|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 9, 2010 1:34:40 GMT
It's been stated elsewhere that it seems pretty clear from Renard's behavior throughout the comic that he is either unaware that Surma "tricked" him, or it's possible that the truth of what actually happened (we only have a non-present third-party's hesitant answer to go on) is a lot more complex than that. Even assuming that their Surma and Rey's love was both genuine and mutual, she would have been proof that Surma had found someone else in the meantime. It's possible that would have made it more likely he was trying to take her body. Personally I think stating he needed her body, leaving his current body, yelling "No!" when Eglamore saved her, and "Arg, damn it!" as he possessed her doll is pretty solid evidence on his trying to take her body and thus attempt to kill her. Any other explanation is going to have to be pretty convoluted.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 9, 2010 2:11:30 GMT
It's been stated elsewhere that it seems pretty clear from Renard's behavior throughout the comic that he is either unaware that Surma "tricked" him, or it's possible that the truth of what actually happened (we only have a non-present third-party's hesitant answer to go on) is a lot more complex than that. Even assuming that their Surma and Rey's love was both genuine and mutual, she would have been proof that Surma had found someone else in the meantime. It's possible that would have made it more likely he was trying to take her body. Personally I think stating he needed her body, leaving his current body, yelling "No!" when Eglamore saved her, and "Arg, damn it!" as he possessed her doll is pretty solid evidence on his trying to take her body and thus attempt to kill her. Any other explanation is going to have to be pretty convoluted. The only 'out' I can think of is: Reynard steals Annie's body, runs to Coyote and asks him to take his power back. Coyote can possess a body without killing it so as soon as he takes his power back, he is then in possession of Annie and can leave Annie unharmed. I'm not sure if this would kill Rey or just release him.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 4:26:36 GMT
Personally I think stating he needed her body, leaving his current body, yelling "No!" when Eglamore saved her, and "Arg, damn it!" as he possessed her doll is pretty solid evidence on his trying to take her body and thus attempt to kill her. Any other explanation is going to have to be pretty convoluted. Personally I think Diego creating an elaborate robotic play where his robotic stand-in exacts revenge on a robotic Sir Young stand-in is pretty solid evidence that Sir Young killed Jeanne. Any other explanation would have to be pretty convoluted. Or at least that's what we all thought, at one time. As it turns out, the real explanation... was pretty convoluted. Evidence that you never really know until you know.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 9, 2010 4:43:27 GMT
Personally I think stating he needed her body, leaving his current body, yelling "No!" when Eglamore saved her, and "Arg, damn it!" as he possessed her doll is pretty solid evidence on his trying to take her body and thus attempt to kill her. Any other explanation is going to have to be pretty convoluted. Personally I think Diego creating an elaborate robotic play where his robotic stand-in exacts revenge on a robotic Sir Young stand-in is pretty solid evidence that Sir Young killed Jeanne. Any other explanation would have to be pretty convoluted. Or at least that's what we all thought, at one time. As it turns out, the real explanation... was pretty convoluted. Evidence that you never really know until you know. Except that Diego's little play was a depiction of his grief over an event after the fact. With Reynardine trying to possess Annie, we saw the fact, and everything that happened suggested he was trying to possess her.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 4:51:20 GMT
Except of course for the fact that, despite tons of opportunity on two occasions, he -didn't-.
But hey, that's what the first 9 pages of this thread were all about.
Your response does not invalidate the claim that throughout the comic, there have been things that appear by all reckoning to be one thing, but turn out to be something else altogether.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 9, 2010 4:57:05 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 5:04:51 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true? Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again.
