years, would you do it? Well, not on a CHANCE, I wouldn't. Even on a sure bet, I'd be really dicey about it. My wife and I are pretty big on the importance of emotionally supporting children, since we had shitty childhoods ourselves, so if I in anyway sacrificed our child's happiness and well-being for her life, she would've sooner stayed dead. I disagree. His intent was, from what I make out, to contact Surma during his daughter's stay at the Court, and then go about attempting to determine his goals from there. That doesn't mean that he's essentially saying, "Welcome to the Court, now bugger off, I'll never see you again ever." You make it out to be a willful action on his part to isolate his daughter when, in reality, he was pursuing a goal that needed time he (wrongfully) felt Annie didn't need, as she was among friends. "Even if those chances were available, he wouldn't have willfully taken them, and may have even gone out of his way to be in situations where contact wasn't an option." I beg your pardon. How did you come to that conclusion? Are those who backpack across Asia being willfully neglectful of their relationships because they're outside of a service range for cell phones? Are they required to pause their journey and make frequent checks in to ensure they've filled "emotional presence" quotas? Are you saying that his specific path must have been routed to ensure maximum separation from his daughter? How disingenuous to suppose that his elaborated goal -reaching a way to contact Surma- has an ulterior motive of evading his child. He went in and out of physical realms, and reached places undiscovered by the majority of people, but deciding that his issue of not contacting his daughter was deliberate takes a few too many leaps. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Aug 31, 2015 20:17:54 GMT
That being the case, it's really tough for me to answer the question as anything other than a thought experiment that doesn't have anything specific to do with the Carvers. Just a general; if saving your spouse's life meant completely cutting yourself off entirely from your underage child for three years, would you do it? Well, not on a CHANCE, I wouldn't. Even on a sure bet, I'd be really dicey about it. My wife and I are pretty big on the importance of emotionally supporting children, since we had shitty childhoods ourselves, so if I in anyway sacrificed our child's happiness and well-being for her life, she would've sooner stayed dead. Yep, so it is. A parent's duty is to support and protect their kids, emotionally and physically. If your spouse dies, protect your kids. If one of your children dies, protect your still living kids. If all hell breaks lose and you lose basically everything, still protect your kids. It's your job. And it's a damn hard job sometimes, but that's your responsibility for putting them into that shitty world.
Honestly, I get that Anthony could not face Annie, he was clearly in a very bad place. But I have no real understanding for him leaving her like that. For whatever purpose. As a parent, the idea makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Aug 31, 2015 20:29:44 GMT
I disagree. His intent was, from what I make out, to contact Surma during his daughter's stay at the Court, and then go about attempting to determine his goals from there. That doesn't mean that he's essentially saying, "Welcome to the Court, now bugger off, I'll never see you again ever." You make it out to be a willful action on his part to isolate his daughter when, in reality, he was pursuing a goal that needed time he (wrongfully) felt Annie didn't need, as she was among friends. Really? His exact words were: " I never wanted to return" " Antimony... how could she live with the man that killed her mother?" He didn't leave because he had that important job to do and he could not talk to her while he was doing it. His seeking to contact Surma and his leaving Annie at the Court are not cause and consequence. They are independant decisions. He left Annie because he couldn't face her. He named no conditions such as "I'd only return if I could repair the damage I've done / contact Surma / find the tree of life". By his own words, he had no intention to come back, whatever the result of his wild goose chase. |
|
quark
Full Member
Posts: 137
|
Post by quark on Aug 31, 2015 20:35:09 GMT
Referring Sadie and Nepycros posts: Abandoning Annie: that's kind of the point. He could have done different research, tried to find the psychopomps another way than travelling the most forbidden paths he could find. (Annie found them in a hospital, basically his native hunting ground). He didn't have to completely drop Annie - the Court knew where he was and was up-to date with his Omega research, so he must have had some way of communication. Even if he didn't - would it have killed him to find one? Write a letter every few months? Take a satellite phone with him? And even if he didn't do all that. Say, it wasn't possible, say letter-writing is forbidden, whatever. Twenty. Seconds. Twenty seconds when he dropped her off, saying that he'll be travelling and why, that it may take a long time and that there are people she can trust with her problems when she's there. Tell her that contacting him would be hard to impossible. Don't make her figure out on her own that he's gone, but make her part of the equation. That would still have been a very questionable course of action, but a lot less horrible than what he's done. This is inexcusable - it would have taken, literally, twenty seconds. So, that and the fact that other people can study the ether and it's inhabitants just fine at the court is where we get the notion from that he did the abandoning on purpose. Aaand most of the people backpacking through Asia aren't abandoning anyone, because the people they leave behind know what they're doing, where (in general) they are (they don't assume the person is still at their workplace when they are in reality backpacking) and they know how to contact them in case of an emergency, even if that may take a few days/weeks. And if they can't contact them, they know that they can't. Edit: also aline made some great points. YEAH, BASICALLY |
