|
Post by Charlotte on Oct 20, 2009 22:04:43 GMT
Not necessarily. EDIT: Reynardine does not necessarily have to grow the doll upon possession; I go "meta" on that one. Remember, the body is a reflection of his mind, and he can control it. EDIT2: If the transformation is really so huge, then why didn't Eglamore notice it even if Annie dropped the doll? Eglamore and Annie wind up a few meters away from where the doll was dropped, and are facing away. This is why Reynardine isn't noticed when he possesses the doll. Eglamore just saved Annie from a possession attempt. I'm pretty sure if Reynardine had chased after them to try again, Eglamore would have noticed. Well, if Reynardine had chased after them in order to possess the doll which Annie was still clutching, how could Eglamore not have noticed that? The doll's eyes and Annie's eyes are about 30 cm apart. Reynardine is a large glowing yellow cloud. As for the doll transformation upon being possessed, this does not seem to me to be a willful act on Reynardine's part, and is probably something outside his control. After all, even when possessing the doll relatively far from Eglamore, he had no interest in deliberately expanding the doll - it just risks attracting attention to an act he's trying to keep secret. However, it is possible that the doll transformation is merely a graphical representation to make it absolutely clear to the reader that the doll has been possessed, and does not reflect a physical transformation. Even so, I maintain that Reynardine could not have reasonably expected to be able to possess the doll without being noticed while Annie was clutching it. If, for the sake of argument, we accept that he could do just that, then it makes the "Doll by Force" option that much better for Reynardine. Why not just possess the doll while Annie is holding it, without making any threats, when Eglamore is out of the room? This "Doll by Stealth" option gets him everything he could possibly want, with none of the disadvantages. If Reynardine could not have reasonably expected to possess the doll without being noticed while Annie was clutching it, then it makes the Doll by Stealth theory hugely unlikely. How would he predict she would drop the doll? Or drop it within reach?
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 21, 2009 1:26:42 GMT
However, it is possible that the doll transformation is merely a graphical representation to make it absolutely clear to the reader that the doll has been possessed, and does not reflect a physical transformation. This is a good point, and IMO an important one to remember while discussing the whole topic. There are a lot of individual details that can be pointed at to make an argument either way. Another, equally valid and important interpretation, is that Tom deliberately made it look, on its face, like Reynardine was doing one thing, so that he could add depth and intrigue to the story later on by giving us other details that make us question what we thought we knew initially. And clearly this strategy works, because here we are talking about it. Tom deliberately made it look like Reynardine was doing one thing because Reynardine was doing one thing! Trust the art first. I disagree that the doll transformation is merely a graphical representation. It is there to make it clear that the doll was possessed, but that does not make the even any less real. It is possible to create such a scene, the scene in question isn't it. Sure, but Darth Vader still blew up Alderaan. Even after watching Return of the Jedi or the prequel trilogy, nobody denies that. So yes, our initial impression of Reynardine the demon has changed, but the events of chapter 3 are still the same.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 21, 2009 5:37:07 GMT
Tom deliberately made it look like Reynardine was doing one thing because Reynardine was doing one thing! Trust the art first. It is possible to create such a scene, the scene in question isn't it. So yes, our initial impression of Reynardine the demon has changed, but the events of chapter 3 are still the same. You would still concede the point that the events of chapter 3 are still completely subject to interpretation, though, and you're just stating your interpretation, wouldn't you? I ask because the three quotes above kind of sound like you're saying your view is the only view that could be correct, and I didn't want to presume that I'd understood you correctly without asking.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 21, 2009 14:13:54 GMT
I suppose a terrible example of the same idea would be Darth Vader. Lucas chose to tell the story in the order he did so that our initial impression of Vader was that he was this epitome of ruthless evil. And then as the story unfolded, you learn that he was actually just a confused, scared boy who lost his mother and got corrupted by the true evil (Emperor Palpatine) and in the end, you feel sorry for him and are glad that Luke was able to redeem him before his death. Like I said, probably not the best example given that Rey is nothing like Vader, but it's an example of the storytelling technique of changing your opinion of a character over time by carefully controlling what you see and learn, and when. Sure, but Darth Vader still blew up Alderaan. Even after watching Return of the Jedi or the prequel trilogy, nobody denies that. So yes, our initial impression of Reynardine the demon has changed, but the events of chapter 3 are still the same. King Mir, you took the words right out of my mouth. I also think the Darth Vader example supports the 'Annie by Force' theory