|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 21:20:43 GMT
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. The page in question. We can take coyote's words at face value; he's not lying. He says that it doesn't sound right that Rey would take her body. This is true: it is not consistent with what Coyote knows of Rey. Buried in this thread is an argument for why Coyote may not have an accurate grasp of how Rey would act in the given situation. But the existence or lack of this explanation does not compare to the evidence of the scene. 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. Right, so either Eglamore is a lying, exaggerating, or giving his incorrect opinion of what Reynardine is. "Body-stealing demon" is a generic enough phrase that he could just mean that Rey steals bodies without permission, which seems to be true. Both of your examples of "objectivity" have been of what people said, not what is shown. Characters are occasionally wrong. Another thing, you may think less of my opinion for saying that the opposition is unreasonable, but if I had thought that the scene left room for doubt on what happened, then I would be pretty firmly on the other side of this argument. Saying that the scene is ambiguous, but not admitting the evidence that Rey's motivation for possessing Annie is suspect is not a very strong position, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 22, 2009 21:55:20 GMT
Both of your examples of "objectivity" have been of what people said, not what is shown. Characters are occasionally wrong. Mmm, I was going to point out this critical misunderstanding on the part of your interlocutors. I acknowledge that thus far the "Doll by Trickery" has only dialogue to support it, whereas "Annie by Force" has -- quotation marked -- "events." Meanwhile, not to be relativistic or claim there are no objective facts, keep in mind that different people experiencing the same objective event might have completely different impressions of said event. On top of that, the event in question is viewed through the perspective of the story teller, which may or may not reveal all aspects in order to better tell the story. I do not believe that the maker of Heroes intended to imply that Sylar spent Season 1 mysteriously backlit wherever he went...
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 22, 2009 22:17:19 GMT
Buried in this thread is an argument for why Coyote may not have an accurate grasp of how Rey would act in the given situation. "Body-stealing demon" is a generic enough phrase that he could just mean that Rey steals bodies without permission, which seems to be true. Here though, as I said a few posts back... in the same way that you discount the other side's opinion because it relies on subjectively interprets things that are presented in the comic, these two quotes show how your own side is required to subjectively explain away things that are presented in the comic. This is not an argument that the other side is as strong as yours, but that yours is as potentially fallible as the other's. Another thing, you may think less of my opinion for saying that the opposition is unreasonable, but if I had thought that the scene left room for doubt on what happened, then I would be pretty firmly on the other side of this argument. Saying that the scene is ambiguous, but not admitting the evidence that Rey's motivation for possessing Annie is suspect is not a very strong position, in my view. I'm not sure yet exactly what you're saying here so I'll have to think on it. However I will say that "saying the scene is ambiguous" is an inaccurate view of the "Doll by Trickery" stance. It's not that the scene, as originally presented, is itself ambiguous. It's that the interpretation of the scene changes when looked at in light of later evidence (Coyote's words and Reynardine's actions among them). I would go so far to say that if ALL we knew about Reynardine and his past were contained in that chapter, that your side of the argument would be pretty iron-clad. But it's not. We have learned more since then, and my position now (as I hope I have demonstrated in the first half of this post) is that your side of the argument is only presentable as being iron-clad if one ignores, downplays, or subjectively explains away later evidence that sheds new light on the scene. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 22:47:06 GMT
Both of your examples of "objectivity" have been of what people said, not what is shown. Characters are occasionally wrong. Mmm, I was going to point out this critical misunderstanding on the part of your interlocutors. I acknowledge that thus far the "Doll by Trickery" has only dialogue to support it, whereas "Annie by Force" has -- quotation marked -- "events." Meanwhile, not to be relativistic or claim there are no objective facts, keep in mind that different people experiencing the same objective event might have completely different impressions of said event. On top of that, the event in question is viewed through the perspective of the story teller, which may or may not reveal all aspects in order to better tell the story. I do not believe that the maker of Heroes intended to imply that Sylar spent Season 1 mysteriously backlit wherever he went... I agree with all of this. I would also add that though I disagree with the opposition, I do not think less of them for disagreeing. They're not stupid; they are simply wrong. I hope I do not offend anyone with the confidence I have with my position. Also, you may be over stating my side a bit. One of the strongest arguments for Doll by Trickery in my view is that Reynardine actually pronounced his intent to take Annie's body.
