|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 3, 2009 21:41:16 GMT
Thanks, garlic, but there's no longer a need.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 3, 2009 21:52:20 GMT
So, it was very late last night and I rambled a lot in what I said. I'd like to try to clarify my point and flesh out my stance so there's no confusion.
I don't think there is enough information to form a conclusive opinion either way on whether or not Reynardine intended to posses and kill Annie.
I think that lack of information is intentional on Tom's part, because it gives him room to play with the facts later and turn it into something more than it appeared to be at first glance. And I've concluded that that lack of specificity is, in itself, evidence that Tom intends to do just that.
I think arguments can be made in either direction, but I don't think either side can substantially be proved to be "right" over the other one. And that to me appears deliberate for the above reason.
I also made a point that I'm not sure I sufficiently explained and I'm not sure how to explain it. The point that I was trying to make is that there are places in the early chapters where improbable things happened--Annie happening to find a complete Robot to construct, Annie just happening to find the Top Secret Train to the Holding Cells--that could be seen plot holes, or could be seen as conveniences for the author in being able to concentrate on getting on with the telling of the story. I imagine how long it would have taken to explain how Annie found the holding cells, for example, if she hadn't 'conveniently' stumbled upon the train. And I'm satisfied with Tom just glossing over that part in an effort to keep the story tight and focused.
And the reason why I've made that point here is because some people, on both sides of the argument, have pointed to improbabilities, and lack of confirmation/denial of certain facts, as evidence to support their side of the argument. My intent here is only to encourage people to look at those instances in a different light: to see them as necessary, both for the sake of telling the story succinctly now, and for the sake of being able to expand the story later.
I hope that better explains what I was trying to say. I would very much enjoy a conversation about these points if anyone has any feedback on that topic.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Sept 3, 2009 23:37:07 GMT
Apparently when Rey left Sivo's body, Eglamore was not very far off - close enough to have heard the conversation.
So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rey asks for permission to possess the stuffed animal. And that Eglamore is NOT close enough to hear the plan. And that Annie says okay.
Eglamore comes back later and finds Sivo dead - so he knows Rey left Sivo's body voluntarily, unlikely in the absence of another potential possessee.
They start looking.
They identify Annie as the visitor. But she isn't possessed.
They *ask her* what happened. She tells them - hey, why not? They find Reynardine in the doll.
It defeats the whole presumed purpose of possessing the doll.
If, on the other hand, they THINK he left Sivo intending to possess Annie, and the attempt was foiled, then they THINK he's dead - and don't go looking for him. Even Annie didn't know that her toy was possessed for another 25 pages!
So, on the assumption that Rey intended to take the toy rather than the girl, his behavior was perfectly sensible.
(However, I doubt that this assumption is correct.)
As for the story going exactly how it was intended - it's going how the writer, Tom, intends. The characters... that's a whole different subject, and it's safe to say that no good story goes the way that the characters in it intend.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 4, 2009 0:03:54 GMT
To the other side: I've been asked what kind of hints would have convinced me to be on your side. I gave a few examples: more hesitation in Reynardine, and Rey being more overty scarry. What about you guys? How would the scene or story have to be different to convince you? Is it all motive, such that you would never, in principle convict a man if you did not understand his motive? Or is there some evidence missing from the scene that would make the point for you? This is a misunderstanding of our position. Anyone who began reading the comic at page 1 began in the camp that Reynardine was attempting to take Annie's body. It is the additional clues revealed later in the story that indicate the event should possibly not be taken at face-value. So you would need to present evidence after the event that confirms Reynardine's desperate and malevolent intent. Instead, we continue to get evidence that questions our initial presumptions. The taking of Annie's body argument always falls back to "desperation" in order to account for these new discrepancies. The irony is that I do believe Reynardine would take a human's life in a desperate moment -- and has -- but I do not believe his imprisonment under Eglamore alone would be enough to drive him to such desperate straits as killing his beloved Surma's daughter. I am of the opinion that immortals have more patience and pride than that. I didn't mean to suggest that people were arguing that Rey way after Annie's body immediately after reading the chapter. It's just that if you are making an argument based solely on Rey's motivation, then applying the same principle generally and consistently, one cannot condemn someone without understanding their motivation. As an example, it would be inconsistent then if one were serving on a jury and declare a person guilty, when their motive is unknown or unclear. Now, It would only be inconsistent if there is no amount of evidence from the scene could convince you. If there is something that if it were different, would have brought you to the other side, the above statement cannot be made. I am interested to hear what that difference would be.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 4, 2009 0:29:50 GMT