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Aug 31, 2015 20:48:32 GMT
I disagree. His intent was, from what I make out, to contact Surma during his daughter's stay at the Court, and then go about attempting to determine his goals from there. That doesn't mean that he's essentially saying, "Welcome to the Court, now bugger off, I'll never see you again ever." You make it out to be a willful action on his part to isolate his daughter when, in reality, he was pursuing a goal that needed time he (wrongfully) felt Annie didn't need, as she was among friends. Really? His exact words were: " I never wanted to return" " Antimony... how could she live with the man that killed her mother?" He didn't leave because he had that important job to do and he could not talk to her while he was doing it. His seeking to contact Surma and his leaving Annie at the Court are not cause and consequence. They are independant decisions. He left Annie because he couldn't face her. He named no conditions such as "I'd only return if I could repair the damage I've done / contact Surma / find the tree of life". By his own words, he had no intention to come back, whatever the result of his wild goose chase. False, his claim that he never wanted to return referred to the Court. His daughter could easily leave the Court after her education. Hell, Surma was the one who insisted they leave the Court in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Aug 31, 2015 21:23:04 GMT
Really? His exact words were: " I never wanted to return" " Antimony... how could she live with the man that killed her mother?" He didn't leave because he had that important job to do and he could not talk to her while he was doing it. His seeking to contact Surma and his leaving Annie at the Court are not cause and consequence. They are independant decisions. He left Annie because he couldn't face her. He named no conditions such as "I'd only return if I could repair the damage I've done / contact Surma / find the tree of life". By his own words, he had no intention to come back, whatever the result of his wild goose chase. False, his claim that he never wanted to return referred to the Court. His daughter could easily leave the Court after her education. Hell, Surma was the one who insisted they leave the Court in the first place. If his plan was for Annie to leave the Court after her education, why the hell is he so distraught at the idea that they'd expell her at this point? Never mind. His daughter could easily leave the Court after her education... or for summer vacations, like everyone else. Or, you know, she could get a phone call. He didn't need to live there for that. He said that Antimony "couldn't live together" with him. His biggest reason for not going back was to stay away from Antimony. And sorry, no, Surma didn't decide that. Remember that while she was alive, they still had contact to the Court and support from them, even though they didn't live there. She didn't wish for them to be in hiding from the Court, just (strangely) from their friends. Surma didn't decide for her husband to be on the run the minute she was dead. That was his call.
Tony clearly stated what he wanted: never come back, not live with Antimony. Later he decided to die on top of that. I don't know how you manage to interpret that he meant to pick her up later on the whole time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Aug 31, 2015 21:27:58 GMT
False, his claim that he never wanted to return referred to the Court. His daughter could easily leave the Court after her education. Hell, Surma was the one who insisted they leave the Court in the first place. If his plan was for Annie to leave the Court after her education, why the hell is he so distraught at the idea that they'd expell her at this point? Never mind. His daughter could easily leave the Court after her education... or for summer vacations, like everyone else. Or, you know, she could get a phone call. He didn't need to live there for that. He said that Antimony "couldn't live together" with him. His biggest reason for not going back was to stay away from Antimony. And sorry, no, Surma didn't decide that. Remember that while she was alive, they still had contact to the Court and support from them, even though they didn't live there. She didn't wish for them to be in hiding from the Court, just (strangely) from their friends. Surma didn't decide for her husband to be on the run the minute she was dead. That was his call.
Tony clearly stated what he wanted: never come back, not live with Antimony. Later he decided to die on top of that. I don't know how you manage to interpret that he meant to pick her up later on the whole time.