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 22, 2009 23:27:00 GMT
They're not stupid; they are simply wrong. I hope I do not offend anyone with the confidence I have with my position. If there's anything English class has taught me, it's that virtually any interpretation of evidence is right if you can back it up, and indeed, multiple or even opposing interpretations of the same works may be considered correct at the same time because it's interpretation. Now, it would be foolish of me to propose that Reynardine actually intended to escape both through force possession of Annie and the doll by trickery. But until Tom decides to tell us for certain, I'm going to have to call a Schrödinger's Cat on this one. Until one theory or the other is proven, we're just going to have to consider both of them equally valid and correct. My personal stance? A little while ago, I would have gone "Annie by force", just because I'm that kind of person who tends to take stuff at face value, if for no other reason besides the fact that I have no real reason to not take it at face value. Reynardine was pretty nasty in the beginning, and I'd be willing to bet that thing in his leg was excruciatingly painful. However, some of the "doll by trickery" arguments have got me half convinced. Reynardine was a trickster, Annie is Surma's daughter, and Tom has a reputation for being tricky. The final verdict? I just don't know. I'm content to wait and speculate until we know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 22, 2009 23:45:41 GMT
They're not stupid; they are simply wrong. I hope I do not offend anyone with the confidence I have with my position. If there's anything English class has taught me, it's that virtually any interpretation of evidence is right if you can back it up, and indeed, multiple or even opposing interpretations of the same works may be considered correct at the same time because it's interpretation. Now, it would be foolish of me to propose that Reynardine actually intended to escape both through force possession of Annie and the doll by trickery. But until Tom decides to tell us for certain, I'm going to have to call a Schrödinger's Cat on this one. Until one theory or the other is proven, we're just going to have to consider both of them equally valid and correct. This is similar to an argument by casey that I responded to hereBuried in this thread is an argument for why Coyote may not have an accurate grasp of how Rey would act in the given situation. Here though, as I said a few posts back... in the same way that you discount the other side's opinion because it relies on subjectively interprets things that are presented in the comic, these two quotes show how your own side is required to subjectively explain away things that are presented in the comic. This is not an argument that the other side is as strong as yours, but that yours is as potentially fallible as the other's. From the beginning I've tried play down this exchange of arguments for how specific minor details support one side or the other. But this is a discussion forum not a formal debate so the conversation does tend to dwell on nits like these. But Even if there was no direct counter argument for many of these points, the Annie by Force proponents would be the same. The exception is perhaps the motivation issue, where the fact that there is plausible explanation for Rey's motivation in possessing Annie is significant. But even then it a question of plausibility, not likelihood that trumps the interpretation. I totally disagree. If is a reasonable theory that Rey did not try to possess Annie, then it was always so. It would have been in the Wild Speculation Thread if someone thought of it in Chapter 3 (an if the forum existed back then), but it would have been right to be there. It is precisely the clarity of the scene that makes my side.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Oct 23, 2009 0:24:29 GMT
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. The page in question. We can take coyote's words at face value; he's not lying. He says that it doesn't sound right that Rey would take her body. This is true: it is not consistent with what Coyote knows of Rey. Buried in this thread is an argument for why Coyote may not have an accurate grasp of how Rey would act in the given situation. This. When Jones said that Coyote is no liar, the very next thing she said was "Therein lies the danger. Just be careful how you handle his advice." As such, I'm wary of taking anything Coyote says at face value without corroborating evidence.