|
|
|
Post by djublonskopf on Nov 9, 2010 5:09:20 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true? Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again. I remember that Formspring question. It did pretty much melt away any claims of "this is obviously the only possible interpretation". That said, since then Annie has been operating under the assumption that he tried to kill her, and he has not bothered to correct her. That could be taken either way, of course. But Antimony is in the "he tried to kill me" camp. She seems to have largely gotten over it.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 9, 2010 5:43:41 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true? Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again. I remember that, but I also think the only reason that the fanbase became divided on whether or not Reynardine was attempting to possess Annie is because we've gotten to know Reynardine (and if that's what Tom meant, then I congratulate him on a job well done). There's nothing within the scene that suggests that Rey does not intend to possess her. I realize that there are valid arguments about Rey's motivations and whatnot, and I realize that at this point Tom could go either way, but I personally think making it so Rey hadn't intended to possess Annie after all will feel like a disingenuous retcon that takes away from the complexity of Rey's character. Not everything in the Court is exactly as it seems, but when I look at panel 3 of page 55, I don't see how it could possibly be anything other than what it seems. If you can point to any precedent of something that clear-cut ending up as something completely different, I will abandon my position and take up the Wait and See banner on this particular issue. Otherwise, I'm arguing in favor of the Rey-was-going-to-kill-Annie theory.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 6:08:24 GMT
If you can point to any precedent of something that clear-cut ending up as something completely different, I will abandon my position and take up the Wait and See banner on this particular issue. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 9, 2010 6:40:57 GMT
In the interest of fairness, here's a breakdown of the evidence for and against the two sides to this argument. Side 1: Rey was going to possess Annie, but possessed her doll when Eglamore intervened.Evidence for: Counterarguments: - Rey could have been referring to the doll when he said he needed her body since the doll belonged to her fit the qualifications for a body Rey could possess.
- Rey might not have wanted Eglamore to know he had left Sivo or where to look for him, hence shouting angrily when Eggy showed up.
Side 2: Rey intended to possess the doll all along.Evidence for: Counterarguments: - Rey also knew that by possessing Annie's toy, he would be bound to Annie's will, and he's not too happy about that in the beginning.
- Reynardine also does not make any attempt to possess the toy while on the roof, as Eglamore was standing right there. As we learned later on, Eglamore would have immediately leaped into action if he felt that Annie was in any imminent danger. If he thought Rey would have been stupid enough to attempt a possession with his jailer looking on, Eggy would have stepped in.
- Coyote knew Renard the fox, not Reynardine the demon. Prison changes a man, and five years in these conditions while being subjected to whatever experiments the Court did that provided the groundwork for this could probably change a vulpine trickster, too. By the time Annie met him, Rey was a very desperate being, and desperation can make people do crazy things.
There are counter-counterarguments and counter-counter-counterarguments aplenty for both sides, but if you want to get into all that, just read the rest of the thread. Note that each side has exactly one argument that is fairly impossible to refute (in my mind): Rey goes for Annie's eyes, and Rey expresses concern for Annie's safety. The first suggests that Rey is about to possess Annie, while the second suggests that he would never do such a thing. Basically, both sides have valid points, and Tom has stated that he meant for the fans to be split on whether or not Rey was actually going to possess and kill Annie. Whether or not you find either side more or less valid than the other is a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 9, 2010 6:56:24 GMT
If you can point to any precedent of something that clear-cut ending up as something completely different, I will abandon my position and take up the Wait and See banner on this particular issue. Okay.That example does not fit under the criteria of being something that seemed extremely clear-cut since, from the start, Gamma's dialogue caused us to doubt whether or not Annie was actually Zimmy, a conclusion that was supported and hinted at in every subsequent page of that sequence.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 6:59:26 GMT
Naturally. Like I said, this is how this thread always goes. *shrug and walk away*
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 9, 2010 7:35:12 GMT
Naturally. Like I said, this is how this thread always goes. *shrug and walk away* No need to climb up on that high horse; I'm not backtracking on what I said before. I'm just saying that while there are lots of twists that cast previous events in a different light, they don't come out of nowhere. In fact, that's what I was saying before, too. Annie ending up as Zimmy at the end of Spring Heeled Part 2? Heavily foreshadowed to the point that I doubt very many readers were all that surprised. Gamma gopping Kat in the creepy shop in Zimmyland during the events of Power Station almost qualifies as a good precedent, but it still has some foreshadowing in Gamma's warnings that it's extremely hard to tell normals apart from nobodies. Rey's attempted possession not actually being an attempt at possessing Annie would have been without any foreshadowing whatsoever. If anyone can point to a similar reveal that utterly lacks foreshadowing and completely changes what seemed to be a clear-cut event, I honestly will stop harping about this and shift over to the neutral position.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 9, 2010 12:29:17 GMT