more than it does the 'Doll by Trickery' theory. Of course, this does not mean that there are no examples to demonstrate the point Casey was making (assuming I understood it correctly). The example has to be about an event which was narrated/shown by the author, and turns out to be completely different from the initial impression. And no, Rashomon doesn't count. The best I could come up with is in Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo". But there the agents have a clear motive and a carefully laid plan, which requires no ability to predict a complex chain of events, and does not have an easier and safer alternative. And even there, the original faked death of the woman was not actually shown in the movie, but inferred by the protagonist who did not witness it on account of his vertigo. EDIT: Here are some youtube links: First tower scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpZN2HQ3OQSecond tower scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF2tASvNI48&feature=related
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 21, 2009 14:20:39 GMT
I disagree that the doll transformation is merely a graphical representation. It is there to make it clear that the doll was possessed, but that does not make the even any less real. This is also my belief. I was just playing the devil's advocate.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 21, 2009 14:32:48 GMT
If Reynardine could not have reasonably expected to possess the doll without being noticed while Annie was clutching it, then it makes the Doll by Stealth theory hugely unlikely. How would he predict she would drop the doll? Or drop it within reach? I personally believe that 'Doll by Stealth' is a bit far-fetched, and that 'Doll by Trickery' is unlikely because of the complex chain of events Reynardine would have to predict, and the simpler alternative available to him ('Doll by Consent'). Some people have proposed ideas which make 'Doll by Trickery' more plausible (e.g. Reynardine did not know how powerless he would be inside Annie's doll), and have eliminated some of the objections which I originally had (e.g. that any miscalculation would have left Reynardine in limbo, and he would have died, therefore making the attempt much too risky). This is just a summary of my opinion, and how it has evolved over time, because it seemed to me that I may have been misunderstood. It does not pretend to be an objective summary of this thread, which I think is definitely worth reading once from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 21, 2009 14:50:32 GMT
Fair enough. But do you (or any of the 'Annie by Force' crowd) consider 'Doll by Trickery' so far-fetched to warrant being upset and critical should 'Doll by Trickery' later be revealed to be the original intent? Just trying to understand / measure the level of zealotry.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 21, 2009 14:52:24 GMT
Do you ever wonder how the Court kept any ants, moths, gnats, or other tiny insects from getting in the large animal holding cells? It would be all Rey needed to do, to sneak out in the body of a fly one night. But where would he go? Well at least he'd be free. Of course, this does not mean that there are no examples to demonstrate the point Casey was making (assuming I understood it correctly). The example has to be about an event which was narrated/shown by the author, and turns out to be completely different from the initial impression. Haha, I DID say that it was a terrible example!
|
|
|
Post by duohimura on Oct 21, 2009 18:34:36 GMT
Do you ever wonder how the Court kept any ants, moths, gnats, or other tiny insects from getting in the large animal holding cells? It would be all Rey needed to do, to sneak out in the body of a fly one night. But where would he go? Well at least he'd be free. Hm, but does his power work with compound eyes? He said that he can take over "anything with eyes, even if they aren't flesh and blood," but a glass-eyed-doll's eyes are a lot more similar to a fox's than the eyes of most insects are. I would say that it was the whole "window to the soul" thing, and maybe it doesn't work on insects because they're generally such basic lifeforms, but they do have their own Psychopomp, so I guess in GC's world insects are considered to have souls. And technically that wouldn't work for the doll either, though maybe that just meant that it has a window but a vacancy behind it... Though if we follow Reynardine's "the mind is a plaything of the body" comment, it could be that he's concerned he might possess a bug and then not have the mental capacity to recall he needs to possess something else before the bug dies. I mean, if you think about it his persona has been quite different under his different forms, or at least has -appeared- to be such. Bug-Reynardine could have just been awful for all parties involved. That or magic. Considering that these were holding cells for things on the order of dragons, I don't know how unreasonable it is that they be designed to keep flies out. Anyway, for all we know Reynardine is immortal or pretty close to it, so maybe he just wasn't desperate enough yet. Or maybe he really did possess the doll intentionally out of a desire not to kill anything else via possession, and was waiting for such an opportunity to come along. *Shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 21, 2009 18:45:34 GMT
Hm, but does his power work with compound eyes? I'd assume yes. Coyote didn't mention anything about Rey not being able to take over some animals that he himself could, only that they were killed when Rey left them.