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 23, 2009 0:48:03 GMT
Not necessarily. A lot of good points have been raised on the "Cool things I noticed the 2nd time around" thread that others presumably missed as well. And Tom likes to trick around with us. When Jack first appeared in the chapter before this one ( here), I don't think anyone thought he was possessed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until he started being a creep and stealing things and displaying ghostly etheric spiders that the idea of possession came up. Looking back, he's clearly got some serious shadows around his eyes, something noted at the time, but people just assumed he was suffering Post-Zimmingham-Stress-Syndrome. I know it's a small (as in, it was at tops a week before the possession idea came up due to his creeping on the next couple of pages) example, and definitely not a perfect one, but hopefully it illustrates my point well. Only Tom knows for certain what Reynardine's intents were, and until he tells us, what we assume is true might not necessarily be true. Remember,
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 23, 2009 1:36:38 GMT
I don't feel like I have anything further to add to the conversation, as I think we've all stated our beliefs pretty well, but I feel like I understand King Mir's position better than I did before, so that makes it worth it.
As for my own opinion, I lean slightly towards wanting to think that Rey would never knowingly threaten Annie's life. But my purpose in engaging the conversation again wasn't to promote that, but rather to better understand why some people (mainly Mir) felt that that position was unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by zingbat on Oct 23, 2009 5:03:47 GMT
...I'm going to have to call a Schrödinger's Cat on this one... Pfft, that's silly. Don't you know cats never come when they're called?
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Oct 23, 2009 10:36:11 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. Even after he's specifically asked about the doll she was holding, and knows that this doll would not be harmed if he took it? Why would he rather choose to kill the daughter of the woman he loved, than to possess an empty, available vessel? The problems with taking the doll openly are apparent, so he takes it by trickery, hoping not to be discovered. Yes, he was hurt and imprisoned, that's a pretty strong argument. Anyone would grow bewildered and seek escape. However, he's had five years to consider the mistake he's made. His hopping into a man's body, effectively killing him, must've alienated Surma from him. Instead of making them closer, a couple. The consequences of that mistake must've stung harshly. To do the same again - I suppose there's an argument for it, out of anger, blind seething revenge, and hurt. Five years is a long time and a lot of thinking, so do you think a trickster would repeat the same impulsive mistake he made the first time?
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 23, 2009 21:39:33 GMT
Not necessarily. A lot of good points have been raised on the "Cool things I noticed the 2nd time around" thread that others presumably missed as well. And Tom likes to trick around with us. When Jack first appeared in the chapter before this one ( here), I don't think anyone thought he was possessed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't until he started being a creep and stealing things and displaying ghostly etheric spiders that the idea of possession came up. Looking back, he's clearly got some serious shadows around his eyes, something noted at the time, but people just assumed he was suffering Post-Zimmingham-Stress-Syndrome. I know it's a small (as in, it was at tops a week before the possession idea came up due to his creeping on the next couple of pages) example, and definitely not a perfect one, but hopefully it illustrates my point well. Only Tom knows for certain what Reynardine's intents were, and until he tells us, what we assume is true might not necessarily be true. Remember, That's not what I was trying to say. The Jack being possessed theory did not come up until chapter 24, but if somebody had thought of it after Power Station, it would have been considered possible speculation and consistent with the comic, if wild. By contrast, as a random example, if someone speculated that possessed robot did not shove Annie off the bridge, that would not be worthy of even the wild speculation thread, because the comic clearly shows possessed robot shoving Annie. Likewise I'm saying that the doll by trickery theory, is not consistent with chapter 3.
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 23, 2009 22:40:30 GMT
Ah, well, it seems I have no hope of persuading you. To each their own. While I don't think "Annie by force" is necessarily wrong, I simply think it isn't necessarily right. We shall have to agree to disagree on that.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 24, 2009 12:15:10 GMT
What if there had been a theory such as "the possessed robot did shove Annie off the bridge, but was secretly collaborating with the Tic-Toc birds so that she would be caught before she hit bottom and thus wouldn't be killed?" Would you feel that to be consistent or inconsistent with chapter 3?