The best reason I think Rey didn't mean to kill Annie is that Tom wanted people to wonder if he did mean to kill Annie. Why make people wonder if the most obvious answer is true? Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again. But it didn't get ignored... that's why I said what I said... I read that formspring answer. It hasn't been ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, Tom's intent and reply doesn't invalidate an argument. Because of Tom's intent, valid arguments can be made on multiple sides of this issue. So if someone feels one is more correct, it is no different than someone who feels the opposite is correct. Until we learn more, they're still somewhat supported. "Rey intended to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey did not intend to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey intended to possess Annie but not kill her" = somewhat supported (my theory, by the way) "Rey intended to possess the doll and was faking the attack on Annie" = somewhat supported. Tom's intent does nothing to validate or invalidate these.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 9, 2010 15:10:54 GMT
Oh it's even better than that Jayne. At some point during all this, I actually up and asked Tom right out on Formspring whether his intent was for people to be divided about whether or not Reynardine really intended to possess Annie, and he said yes. Effectively telling everyone what I've been saying from the start, which is not only can we not know which is true, but that we are not MEANT to know which is true, which invalidates every argument that presents "evidence" that one side or the other must be true. Oh and you know how these things go: I posted that Formspring answer to this thread, and it got either ignored or rationalized, and then the thread continued to grow, and everyone sort of forgot that the whole thing is academic hand-wringing. And again in a few pages, people will have again forgotten this fact, and we'll be right back here again. But it didn't get ignored... that's why I said what I said... I read that formspring answer. It hasn't been ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, Tom's intent and reply doesn't invalidate an argument. Because of Tom's intent, valid arguments can be made on multiple sides of this issue. So if someone feels one is more correct, it is no different than someone who feels the opposite is correct. Until we learn more, they're still somewhat supported. "Rey intended to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey did not intend to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey intended to possess Annie but not kill her" = somewhat supported (my theory, by the way) "Rey intended to possess the doll and was faking the attack on Annie" = somewhat supported. Tom's intent does nothing to validate or invalidate these. I didn't say it was ignored by everyone, first of all. Second of all, I said that it invalidated all the arguments that said one side or the other MUST be true. Words are important. I didn't say it invalidated ALL arguments. But it did, as djublonskopf reiterated, stop people from being able to say that the other side of the argument couldn't possibly be right. Now seriously, at this point, I for one feel like I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said several times over in this thread and I for one am going to stop repeating age-old arguments. Whatever you guys choose to do, if you want to rehash information that's already here, that's your prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 9, 2010 17:27:09 GMT
But it didn't get ignored... that's why I said what I said... I read that formspring answer. It hasn't been ignored or forgotten. Unfortunately, Tom's intent and reply doesn't invalidate an argument. Because of Tom's intent, valid arguments can be made on multiple sides of this issue. So if someone feels one is more correct, it is no different than someone who feels the opposite is correct. Until we learn more, they're still somewhat supported. "Rey intended to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey did not intend to kill Annie" = somewhat supported "Rey intended to possess Annie but not kill her" = somewhat supported (my theory, by the way) "Rey intended to possess the doll and was faking the attack on Annie" = somewhat supported. Tom's intent does nothing to validate or invalidate these. I didn't say it was ignored by everyone, first of all. Second of all, I said that it invalidated all the arguments that said one side or the other MUST be true. Words are important. I didn't say it invalidated ALL arguments. But it did, as djublonskopf reiterated, stop people from being able to say that the other side of the argument couldn't possibly be right. Now seriously, at this point, I for one feel like I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said several times over in this thread and I for one am going to stop repeating age-old arguments. Whatever you guys choose to do, if you want to rehash information that's already here, that's your prerogative. My comments support your comments. We're agreeing. Anything stated here has just as much chance of being wrong as being right. The issue at hand is more than just if Rey wanted to possess Annie but if he didn't mind killing her in the process. The evidence as displayed in comic points to the idea that Rey did intend to possess Annie (but this could be wrong: see above) The evidence pertaining to Rey's character support that he did not intend to kill Annie (again, this could be wrong) As of yet, we do not know if it is possible for Rey to possess and yet not kill Annie but this seems to be the most likely scenario (and yet, this could be wrong)