One, Reynardine has possessed inanimate objects before--he must have, or he would not know that he was able to--and he was able to leave them as well. Now every inanimate object can be said to be owned by somebody... even the garbage in the town dump is owned by the town. And yet he had no problems with being unable to do anything without the owner's permission before. Therefore, either there's something special about Annie's bond with the doll, or, this is a plot hole that we are intended to overlook for the sake of the story... which I'll cover in my next point. Either way, There's sufficient evidence to believe that Reynardine had no idea that he would become Annie's prisoner by jumping into the toy. I disagree. It is possible that he simply felt that he could possess the doll, as if it's eyes were some kind of beacon to him. I suspect that he had not possessed an inanimate object before. I see this as a logical fallacy. Just because there is debate, does not mean that one side is not right. Often people just don't think clearly or think things through. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that the "Annie by force" is the only reasonable interpretation of the scene. There are other scenes in Gunnerkrigg that are ambiguous, but this isn't one. So I guess I disagree on two counts with you casey: first, on why Rey went for the doll, and second, on the degree of ambiguity in the scene regarding this matter.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 4, 2009 1:35:06 GMT
To be a bit clearer: I wasn't saying that the fact that there is debate alone is reason enough to think that neither side is right. What I meant to say was the fact that both sides have equal "proof", and they both think that the other side's "proof" is just "interpretation", makes for a strong case that Tom intended for reality to be vague, debatable, ambiguous, and inscrutable (thus far). You don't have to agree and I don't expect that I'm going to be able to convince everyone, or anyone. I do still maintain though that there is a way to look at the situation that allows for both sides to be equally wrong, and thus equally "right" by degrees.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 4, 2009 3:49:05 GMT
I didn't mean to suggest that people were arguing that Rey way after Annie's body immediately after reading the chapter. It's just that if you are making an argument based solely on Rey's motivation, then applying the same principle generally and consistently, one cannot condemn someone without understanding their motivation. As an example, it would be inconsistent then if one were serving on a jury and declare a person guilty, when their motive is unknown or unclear. Now, It would only be inconsistent if there is no amount of evidence from the scene could convince you. If there is something that if it were different, would have brought you to the other side, the above statement cannot be made. I am interested to hear what that difference would be. I can't figure out what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 4, 2009 6:43:18 GMT
I think he just means that factual events should trump questions about motivation. That's something I agree about in the real world, but disagree about when pertaining to fiction. In fiction, motivation and characterization are often more important (I feel) than nitpicky physical details. In reality however people are often so contradictory, or stupid, or deceitful, that you must let the physical facts guide you, not create theories about motivations. This reminds me some years back, when I was discussing Abu Ghraib with my brother -- and he had said something like "how can you believe that the American government would have been so stupid as to authorize something like that". I was instead saying that I didn't *care* about why it was so stupid, since the physical reality of the matter was that it had authorized it. Actualities trump theories about motivations - in the real world. (I hope reference to politics isn't forbidden in this board - I will delete it if it is)
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 4, 2009 9:25:16 GMT
I do not believe the con artist analogy is a valid one. The con artist has everything under control. He's got his 3 cups (or whatever), he's done his thing a thousand times before, and if he messes up and you guess right, then he loses $10. He does not perform a trick for the first time in circumstances outside his control where any mistake will cost him his life. But then, those don't have languages transformed in their honor. Big gamble is what makes archetypical level Trickster. He has no way of knowing at which second Eglamore will show up, Maybe not to a second, but he could know either that Eglamore returns soon or that he's near enough. now way of knowing exactly what he will do, That one was pretty obvious: play "Z7uperman jumps in to defend innocents!", shielding her eyes with his own protected body. He knew