|
|
|
Post by zingbat on Oct 21, 2009 18:46:32 GMT
You know what, I never even noticed that Eglamore and Annie *didn't see* that Reynardine ended up in the doll---I'd been thinking that they saw the whole thing, including the lockpicks appearing and everything, but then when the doll resumed its old form they assumed that Reynardine had died. I didn't realize that they'd never even seen him enter the doll in the first place (at least, I assume that's how I'm supposed to interpret the fact that in the last panel of the page with that transformation, Eglamore & Annie are still hunched over in the corner facing away from the whole thing). Huh.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 21, 2009 21:37:13 GMT
Though if we follow Reynardine's "the mind is a plaything of the body" comment, ...then we'd be missing Rey's point. He was being sarcastic/facetious. Rey's body transforms to reflect his mood, not vice versa. (There's a Word of Tom on this, but I can't find it.)
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 21, 2009 22:11:02 GMT
I personally believe that 'Doll by Stealth' is a bit far-fetched, and that 'Doll by Trickery' is unlikely because of the complex chain of events Reynardine would have to predict, and the simpler alternative available to him ('Doll by Consent'). As far as the events' predictability is concerned, complexity isn't a problem, variation is. But from the moment Eglamore hears "we are here to destroy youuuu!" "...your body!", it's railroaded: he's bound to run and cover Annie's eyes with his own body in great haste, then pull her out of range. And at least for the second part he's very likely to turn his back on Reynardine to do it very quickly. What else he could do? Do you ever wonder how the Court kept any ants, moths, gnats, or other tiny insects from getting in the large animal holding cells? It would be all Rey needed to do, to sneak out in the body of a fly one night. But where would he go? Well at least he'd be free. Hmm. And rats or mice?
|
|
Pig_catapult
Full Member
Keeper of the Devilkitty
Posts: 171
|
Post by Pig_catapult on Oct 22, 2009 2:22:30 GMT
Re: Doll-dropping plausibility
I dunno. I kinda assumed that Annie was in a trance at that point, because of the way her eyes were drawn (blank irises with dashed outlines around them), although there's no conclusive proof of that; Tom hasn't, as far as I remember, drawn anyone's eyes like that before or since over the current length of the comic. If Annie's in a trance, though, and Rey knows with relative certainty that Eglamore will end up knocking her backwards when he rushes to save her (a logical conclusion, since he'll be moving HECKA fast and his mass is considerably greater than Annie's own, meaning that, once he grabs her, Newton dictates that Eglamore will keep moving), then it isn't too far a stretch to think that her grip on the plushie won't be that firm, and it will be knocked out of her hands by Eglamore's barreling into her (Newton again: plushies at rest will tend to stay at rest).
Of course, there's still the chance that she would have ended up with an iron grip on that thing instead, depending on the nature of the trance, assuming there was one in the first place. But I can't, with good conscience, assume that Reynardine was holding the Idiot Ball so tightly that he wasn't expecting Eglamore to show up ASAP when he raised his voice like that.