|
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Nov 10, 2010 1:47:54 GMT
The debate itself aside, I like having the doubt. Reminds me that Rey isn't a fully trustworthy character however however you slice it. One way or the other, he's hiding something. Anyway, somewhere back in the ten pages of this, someone brought up the point that if this discussion had come up when only 3 or so chapter existed, it would be considered wild speculation. It reminded of my initial reaction to the Almost Possession scene; surprise and disbelief. Prior to that moment, naturally, I'd thought Reynardine was a "good guy" based on his previous behavior. I was ready to switch to "well, okay, he was faking it and totally tricked Annie. Brilliantly played, webcomic author!". But at the time, this didn't sit quite right with me. I paged back to the conversation on the rooftop and I realized why the "Reynardine was fooling Annie with the noble act" wasn't working for me. It was in the moment of Reynardine covering his eyes to mourn Surma after Annie had passed out. She's unconscious, so there is no reason to keep up the act to fool her. Eglamore knows who Reynardine is, so there's no reason to keep up the act to fool him. The only people left to be 'fooled' by this small moment of private grief and concern for the child of someone he cared for, is the readers... and that would have been a pretty dirty narrative trick, really. To me, it didn't match up. I was left with the feeling that there must have been some "trick" in Reynardine's quiet moment of grief that I hadn't sussed out, or some yet unknown reason behind his sudden switch from "helpful caring about old friend's daughter" to "KILL FOR MY OWN USES". There was also insufficient context to explain why possessing Annie would have improved his situation all that much. There's STILL insufficient context for that, frankly. If someone had presented the "it was a trick to take the doll!" theory back then, I would have agreed with it as being the most substantiated explanation. That's the thing with stories. It's not about what's realistic or logical or even probable. It's what's believable in the context. Naturally, for some readers, the sequence of the Almost Possession itself is visual proof that he fully intended to posses/kill Annie and is the most believable context from which to judge his character. The number of coincidences and risk factors involved in the alternate "doll by trickery" theory only lends weight to it's unbelievability for them. For others, Reynardine's attitudes and other behaviors before and after the incident contradict his actions during it enough to have them concluding that there must be some alternate explanation for said actions. That Coyote's view of Reynardine (he loves humans and wouldn't hurt Surma's daughter) corroborates with this only lends weight to the believability of it. Tis interesting to see how the different theories fold out
|
|
qmarx
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by qmarx on Nov 17, 2010 11:47:51 GMT
No, of course he didn't. He tried to possess the robot he saw behind Annie, but then stopped and hesitated when he realized it was Boxbot.
|
|
|
Post by aaroncampbell on Nov 17, 2010 13:05:24 GMT
Would even Reynardine the Great hesitate before the terribleness of Boxbot? It's more likely than you think. ;D
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 17, 2010 18:02:07 GMT
Finally! A theory I can get behind.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 18, 2010 5:00:34 GMT
Such a revelation would have a ton of foreshadowing, e.g. Coyote's disbelief in Reynardine deliberately harming Annie.
Even if for some strange reason you want the foreshadowing to precede not just the revelation but the actual event, we have foreshadowing for that as well, in how we see Reynardine note the doll.
---
Here's what I know: That I can use the adage I've seen in the "Less Wrong" forums and the "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" fanfic, namely "My strength as a rationalist is my ability to be more confused by falsehood than by truth."
IF Reynardine was attempting to possess Annie, I'm still confused, because this doesn't seem remotely consistent with anything else. A "solution" of "he attempted to possess Annie", doesn't actually resolve any of my confusion. IF Reynardine was after the doll, my confusion disappears, and his actions make sense to me.
That to me is very strong evidence for the second hypothesis.
(Edited to fix some typos/grammar mistakes)
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Nov 19, 2010 1:30:33 GMT
So, do you think Rey wants Annie to like or trust him?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 19, 2010 12:27:08 GMT
I think he doesn't want Annie to like him. He's a bit of a masochist in that he doesn't seem to want people to appreciate him, e.g. #408, #414, and so he denies genuine caring, and deliberately presents his actions as worse-motivated than they are. As for "trust", I think he's most comfortable with Annie's trust being dependent on her ownership of him, that's why we've never seen him ask, plead or bargain for his release. He's comfortable being trusted only because Antimony knows of her hold over him, and not because of any emotional reasons. That's my interpretation of the character.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 19, 2010 12:28:19 GMT
I've sometimes wondered whether Tom wound up getting fonder of Reynardine than he'd originally intended to and almost forgotten that the reason why he wasn't causing further big trouble was because of Annie's "putting him on a leash" (a bit like the similar view of Spike's handling in the later seasons of "Buffy") - but I don't think Tom would have had the cast frequently bringing up Reynardine's attempt to kill/possess Annie if that had been the case. (Or shown Reynardine mourning Surma's death in Chapter Three.)