I'm just surprised that you keep treating perceived motivation on the same level as factual events. Without having thought bubbles in the panels in question, how can you claim that Reynardine *tricking* people into believing he wants to possess Annie is inconsistent with the events of chapter 3?
The only way you can definitively say the theory is inconsistent with the chapter, is if back then we had access to Reynardine's thought-bubbles.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Oct 24, 2009 19:49:29 GMT
Yeah that seems like good wild speculation to me. Chapter 7 is where the robot shoves Annie.
I may be overstating my point. Without people disagreeing with me I have not directly tying my arguements to evidence. But the evidence is: Those are all behavioral arguements, aka factual events. They hint at the state of mind Rey was in when he possessed the doll.
Does that address your question Aris? If not can you clarify what you see as the inconsistency?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 24, 2009 20:23:12 GMT
Well, if the whole "doll by trickery" theory is that he was trying to trick Annie and Eglamore into thinking that he was going for Annie, your points A & C end up meaning "Reynardine was a good enough actor to convince them two".
So your factual points don't contradict the Doll-by-Trickery theory, the way I see it.
And your point (B) isn't really factual -- we know he was impatient to start, but what it suggests is prone to interpretation. As others have pointed out, he might be hurrying to start so that Eglamore wouldn't have moved far away yet.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 25, 2009 15:51:58 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. I've actually made detailed plans to deal with this contingency. Should a chapter X prove that 'Doll by Trickery' was correct, I will make use of the precedent set in this thread, and argue that the events of chapter X are actually exactly the opposite of what they appear to be, and that Tom will reveal the truth in a future chapter. (That was meant to be funny. If you didn't think it was, please don't take offense!)
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 25, 2009 16:15:02 GMT
Re: Doll-dropping plausibilityI 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. Eglamore could have come in a second earlier and just stood in front of Annie. Eglamore could have come in a second later and thrown his shiny-sword like he did at the bridge. Eglamore could have wrapped his arm around Annie while grabbing her, thereby pinning her arm and the doll to her side. Eglamore could have jumped on Annie, pushing her to the ground, pinning the doll under them. Eglamore could have tackled Annie, sending the doll flying in the same direction as them, and landing right in front of them, so they would see the possession. Eglamore could have tackled Annie, sending the dool flying in the same direction as them, and landing beyond them, so Eglamore is now between Reynardine and the doll. Eglamore could have tackled Annie (dropping the doll), but winding up facing the doll, instead of facing away. Or, of course, Eglamore could come it at precisely the right moment where he has to tackle Annie, and the doll might be dropped more or less where they stood, and Eglamore and Annie would wind up far enough away from the doll, and facing the wrong direction, and give him enough time to possess it without being noticed. It seems to me far-fetched that anyone would choose to cook up a plan that absolutely relied on the last option happening, and which would fail miserably if any of the others did.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 25, 2009 16:31:14 GMT
To escape decades of captivity and, currently, severe physical pain? Yes, I can see it. Easily. Even after he's specifically asked about the doll she was holding, and knows that this doll would not be harmed if he took it? Why would he rather choose to kill the daughter of the woman he loved, than to possess an empty, available vessel? The problems with taking the doll openly are apparent, so he takes it by trickery, hoping not to be discovered. But what does he gain from possessing the doll without being discovered? He can't switch to another body. He doesn't want to just run away and live in the plushie forever until Annie dies (if he wanted to, he could have done this instead of destroying the science fair projects). He has to reveal himself at some point, no? And if he's going to reveal himself anyway, what does he gain from a short period of secrecy? In fact, he had that period of secrecy, and gained nothing from it. If he's resigned to living in the doll with Annie's knowledge, much better to ask for it or to just take it, and not earn Annie's mistrust by pretending to try to kill her. It also reduces the chances that she will expose him to the teachers. I believe that this is currently the strongest argument against the "Doll by Trickery' theory - the availability of the 'Doll by Consent' or 'Doll by Force' options. Each of these would put Reynardine in a better position than he could get using 'Doll by Trickery' and revealing himself later, without any of the associated risks. The only weakness I see in this argument is that it assumes Reynardine knew ahead of time how limited he would be when possessing the doll. If he was ignorant of these limits, then the argument falls to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 25, 2009 18:39:11 GMT
Reading Nancy Drew novel for starters. It seems to me the benefits of the doll arrangement are an improvement over his prison cell arrangements.