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Oct 22, 2009 2:33:57 GMT
Of course he was. This is a silly discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 2:38:45 GMT
Of course he was. This is a silly discussion. Hmm, it doesn't sound like there's a lot of room in your stance for other people to have differing interpretations and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 5:22:29 GMT
Fair enough. But do you (or any of the 'Annie by Force' crowd) consider 'Doll by Trickery' so far-fetched to warrant being upset and critical should 'Doll by Trickery' later be revealed to be the original intent? Just trying to understand / measure the level of zealotry. For myself, I think that the scene is pretty clear on what is going on. A successful reveal would have to address why the scene is misleading. If this is done ineffectively I would either be disbelieving, since any reveal is likely to leave some room for doubt, or be disappointed by the plothole.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 5:29:24 GMT
Of course, this does not mean that there are no examples to demonstrate the point Casey was making (assuming I understood it correctly). The example has to be about an event which was narrated/shown by the author, and turns out to be completely different from the initial impression. And no, Rashomon doesn't count. The best I could come up with is in Alfred Hitchcock's "Vertigo". But there the agents have a clear motive and a carefully laid plan, which requires no ability to predict a complex chain of events, and does not have an easier and safer alternative. And even there, the original faked death of the woman was not actually shown in the movie, but inferred by the protagonist who did not witness it on account of his vertigo. EDIT: Here are some youtube links: First tower scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpZN2HQ3OQSecond tower scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF2tASvNI48&feature=relatedThe example sighted previously in the thread was The Usual Suspects. I haven't seen the movie myself, however.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 5:47:55 GMT
Tom deliberately made it look like Reynardine was doing one thing because Reynardine was doing one thing! Trust the art first. So yes, our initial impression of Reynardine the demon has changed, but the events of chapter 3 are still the same. You would still concede the point that the events of chapter 3 are still completely subject to interpretation, though, and you're just stating your interpretation, wouldn't you? I ask because the three quotes above kind of sound like you're saying your view is the only view that could be correct, and I didn't want to presume that I'd understood you correctly without asking. My answers were brisk because I did not want to repeat my old arguments. You've read them before in this thread. But yes, as I said before, I do think that "Annie by force" is the only reasonable interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 6:04:11 GMT
My answers were brisk because I did not want to repeat my old arguments. You've read them before in this thread. I apologize, since the thread was resurrected I've only been reading the new posts so I don't recall what you said before. But yes, as I said before, I do think that "Annie by force" is the only reasonable interpretation. I think most people who believe in "Doll by Trickery" and other, in-between possibilities, at least concede the possibility that their interpretation could prove to be wrong in the long run. I don't sense a lot of the same concession from the folks who believe as you do. I'm just saying. I mean, sure you don't owe the other side of the coin anything, but... NO possibility that anyone else could be right?
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 22, 2009 14:27:28 GMT
Of course not. This is a silly discussion.
[That made my day. =D ]
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 14:55:07 GMT
I don't like the word possibility in this context. It can be used so loosely that any logically consistant statement can be said to be possible, and all the theories are logically consistant, once you eliminate the few posts that made a point that contradicted something in the comic.
What I'm saying is that the scene is clear on what is happening, and it is unreasonable to question the art. Aris Katsaris previously made the arguement that, because this is a work of fiction, arguements on motivation take presidence over scene details. I'm saying that this is not the case and that scene details make it clear as to whats going on here.
So yes I confident in which explanation is correct. This isn't a simple case of different speculative theories. It's about what matters more to determining the content of a scene.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Oct 22, 2009 15:52:33 GMT
Considering that Rey could, if he chose, possess objects with metaphorical eyes, like potatoes and needles, then compound eyes should pose no problem to him. I've always assumed that there's some kind of spell on Rey's cage to keep animals out. I think most people who believe in "Doll by Trickery" and other, in-between possibilities, at least concede the possibility that their interpretation could prove to be wrong in the long run. I don't sense a lot of the same concession from the folks who believe as you do. I'm just saying. I mean, sure you don't owe the other side of the coin anything, but... NO possibility that anyone else could be right? I think Rey was trying to possess Annie because that was how the scene was initially presented, and the evidence against this interpretation has not yet been enough to convince me to change my mind. I'll reevaluate my position if further evidence comes up. My opinion of Reynardine used to be lower than it currently is. I thought that he was solely loyal to himself, that all his actions were self-serving attempts to get on Annie's good side, and that Annie was making a mistake to trust him at all. Then ch 14 happened, and Rey tried to save Annie's life (even though he would have been freed had she died), so I changed my opinion accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Oct 22, 2009 16:20:20 GMT
There's one major issue against the "Annie by force" theory, and that's motivation. Reynardine loved Surma. Would he kill her daughter for a chance to set himself free? Even as he first met Annie on the roof, we can infer that his feelings for Surma haven't changed significantly. He's surprised to see her, even nostalgic. Also, he asks specifically about the toy Annie's holding, only to conveniently end up possessing it - once he explicitly heard it's not a living being that he could harm.
I think these arguments are compelling enough to consider the option.
Still, I also welcome the option that Reynardine was just a scummy guy who later learned better. I mean, why the hell not. Do all characters ever need to be uniformly good for us to be allowed to like them?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 16:32:52 GMT
I don't like the word possibility in this context. It can be used so loosely that any logically consistant statement can be said to be possible, and all the theories are logically consistant, once you eliminate the few posts that made a point that contradicted something in the comic. Yeah that makes sense. What I'm saying is that the scene is clear on what is happening, and it is unreasonable to question the art. Unreasonable to question the art at that time, sure. But I'm interested to know whether you think an unquestioning stance on what you see holds up when you must later consider other, additional evidence, such as Coyote coming right out and saying "what you thought happened couldn't possibly be right". Even if that's not enough evidence to convince you that what you thought happened wasn't in fact right, isn't it enough to make one say "I still think it happened like this, but it's not unreasonable to think that I might end up being wrong"? I'm of course not trying to convince you or anyone to change your mind. I'm just curious how anyone--on either side--could dismiss any other view as being wholly unsustainable. (And it's more than just you who has said similar, so I'm not trying to single you out or anything.)