Eglamore himself and his style much better than we do. no way of knowing that the doll will be dropped That was more of a problem (in this version the doll rolling a bit too far is the reason of his curses). no way of knowing he'll be able to enter it without them seeing it. He got a narrow window, but "Z7uperman express entry" guaranteed some confusion. The direction and obvious "block her eyes" tactics almost guaranteed he will be out of their field of vision. Inertia carrying Annie and her doll away too fast was the only flaw, he overdid a bit convincing Eglamore here's a need for speed. If he doesn't mind being carried around by Surma's daughter, why not just ask her? No-one knows Annie was there. Even Eglamore, who was in the next room and could return while they talked? They'd come back and find Sivo dead. If they do a search and find him, he's still better off than if his dangerous trick succeeded, because Annie doesn't think he tried to kill her. If they don't find him, he can get away. Why not just ask her? And she would know and able to command him at any time. As opposed to the situation controlled only by himself. That's the least of problems. Worse, he would not be written off as dead and gone. If Eglamore returns in time to see the transfer, or returns before to shoo away (and caution) Annie, he loses. In the best case he would delay and see only a body, but then they could assume Rey somehow got away, and search, and they has some power over him. And it's unknown how Annie would react on request or search, or that she wouldn't tell "just between you and me" to half-dozen of girls, for that matter -- he only saw her once. Also, as ariskatsaris noted, it's against Trickster's modus operandi about as much as a direct assault. And anything but getting away on his own would be a form of admitting he's defeated. But he obviously didn't felt defeated, nor was desperate, more of " pulled your nose well this time, eh?". Reynardine didn't even have any way of dreaming that Annie would even come looking for him, much less find him. But she did (on a literal Deus Ex Machina train, I might add) For that matter, " I'd hoped you'd come" can be true: for him, she was "Surma's daughter" and he knew well how it was in the old days, and how "tight" local security is. that Rey did not confirm or deny that he tried to kill Annie but instead just said "don't be so melodramatic"... he COULDN'T have said one way or the other, because to do so would be to spoil the later reveal. He would admit he ended up as her pet in the outcome of his own plan. And this would be only his placatory story she would naturally doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 4, 2009 10:50:42 GMT
Here's a question to ponder.
What does Reynardine really want?
What did he want when we first saw him? Did his wants change, after realizing that the daughter of his lost love was there at the Court? What is it that he wants now, after having spent a year with her?
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 4, 2009 15:13:42 GMT
I don't think we have enough insight on Reynardine's original motivations in coming to the court at the cost of a young man's life to speculate as to what he wants now.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyone on Sept 5, 2009 1:04:51 GMT
Reynardine may also, in my mind, have actually... WANTED Annie to think of him as a Killer. Because, let's face it, he is. He killed. Three living beings, that we know of, have died as a result of his power. A rabbit, a human, and Sivo. Two of these, that we know of, were intelligent. And considering he's from the Wood, the Rabbit may well have been intelligent as well.Rey may carry around a tremendous amount of guilt over the deaths he has caused. And so, rathre than letting Annie get too familiar and friendly with him, (Which happened anyway) he lets her believe that he is a monster.
Now, why do this at the first meeting? Because Reynardine had already had his heart broken by one Fire-haired lass. He loved Surma, and lost her. Rather than let the next generation see him as some sort of Charming, Roguish Fox of legend, he wants her to see him as a monster. Keep her from sympathizing with him more than she already had... We don't know how FAR Reynardine's plan went... but we can be assured he had one. He learned what he needed to know on the roof. Where other children moved away from danger... Annie went toward it. and when she went, she carried her wolf doll with her. Why carry it onto the roof? Why not leave it behind in her bunk? There weren't to be any doors that need picking on the roof... I think Annie's motivations were that her mother made the doll... kind of a manifestation of her promise to never send her into danger. She took it with her because it reminded her of her mother.
There were several aspects of the events that happened that Were chance. Reynard couldn't have known that Annie would bring the doll to the holding cell... but he also didn't seem overly surprised to see her there. Perhaps he imagined her as being just as prone to exploration as her mother.He didn't know Annie would be there the next day... but he knew she would come there sooner or later. All he could hope for is that she took the doll with her on another such dangerous outing as she had on the roof. When he saw that not only had she come, she had come bearing the doll, he put several aspects of his plan into effect at once. I don't know that it was Planned... so much as Capitalized upon.