And as you say, since it's unlikely Reynardine was ever in an owned body before, it may very well be that he didn't know the limitations thereof.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 25, 2009 18:51:50 GMT
Would he consider failure that horrible? The whole "desperation" argument hinges on the fact that he was desperately seeking to get out of his jail.
Now, he's just been informed that Surma has also died. So why couldn't he think "Fine, I'll make one last-ditch trick to escape. If I end up dying because of it, so be it -- even death's better than five more years in this jail"
The "Annie by Force" theory hinges on desparation driving him -- given that premise, I don't think it makes sense to argue that "Doll by Trickery" was too much a risk for him. He's emotional enough to kill Annie for sure, but not emotional enough to endanger his own life?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 25, 2009 22:15:20 GMT
It seems to me far-fetched that anyone would choose to cook up a plan that absolutely relied on the last option happening, and which would fail miserably if any of the others did. I don't think that the scene arrangement necessary for that plan to go off is any more or less "far-fetched" than the scene on the bridge when Annie fell. Things just happened to be lined up such that Eglamore is there to rush in, and throw -right- when he needs to throw to eliminate the threat (and perfectly sever the wooden arm AND interrupt the Shadow Man's connection to Robot's foot) while the scene still allows the plot-advancing element of Annie falling into the ravine and Eglamore being able to do all those other things but NOT being able to save her. And yet you guys readily accept the one, while completely rejecting the other, even though from a plot-advancement standpoint, they serve the same purpose. How can you accept one "just-so-happens" scene, and not accept the other "just-so-happens" scene?
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 26, 2009 6:56:08 GMT
Reading Nancy Drew novel for starters. It seems to me the benefits of the doll arrangement are an improvement over his prison cell arrangements. He can read the Nancy Drew novel after being discovered. In fact, that is when he actually reads them.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 26, 2009 7:10:08 GMT
Would he consider failure that horrible? The whole "desperation" argument hinges on the fact that he was desperately seeking to get out of his jail. Now, he's just been informed that Surma has also died. So why couldn't he think "Fine, I'll make one last-ditch trick to escape. If I end up dying because of it, so be it -- even death's better than five more years in this jail" The "Annie by Force" theory hinges on desparation driving him -- given that premise, I don't think it makes sense to argue that "Doll by Trickery" was too much a risk for him. He's emotional enough to kill Annie for sure, but not emotional enough to endanger his own life? The big risk in the 'Doll by Trickery' plan is that it will fail, and he'll still be stuck in Sivo's dead body. If he's desperate to get out, why choose a plan which has a higher probability of failing? In my opinion, the question of 'degree of desperation' is somewhat beside the point. I don't think that a very desperate Reynardine would prefer plan A, whereas a very very very desperate Reynardine would prefer plan B. I don't think we can scientifically quantify his desperation to prove that it was enough for plan A, but not for plan B.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 26, 2009 7:44:50 GMT