Agree to disagree then. I still see it as a declaration that he wanted nothing to do with the Court, rather than Annie. Saying that she wouldn't wanna be around her mother's killer is related, but not what I find to be the reason he left entirely. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Aug 31, 2015 22:03:22 GMT
I disagree. His intent was, from what I make out, to contact Surma during his daughter's stay at the Court, and then go about attempting to determine his goals from there. That doesn't mean that he's essentially saying, "Welcome to the Court, now bugger off, I'll never see you again ever." You make it out to be a willful action on his part to isolate his daughter when, in reality, he was pursuing a goal that needed time he (wrongfully) felt Annie didn't need, as she was among friends. You're really determined to skate circles around this, huh? Anthony Carver sent his daughter to school right after her mother died, packed his shit, and left, and then his 12 year old child doesn't find out he's gone until months later when she calls to tell him that she'd been hurt. He didn't even leave a message behind with the hospital for them to give to Annie. No letter, no note, nothing. His daughter felt so alone in the world, that she straight up tells her friend of a few months " You're the only person I have left in the world." That's bad even without getting to his intent. You know I'm criticizing the actions of a fictional character here, not you. aline linked you to the relevant comics above, and given that your response amounted to "no, he totally meant to contact her after she left the Court", I don't know how much good explaining myself is. If THAT'S what you got out of Tony saying that Annie wouldn't want to live with the man who killed her mother and repeatedly insisting how he never wanted to come back to the place Annie would be living for at least 6 years and LIKELY much longer given how upset he was at the idea of her being kicked out around graduation time, AND how he completely bailed without telling her when she was 12 -- then you're very clearly reading a different comic than I am and we're never gonna meet the middle ground here. What. COME ON. If they left someone very important to them without telling, then yes. If they left a minor for whom they're responsible without telling them, yes. If the important people in their life have been informed as to their whereabouts and they have no other responsibilities that require their immediate presence, then no, but it may depend. Why did you make that comparison? I'm saying paths that made it easier to be separated from Annie and everything she represented would've been especially appealing to him. Also... yeah, pretty much. I am very certain that he loves Antimony. I'm equally certain that he's convinced Antimony will be happier and better off without him around, though it doesn't hurt that this will spare him from her (in his mind) inevitable hatred/rejection of him. This is very obvious to me based on what he's said and the way he's acted. All this points to him actively staying way far away from her. I get that what you're seeing and reading in this comic is a committed, driven man who was willing to risk a few years being out of touch with his dear daughter at the chance to bring back her mother for both their sakes, and have the whole, healthy, multi-generational family he'd spent so long striving for. I get that you see a well-meaning guy who was tragically misled and is still doing his best to look after his family, even if he's being a little rough at it. I get it. FOR ME, I see a well-meaning, driven, but very flawed man, one who struggles with understanding emotions and the motives of other people, and who's self-image is deeply impacted by failure. I see a guy who never came to terms with the fact that his was wife was dying and when she finally did die, he continued to not accept it and instead turned that grief and anger on himself. That in turn resulted in him acting out in harmful ways against the one person who depends on him. I see someone who has no idea who his daughter is as a person, who cannot see her as an individual independent of his wife, who loves her, yet is not willing to risk himself by being open and honest with her, and because of all this, will always be hindered in any effort to work toward her best interest. I see a person in dire need of help, who won't get it until he asks for it himself. EDIT: Also, speaking of intent, I didn't mean to sound so grouchy for much of this. I disagree with you when it comes to Tony, Nepycros, and I find the way you present yourself and your position super frustrating, but I got nothing against you as a person. |
|
foggy
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by foggy on Sept 1, 2015 7:11:12 GMT
I find it fascinating how people interpret and react to what is known here, what is suggested, and then what we all fill in from our own experience and perspectives. Tom is brilliant in suggesting just enough to get everyone speculating and interpreting. It has certainly resulted in some spirited discussions and analysis at my house!
Mine perspective is as a nurse doing end of life care, and spending time with so many people who are dealing with issues around abuse/abandonment/desertion by parents (usually fathers) and trying to come to terms with that as they are dying.
Sending your kid to boarding school is certainly not abandonment. Not bothering to contact them in any way or let them know where you are or what you are doing certainly is emotional abandonment. Antimony has to come to terms with her lack of any emotional support from her father to this point in her life (none documented, at any rate). And she will have to decide how she will deal with him going forward, no matter how he responds to her.
And we all get to come along for the wild ride!
|
|
|
|
Post by eyemyself on Sept 2, 2015 19:33:11 GMT
Put her in a boarding school in accordance with her mother's wishes. There's a big difference in Britainland. There is also a big difference between simply "put her in boarding school" and "put her in boarding school and left his job failing to inform her she would not be able to reach him there, failing to provide her with any other means of contacting him, and failing to set the expectation that he would be unreachable and would not return for her for the foreseeable future." "Put her in boarding school" is a gross oversimplification. |
|