You know, One thing occurs to me as I re-read this... if Reynardine entered and exited a body through the eyes... Why hadn't they affixed some form of eye-covers? Nothing so cruel as something bolted over his eyes... But a headpiece designed to keep him from seeing anything, and from looking anything in the eye.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 5, 2009 1:47:39 GMT
Reynardine may also, in my mind, have actually... WANTED Annie to think of him as a Killer. Because, let's face it, he is. He killed. Three living beings, that we know of, have died as a result of his power. A rabbit, a human, and Sivo. Two of these, that we know of, were intelligent. And considering he's from the Wood, the Rabbit may well have been intelligent as well.Rey may carry around a tremendous amount of guilt over the deaths he has caused. And so, rathre than letting Annie get too familiar and friendly with him, (Which happened anyway) he lets her believe that he is a monster. Now, why do this at the first meeting? Because Reynardine had already had his heart broken by one Fire-haired lass. He loved Surma, and lost her. Rather than let the next generation see him as some sort of Charming, Roguish Fox of legend, he wants her to see him as a monster. Keep her from sympathizing with him more than she already had... We don't know how FAR Reynardine's plan went... but we can be assured he had one. He learned what he needed to know on the roof. Where other children moved away from danger... Annie went toward it. and when she went, she carried her wolf doll with her. Why carry it onto the roof? Why not leave it behind in her bunk? There weren't to be any doors that need picking on the roof... I think Annie's motivations were that her mother made the doll... kind of a manifestation of her promise to never send her into danger. She took it with her because it reminded her of her mother. Reynardine wanted to gain Annie's favor. Claiming that he had not tried to kill her would be the surest way to do that, considering that's the main thing Annie holds against him. He can percieve things etherically. It would be reasonable for them to wear veils, but not to put one on him. The tatoo obviously removes the necessity even for that.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 5, 2009 2:10:22 GMT
I have tried, and I guess failed, to explain this many times in this thread, but this is the first opportunity I've had to phrase it as a direct response to someone else's post, so hopefully I'll get it right this time. The explanation I have for why Reynardine did not say "no I didn't" when Annie accused him of trying to kill her is this: The reason has nothing to do with either Annie or Reynardine, and had everything to do with Tom. Tom could not have had Reynardine simply say "I wasn't really trying to kill you, I was faking it and going after the doll" is simply BECAUSE he wanted, and wants, us to be sitting here in the middle of Chapter 24 still wondering about this question. GC is all about the hundreds of mysteries that Tom has us wondering about all the time. Just take a look at how long the Master List Of Unanswered Questions is. I seems obvious to me at least that the author can't have Rey answer that question either way, because if he had, there's no more mystery. So the fact then that he -didn't- answer can't really be taken as conclusive evidence of anything, because it was Tom's OOC motivation to have him not answer, not Reynardine's IC motivation. I hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 5, 2009 2:15:41 GMT
That has nothing to do with what I said. I was simply pointing out that the theory that Rey wanted Annie to think of him as a killer, does not in my eyes add up.
As for your point, you seem to be saying that the reason Tom laid out the scene as he did, was because he was at the limit of his creativity. Not sure I want to go that route, but I have nothing to contradict that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 5, 2009 3:38:24 GMT
As for your point, you seem to be saying that the reason Tom laid out the scene as he did, was because he was at the limit of his creativity. Not sure I want to go that route, but I have nothing to contradict that possibility. No, that's not even remotely what I said. Assuming for the moment that you merely misunderstood me, and this isn't an effort to deliberately undermine my point and suggest that I was insulting the author when I wasn't, I'll explain it again. And please keep your "seem to be"s to yourself... if you're unclear on what I meant, ask me. Do not tell me what I meant. The reason Tom laid out the scene like he did, in my view, is this: Authors show you a picture, and allow you to believe that it is the whole picture, when in fact the whole picture is much more detailed. They reveal the picture over time... it's called creating drama. It's those things that make you go "ahh, so that's what that meant", and it's the reason why the Unanswered Questions thread is so long. At no point did I ever say or imply that Tom was painting an incomplete picture because that's the best he could do. Quite the opposite: You all are the ones who are content to see the picture and assume that that is all there is, whereas I am the one who is assuming that there is more to it. So really, who is the one who is implicitly claiming Tom to be the inferior storyteller now, hmm? I have said these words over and over again in this thread enough times now that I can only conclude that anyone still trying to claim I'm saying something else is deliberately twisting my words. Whether that's because they just can't see beyond their own preconceptions, or whether it's because they feel that they have to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them, I'm not qualified to say. However, if that is what's happening, I think it's a deplorable and dishonest debate tactic.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 5, 2009 4:39:44 GMT
My point about lack of creativity was that by saying that Tom did not make Rey say if he was going after Annie purely for plot reasons, then it is a lack of creativity not to have a better excuse. In a good, consistent story one should never have to fall back on "because its better for the story" to explain why something happens a certain way. There should always be an in universe reason. The lack of such is a failing of the artist, though not always a large one.