It seems to me far-fetched that anyone would choose to cook up a plan that absolutely relied on the last option happening, and which would fail miserably if any of the others did. I don't think that the scene arrangement necessary for that plan to go off is any more or less "far-fetched" than the scene on the bridge when Annie fell. Things just happened to be lined up such that Eglamore is there to rush in, and throw -right- when he needs to throw to eliminate the threat (and perfectly sever the wooden arm AND interrupt the Shadow Man's connection to Robot's foot) while the scene still allows the plot-advancing element of Annie falling into the ravine and Eglamore being able to do all those other things but NOT being able to save her. And yet you guys readily accept the one, while completely rejecting the other, even though from a plot-advancement standpoint, they serve the same purpose. How can you accept one "just-so-happens" scene, and not accept the other "just-so-happens" scene? I am not rejecting either scene. I accept both scenes equally. What I'm saying is that 'a priori' Reynardine could not have predicted either of them, and would not have gambled his chance to escape on that particular sequence happening. Suppose that just before Annie had gone on the bridge, Reynardine had said "I swear on my honor that if the following does not happen I will wear a purple kilt and pink ear-muffs for the next year: Annie will go on the bridge, the robot will grab me, push her off the bridge, Elgamore will come in time to kill the robot, save me, but not save Annie" - we would all consider that to be very unlikely, right? Not the sequence of events, but that a character predicted them. The confusion is between 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' probabilities. I will attempt to clarify what I mean by means of a mathematical analogy. Consider what happens if I throw a coin 10 times in a row. The probability of each outcome is equal: 1/1024. Now suppose I perform the test and get HHTHTTHHTH (H = Heads, T = Tails). The chance of that happening was 1/1024 - rather unlikely, but no more unlikely than any other result. There is no reason to suspect that I cheated to get that result. This is analogous to the probability of what happened on the bridge, or in Rey's cell, actually happening. Now suppose that before the toss I say: I predict that the result will be "HHTHTTHHTH". And in fact I do get that result. This is a lot more suspicious, because the chance of guessing right is just 1/1024. The analogous case is this: Before trying to escape, Reynardine says: "I have several plans to escape. 'Doll by Force', 'Doll by Consent', 'Annie by Force', or 'Doll by Trickery'. The first three have a decent chance of working (say, about 50%). The last one will only work if my 10 coin tosses yield exactly HHTHTTHHTH. I choose 'Doll by Trickery' because I predict that the result will be HHTHTTHHTH. Does it make sense to choose the last one? As I've set up the problem, it does not (of course, it may be argued that this is a misrepresentation of the problem). But my point is this: the reason that it does not make sense is not because HHTHTTHHTH is any less likely than TTTHTTHHTH or TTTTTTTTTT for that matter. It's because there is just that one combination in which 'Doll by Trickery' works, and 512 (assuming 50% probability of success) in which either of the first three work. It seems to me that you have understood my argument to rely on the assumption that HHTHTTHHTH is less likely than HHTHTTHHTT, or any other particular combination. This is not what I am basing my argument upon.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Oct 26, 2009 8:41:59 GMT
He can read the Nancy Drew novel after being discovered. Having been fortunate enough that Annie didn't turn him in the moment she discovered him. He had hardly a good enough understanding of Annie's characters back in the 3rd chapter that this would be an inescapable conclusion for him. It makes sense if he dislikes the consequences of failure that the other choices represent. In "Doll by Force" and "Doll by Consent" he needs to reveal to others that he can hide within inanimate object -- thus giving them an advantage over him. In "Annie by Force" he would need to kill Surma's daughter. And neither of these choices (even in success) lead to Eglamore thinking that Reynardine was dead. So, yeah, the stakes were higher, but the rewards of success were higher too (everyone thinks him dead, Annie doesn't need to die), and the results of failure are less also (at worst he's trapped inside Sivo's decomposing body -- at which point, he will hopefully be dragged out to be buried or burned, and possibly be able to possess a passing insect).