|
|
monte
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by monte on Nov 21, 2010 21:25:08 GMT
Everything we have seen in chapters tells us that Reynard is more misunderstood than anything. Granted we do have reason to think that he knew the young man he possessed would die (looked like he may have tested his powers first before leaving), but otherwise we have been told that he liked humans, had human friends, and most of all loved surma. All in all he doesn't seem like the type who would attempt to kill annie... However, no matter how I read those old pages it seems Reynard really WAS trying to possess Annie. He seemed to be very clearly going for annie, and his last minute jump into the doll was just a mistake or last minute desperation when he failed to nab annie... i mean if he was going for the doll, Tom could have made it a whole lot more ambiguous; for instance say "A body" instead of "Your body", and make it seem less like he was aiming for annie's eyes and instead clearly aiming and intending on the doll in the first place (so no "ARRGHH! Damn it!" when he ends up in the doll); Doing so would have left things much more up to interpretation, enough so that you could come to either conclusion... so in the end, we have the idea that as much as Reynard loved Surma, he would not have minded killing Annie to make his escape from the court; and when it comes down to it, Reynard hasn't had much reason to have any love for anyone in the court for many years, so it's not all that unbelievable, especially if he indeed knew he was gonna kill that guy he used to get into the court in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 22, 2010 2:42:49 GMT
Annie: "You tried to KILL me"
Rey: "Don't be so melodramatic, child. I can do nothing to harm you now"He's not denying it... kinda saying "yeah, I was going to kill you but don't worry, I can't kill you now." He feels bad about it now but then... he might have been thinking "Yes, she would die but quickly and painlessly, she won't even have enough time to notice it" He didn't want Surma's daughter to suffer. Being possessed doesn't hurt the person, they aren't there mentally. When he leaves, they just die but it doesn't hurt them. They're no longer mentally there to feel it.
|
|
ryos
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by ryos on Nov 22, 2010 3:36:48 GMT
Let me preface this by saying that I've not read this entire thread, and also that I'm still on the fence on this issue. Monte makes the case very well that a straight reading of the old pages leads to the inescapable conclusion that Renard did try to possess Annie. I agree with what he said, but let me play devil's advocate and argue the other side. As I see it, the counterargument is that he was acting for Eglamore's sake. If he wanted to slip out of the court unnoticed in Annie's plushie, he'd have to convince Eglamore that he was going for Annie, and that, when Eglamore foiled his "attempt", he died. He knew Eglamore wouldn't suspect this ruse ( "Eglamore is a fool!"). He loudly announced his intention, to make sure Eglamore heard; he timed his attempt so Eglamore would be able to get there. If we assume that his intent was to escape undetected, taking Annie's body is not a very good way to do it. Annie is tracked by the court, and when she steps off school grounds without permission, alarms go off. If he just took the plushie without tricking Eglamore into thinking him dead, he'd notice that Sivo was dead, so Rey must be in another body. The plan backfired when Annie wound up owning him, so he made the best of things. Overall, his quality of life still went way up. Again, I present this as the strongest argument for Rey not having ever intended to possess Annie. I know that it's a little convoluted, and the explanation that he WAS going for her is simpler, more literal, and thus more likely to be true. However, the alternate explanation fits the comics well enough that I'm willing to sit on the fence.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 22, 2010 9:33:11 GMT
The explanation that he was going for her is simpler -- if we don't consider the facts that Coyote found it very unlikely, and that everything we've seen afterwards of Reynard would indicate he'd be protective even of the toy that Surma made, let alone the daughter that Surma birthed.
If we exclude *those* later known facts, then obviously the simpler theory is that he was going for Annie. But those facts exist, and so must be explained.
|
|
|
Post by Elaienar on Nov 22, 2010 16:26:24 GMT
There's also the fact that she's half Anthony's daughter, too, the product of a union that Renard apparently believes Surma was somehow tricked or forced into. The fact that she looks so much like Surma might have endeared her to him at first, on the roof, but after his recapture and after reflecting on the other half of her parentage he could have begun to resent her as living proof that Surma had been "tricked away" from him, and decided that her resemblance to Surma wasn't enough to keep him from using her body to escape.
|
|