As for seeing depth, Mezzaphor already responded to this eloquently. I've also said that complexity does not make a theory more likely.
Frankly Casey, I'm surprised you're still in this thread. It's been several pages since you said the discussion wearied you, and it seems to continue to do so. Now you're venting at me about re-parsing what you said in a way that makes your position seem less favorable. I've got nothing personal against you Casey, and I don't want to insult you. But I'm posting in this thread to make my points clear, or else to gain a greater understanding of why the other sides points are not as weak as they seem. This, like any debate, is inherently an adversarial process, but it would not be good to take it personally, or to assume the other side is out to get you.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 5, 2009 4:45:02 GMT
I didn't mean to suggest that people were arguing that Rey way after Annie's body immediately after reading the chapter. It's just that if you are making an argument based solely on Rey's motivation, then applying the same principle generally and consistently, one cannot condemn someone without understanding their motivation. As an example, it would be inconsistent then if one were serving on a jury and declare a person guilty, when their motive is unknown or unclear. Now, It would only be inconsistent if there is no amount of evidence from the scene could convince you. If there is something that if it were different, would have brought you to the other side, the above statement cannot be made. I am interested to hear what that difference would be. I can't figure out what you are saying. I think he just means that factual events should trump questions about motivation. Essentially. I'm interested in knowing if the is any additional content that could be in the scene that would trump your motivational argument in your eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 5, 2009 5:29:10 GMT
This, like any debate, is inherently an adversarial process, but it would not be good to take it personally, or to assume the other side is out to get you. Allright, then, instead of saying that I think it's dishonest to restate my points as something they were not and then arguing against your modified version, I'll take your position and treat it as an adversarial debate, in which case I would call it a classic straw man fallacy. Since you brought it up, what I said several pages back about the argument being pointless still stands. It's just that since then, I've consolidated a logical argument around that stance: specifically, that neither side of the original argument can win because it's an unwinnable argument. And I've been stating my reasons for thinking that--namely, that Tom intentionally crafted a mystery that we are not meant to be able to solve yet--ever since. So after I realized that one could not decisively prove one way or another what Reynardine was really doing, I decided instead to try to prove that you can't prove it. I hope that makes sense. BTW ever since I was called pedantic when I wasn't being, I've been trying to avoid using debate terms and logical strings etc, but when I just try to talk in plain terms, then you tell me that I need to look at it more like a debate... you know, I feel like I just can't do the right thing with you people. I'm just tryin' to speak my mind here, and someone's always dissatisfied with that...
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 5, 2009 13:10:02 GMT
In short, King Mir, please don't consider Casey on my side of my debate (doll by trickery) -- the way I see it he's arguing both against and for (I supposedly one could call it "parallel to") both our positions from a "higher" meta perspective. It's a different debate, and not one I'm currently involved in. It'd be difficult to imagine, exactly because we've seen there's nothing that demands Reynardine to lock onto a target once he leaves his previous body. Since he can change targets at the last moment, unless he actually succeeds to possess Annie, it's impossible to prove he tried to possess her. But if we had not seen Eglamore in the vicinity (and known Reynardine knew was in the vicinity), or if we had seen the possession fail for some reason unknown to Reynardine (e.g. if Annie had herself possessed an anti-possession tattoo), or if Reynardine claimed (later, under the compulsion of truth) it was a surprise to him as well that he could possess non-living items. All these would make it be difficult to believe it was trickery, instead of a genuine attempt at forced possession. That is, ofcourse, the strongest argument on your side -- Reynardine hasn't claimed he didn't attempt to take possession of Annie, even though it would seemingly benefit him to do so. But as I've said, this seems consistent with other times he refuses to take credit for being nice, e.g. #414. And despite his claims (under compulsion of truth) about wanting to win Annie's favour, that doesn't look consistent with his consistent rudeness and lewdness, e.g. #112 or #229So, it seems to me perfectly consistent if Reynardine wants Annie's "favour" in the sense that he wants her to consider him *useful* (look, I can sneak about and help your friend win the science fair! look, I can take different forms and scare people for you!), but he doesn't want her to actually grow fond of him as a friend. So he offers usefulness, but he also fails to mention all the things that might make Annie grow to genuinely like him: "I loved your mother. I mourn for her passing.". "For the longest time I refused a god's power, because I didn't want to become estranged from my human friends". Under such a motivation, "I didn't really try to kill you" is the sort of thing that he would definitely NOT want to say. This seems consistent to me, with his whole behavior throughout the comic.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 5, 2009 19:29:13 GMT