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 22, 2009 17:43:32 GMT
Ah, but "Doll by Trickery" is more speculation -- not of the wild sort that runs rampant on this board, but speculation nonetheless -- than fact, whereas "Annie by Force" is more objective fact than subjective interpretation. Therefore, it's perfectly understandable that the "Annie by Force" end of the spectrum could contain an element who refuses to acknowledge even the possibility behind the subjective interpretation of "Doll by Trickery." However, the "Doll by Trickery" end of the spectrum cannot deny the possibility of "Annie by Force," since those are the objective facts as revealed by the comic thus far. That King Mir's position was a natural possibility is the reason why I queried the possibility of discontent should the story eventuate the subjective interpretation of "Doll by Trickery."
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 18:33:19 GMT
Solid point. And I couldn't remember who it was who originally asked what you said at the end, so I'm glad you mentioned it again.
The only place that my own thinking would deviate from what you said, is that I think Coyote saying "Reynardine would never do that, that must be wrong", after Jones saying "Coyote never lies", seems to me to be just as much an objective fact. At the very least, it's something that would have to be explained, by anyone who supports the "Annie by Force" theory. And I would submit that the explanations for why we can't take the scenes in Ch 20 at face value, must by definition be just as speculative as the explanations why we can't take the scenes in Ch 3 at face value... which, I believe, puts both sides of the argument on equal subjective footing.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 22, 2009 19:36:42 GMT
There's one major issue against the "Annie by force" theory, and that's motivation. Reynardine loved Surma. Would he kill her daughter for a chance to set himself free? To escape decades of captivity and, currently, severe physical pain? Yes, I can see it. Easily. I agree - CONSIDER. Having considered it, though, I see severe problems with any view other than that he intended to take over Annie. A possibility that would fit, though, is that he thought (and may or may not have been correct) he had figured out how to possess without killing. And he intended to move on soon, leaving Annie unharmed.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 20:30:02 GMT
To escape decades of captivity and, currently, severe physical pain? Yes, I can see it. Easily. Except that he'd only been in Sivo for around 5 years, not decades. Heck, Eglamore's generation is only in their early-mid 30s, so... As far as the physical pain, from what I understood that was just from trying to escape. I could be wrong. The shackle going through his leg is only shown on the roof, not when he's in his holding cell (Though to be honest, I've never been entirely able to visually comprehend the physics of what's going on with the shackles in that picture.) And now I'm going to throw something else on the barbecue, for those that feel that everything in Chapter 3 must be taken exactly on face value without question. Eglamore tells Annie that Reynardine is a body-stealing demon.. The events of Chapter 20 (again) state that Reynardine is in fact a minor trickster deity, who had only recently been given the ability to take bodies, and imperfectly at that. Therefore either Eglamore is wrong and doesn't understand what Reynardine really is, or he's lying to Annie (possibly because he knows that Reynardine in Fox form fell in love with the woman that he, Eglamore, was also in love with, and wants Annie to stay away from him.) But either way, it is evidence that there are things stated in Chapter 3 that have since proved to not be true. That is, unless you believe Reynardine actually is a body-stealing demon, and Coyote's entire story of finding him and Rey refusing the powers etc is all a lie. Making both Coyote and Jones liars.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 22, 2009 20:33:04 GMT
Just 5 years of being inside Sivo, if I remember correctly. And the choices aren't the dilemma "captivity or kill Antimony", the choices are the trilemma "captivity or kill Antimony or take possession of the doll". Why would Reynardine prefer curtain number 2 instead of curtain number 3? (Unless Reynardine himself wasn't yet aware that he could take non-flesh objects.) Reynardine has been sentimental enough for something like #476 -- choosing to take better care of his "body" just because Surma constructed it. Given that sentimentality, killing Surma's own daughter? You gotta classify that as a "severe problem" also. :-)
|
|