In short, King Mir, please don't consider Casey on my side of my debate (doll by trickery) -- the way I see it he's arguing both against and for (I supposedly one could call it "parallel to") both our positions from a "higher" meta perspective. It's a different debate, and not one I'm currently involved in. Yeah, I'm aware. He does think that doll by trickery is more likely, but that there isn't enough evidence to hold a firm position. Interesting, thanks for the answer. The weakest and least different of these is if Annie had not seen Eglamore talking to Reynardine. It wouldn't disprove your position, but it would weaken the likelihood, since a crutial piece of evidence is missing. This isn't an argument against your point, just a comment. Clearly we have some disagreement on what constitutes good evidence. But then, we already new that. You probably consider your strongest point Coyote's assessment of Rey's character and his pointing out his love for Surma. Whereas I think your strongest point is Rey's exclamation that he was going to take her body. Post 41 outlines what I consider my strongest points in an enumerated list, impatience is the weakest of those, but the other two are strong. I'm just very reluctant to question Tom's artistic content without a direct reason. Rey's motivation is too indirect for me. This, like any debate, is inherently an adversarial process, but it would not be good to take it personally, or to assume the other side is out to get you. Allright, then, instead of saying that I think it's dishonest to restate my points as something they were not and then arguing against your modified version, I'll take your position and treat it as an adversarial debate, in which case I would call it a classic straw man fallacy. I really am not out to make you look dumb. Really. I considered my restatement to be honest evaluation. I'm still not entirely clear why it isn't. Huh? you brought up Tom's story telling needs not me. I just disagree with this position. I think that Tom's need for ambiguity has not hampered his need for consistent behavior. Therefore Tom's needs for ambiguity are irrelevant, and it is sufficient to make an argument purely on the events of the story. Sorry, that's not what I meant. I'm just concerned that you're getting frustrated over an internet argument. I don't want that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 5, 2009 19:48:50 GMT
I appreciate the responses and I've decided that I'm going to let you guys continue your debate of the facts at hand, and maybe at some later date I'll retry the separate conversation about whether the facts at hand are sufficient on either side to make any real conclusion.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 6, 2009 9:55:21 GMT
How do you figure? The worst-case scenario is that Eglamore sees him enter the doll, and his ruse fails. The second-worse scenario is that only Annie sees him enters the doll, and she runs away scared to tell Eglamore. Under what scenario would it cause Reynardine to die though? Even if the doll somehow became unavailable to him to enter (and I don't see how that would happen), Tom has said that Reynardine would be able to reenter the corpse of Sivo, atleast until it decayed enough to lose its eyes. I did not know that Tom had said this. It certainly reduces the risk that Reynardine undertook. I would very much like to read the discussion in which this was said, and would be very grateful if you could find the link. This does weaken my argument, but there are still a few points to consider: 1) If Reynardine leaves Sivo's body, fails to possess another one, and then re-enters the corpse, does this mean that Sivo is now dead? In deliberately calling Eglamore, Reynardine takes a big risk that he will be forced back into Sivo's body. In this case, his position has worsened, because he's killed Sivo, and is vulnerable to retribution. 2) Side note - the doll would be unavailable to him if Annie kept it in her grasp, or if was within Eglamore's arms when he grabbed Annie, or if it landed under them when they hit the ground, etc. First, I think talking Eglamore's long-lost love's daughter into releasing him from Eglamore's prison would count as sufficiently trickstery for any trickster, with no need to add another level of complexity to it. Second, the "doll by trickery" solution needs to be split into two, based on whether he is planning to reveal himself later. "Doll by trickery + Reveal": If this is his plan, then getting the doll unseen gains him no advantage. He's going to reveal himself later anyway, and try to gain her confidence, why put himself at such a disadvantage? By pretending to kill her he loses her trust. The logical thing to expect was that as soon as he revealed himself, she would hand him over - only Annie's stubborness saved him, and he could not have predicted that. On the other hand, if he asks nicely, or just takes the doll by force if she refuses, he still has a much better chance of gaining her favor. If this is his plan all along, why act against his own interests? "Doll by trickery + No Reveal": This is a dead end for Reynardine. He can't move to another body without her permission. He can't ask for permission without revealing himself. Once he reveals himself, he loses any advantage he might have gained by taking the doll by stealth. The only way this could work to his advantage would be if he had resigned himself to living in the doll for the rest of his life, and avoiding Annie forever lest she control him. But if this was his plan, wouldn't he have run off instead of wrecking other students' science projects? I think we can safely rule out this option, unless we say that Reynardine didn't know about all the limitations of possessing someone's property, and only discovered it when it was too late. In short, "Doll by trickery + Reveal" is counterproductive, and "Doll by trickery + No Reveal" is worse, and also contradicted by his later actions. Even given that the risk of death is less than what I previously thought, if his desire is to be carried about by Annie, both "Doll by consent" or "Doll by force" are better ways of reaching that goal.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 6, 2009 10:24:36 GMT
Apparently when Rey left Sivo's body, Eglamore was not very far off - close enough to have heard the conversation. So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Rey asks for permission to possess the stuffed animal. And that Eglamore is NOT close enough to hear the plan. And that Annie says okay. Eglamore comes back later and finds Sivo dead - so he knows Rey left Sivo's body voluntarily, unlikely in the absence of another potential possessee. They start looking. They identify Annie as the visitor. But she isn't possessed. Ok, let's give this a shot. First (side note): Keeping Eglamore out of it wouldn't have been all that hard - he was already going away. All they had to do was keep whispering, or just wait a minute or two. Second - How do they identify Annie as the visitor? They don't even know one of the students was involved. She might come forward and confess, but then again she might not. She doesn't know Reynardine is a killer, and she might not believe an official pronouncement. Also, she has shown some sympathy for Reynardine ("Are you in pain?" on the roof), and might not want to send him back to prison (and in fact she did not). All she has to do is leave the doll under her pillow, or even let him run off and hide for a week, and he would be safe. Of course, Reynardine can't know for sure how Annie will act, but if he's trying to choose between "Doll by consent" and "Doll by trickery, but later Reveal himself", then the worst case scenario in "Doll by consent" (he is soon discovered) still puts him in a better position than the best case scenario in "Doll by trickery + Reveal" (He succeeds in possessing the doll by trickery, and then reveals himself). Let's suppose the plan was to possess the doll without revealing himself ("Doll by trickery + No Reveal"). Well, it succeeded brilliantly, didn't it? So what big advantage did he gain from its success, which he could not have gained from its alternatives? He's in the doll, and nobody's looking for him, for 25 pages. What does he do? Does he find a brilliant way to escape? No. He goes and breaks some children's science projects. Was this what he did his big trick for? Was this also planned from the start? If he wanted the doll, he could have asked for it, or just taken it. Pretending to kill her gained him 25 pages of secrecy, which he did not use, and Annie's enduring mistrust, which has caused him much grief. He's been working very hard for the past year to undo the damage he did. If his plan was to take the doll, I don't think the way he did it was sensible.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 6, 2009 13:42:50 GMT
How do you figure? The worst-case scenario is that Eglamore sees him enter the doll, and his ruse fails. The second-worse scenario is that only Annie sees him enters the doll, and she runs away scared to tell Eglamore. Under what scenario would it cause Reynardine to die though? Even if the doll somehow became unavailable to him to enter (and I don't see how that would happen), Tom has said that Reynardine would be able to reenter the corpse of Sivo, atleast until it decayed enough to lose its eyes. I did not know that Tom had said this. It certainly reduces the risk that Reynardine undertook. I would very much like to read the discussion in which this was said, and would be very grateful if you could find the link. Here.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Sept 7, 2009 3:00:54 GMT
Second - How do they identify Annie as the visitor? They don't even know one of the students was involved. She might come forward and confess, but then again she might not. She doesn't know Reynardine is a killer, and she might not believe an official pronouncement. Also, she has shown some sympathy for Reynardine ("Are you in pain?" on the roof), and might not want to send him back to prison (and in fact she did not). Based on Eglamore's observation of her previous interaction with Reynard/Sivo, as soon as they find Sivo dead she's at or near the top of the list of people they think might have been involved. They are going to test ALL those people ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 7, 2009 3:48:29 GMT
There's a third option you're missing: "Doll by trickery + I decide later whether to reveal myself". Possibly based on his estimations (after observation) on how likely Annie was to turn him in, once he'd revealed himself.
This is getting too theoretical here, since we're not even discussing what happened, but rather what Reynardine might have planned for the future. As a theory I wouldn't find it implausible if Reynardine planned to remain an unseen guardian-angel for Annie for a long time, helping her in small ways, like he did with sabotaging the science fair. Zimmy ruined that part of his plan, by forcing him to reveal himself.
We have seen Reynardine fight *against* escape from the Court -- when the Robot tried to grab him and drag him back to the forest. Leaving the Court doesn't seem high in his priorities at all. He loves humans.
I think you keep missing the crucial point. If he reveals that he can take possession of the doll and she refuses (I don't think you are properly estimating how CREEPY the idea of body-possession is, and how likely Annie would be to refuse once she realized he had snatched the body he was currently in), he has lost the opportunity to hide in the doll. If he possesses the doll by force after she refuses, she just goes and hands immediately the doll to Eglamore, telling him what happened.
Asking her consent seems more risky than other scenarios, not only because he won't have faked his death to Eglamore that way, but also because he'll have to reveal the extent of his capabilities.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 7, 2009 7:01:49 GMT
There's a third option you're missing: "Doll by trickery + I decide later whether to reveal myself". Possibly based on his estimations (after observation) on how likely Annie was to turn him in, once he'd revealed himself. This is quite true - he needn't have made up his mind completely at the moment of possession. But the cost/benefit analysis here is still very similar to Doll by trickery + No Reveal, because he can always reveal himself, and revert to the "Doll by trickery + Reveal" option. That's also a good point. But the "No Reveal" option pretty much excludes him from any meaningful contact with humans, except by manipulating and observing them. But I think it's an argument against this option. It's going to take a lot of broken science projects to make up for trying to kill her. Also, this kind of behavior is also kind of creepy. This sounds to me like an option of last resort for someone who unexpectedly found himself trapped in a doll, rather than a deliberately planned strategy. First, just because he can jump into her doll, doesn't automatically mean that this isn't his original body, or that he can possess humans, or that creatures die when he possesses them. I know all these things are true, and I agree they're creepy, but Annie wouldn't know this at the time. He could put on a nice act: "I'm dying, child, lend me your toy that I might live <dies>" - would she really have refused? And if she did, he could take the doll anyway and tell her he had no choice. If she disbelieves him, he's still in a better position than he would be after pretending to try to murder her and later revealing himself. Second, if Reynardine would expect Annie to hand him over just because he possessed her doll against her will, wouldn't he also expect her to hand him over if she thinks he tried to kill her? Being a demon that can possess other people and tried to take her body and kill her is a lot creepier than being a demon that can possess other people's bodies and tried to take her doll. If he was planning to reveal himself all along, this doesn't make sense. I think the trickery option has to go with the "No Reveal" option. But that option has its own problems.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 7, 2009 7:23:07 GMT
I gotta agree. The only reason I can think of that he wouldn't deny it is that he might not expect to be believed. But even if that is the case, when the accusation is thrown into his face, it doesn't make sense that he wouldn't deny it, and implicitly admit to it with his evasive "Oh, don't be melodramatic, child!". Especially since she puts him in a box afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by eightyfour on Sept 7, 2009 7:41:46 GMT
I have read only fractions of this thread, but you know, from what I've read I can only agree with Casey: We haven't seen the whole picture yet. It is of course possible to try and extrapolate from what we've seen, but what we'll get will only be an educated guess, at best. It may or may not be right. Or in other words, as Casey also has already said: We do not have sufficient evidence for either theory to draw a final conclusin. For what it's worth, personally I believe that Rey really did try to posess Annie, if only as an act of desperation. But at this point, that is just a guess.
|
|