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Oct 26, 2009 8:43:20 GMT
And yet you guys readily accept the one, while completely rejecting the other, even though from a plot-advancement standpoint, they serve the same purpose. How can you accept one "just-so-happens" scene, and not accept the other "just-so-happens" scene? Because the just-so chain of events on the bridge are a straightforward, what-you-see-is-what-you-get interpretation of events. The just-so chain of events in the "doll by trickery" scenario are not a straightforward interpretation of events, but is more dependent on one interpretion of Rey's character and motivation. And because million-in-one chances landing in such a way as to further the plot is forgiven by the audience's willing suspension of disbelief much more easily than when a character in the story successfully predicts the outcome of the million-in-one chance. But I think we're over-analyzing with all this talk of the relative probabilities of Rey's plans succeeding. We're assuming that Rey was able to perform the same cost/benefits analysis that we, a bunch of internet nerds, were able to perform from the comfort of our computer rooms. Rey didn't even know that Annie existed before he met her on the roof, so whatever he was trying to pull that first night was something that he was making up as he went. And while Rey certainly hoped that Annie would come to visit him in his cell, there is absolutely no way that he could have been certain of her visit or its timing. So again, whatever he was trying to do in the cell, he was desperate and didn't have the time to analyze every potential plan in the same detail we've gone into.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Oct 26, 2009 13:51:36 GMT
He can read the Nancy Drew novel after being discovered. Having been fortunate enough that Annie didn't turn him in the moment she discovered him. He had hardly a good enough understanding of Annie's characters back in the 3rd chapter that this would be an inescapable conclusion for him. Pretending to try to kill her only increases the chance that she will turn him in. Let me try to sum up the points you are making: Advantages of 'Doll by Trickery' vs 'Doll by Consent' or 'Doll by Force': A) Does not reveal that he can possess inanimate objects. B) Everyone thinks he's dead. C) Results of failure are less: at worst, he is trapped inside Sivo's dead body. (Annie's not dying is only an advantage when compared with 'Annie by Force'). Now I wish to make a few claims about these points. 1) The limitations on possession of inanimate objects will force him to reveal himself very soon, unless he's willing to neither speak nor move. Therefore, advantages (A) and (B) will disappear very quickly. In practice, he got these two advantages and made no use of them at all. 2) Advantage (C) is the worst case scenario also for 'Doll by Force'. In 'Doll by Consent', the worst case scenario is that he's still stuck in Sivo's living body. I do not see this as a distinct advantage - at best it is a restatement of (A). To balance against these, I must restate the two major drawbacks to 'Doll by Trickery': (D) If it works, it earns him Annie's lasting mistrust once he is revealed. (E) There is a much higher chance of it not working, and his losing his rare chance to escape. The decision hinges on this: If Reynardine is aware that the restrictions upon the doll will not allow him to escape, and that he will have to reveal himself, then he knows advantages (A) and (B) are very temporary, and he knows the price of (D) is high. Therefore, it seems to me quite inexplicable that he would choose 'Doll by Trickery'. If Reynardine is not aware of these restrictions, then (B) seems like a much more valuable advantage, and (D) doesn't matter all that much. This leaves (B) to be reckoned against (E), and the decision here is not so clear-cut. I can quite accept if people don't assign the same weights as I do to the different factors I've listed (A-E). But I would like to try to distill two very limited statements which I think are less subject to disagreement: 1) The restrictions on possessing the toy are such that Reynardine would not keep his possession hidden from Annie for any considerable stretch of time. (The fact is that once he was in possession of the doll, he chose a course of action in which he planned to reveal himself to her. He did not try to read her books and play with her dolls indefinitely without being discovered.) 2) If Reynardine does not know about these restrictions, it makes 'Doll by Trickery' more likely. If he does know about these restrictions, it makes 'Doll by Trickery' less likely. In both cases, the comparison is only between 'Doll by Trickery' and 'Doll by Consent'/'Doll by Force'. I am putting 'Annie by Force' aside for the moment. In other words, the balance between 'Doll by Trickery' and 'Doll by Consent'/'Doll by Force' hinges on whether Reynardine knows the limitations on possessing the doll.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 26, 2009 14:24:26 GMT
To balance against these, I must restate the two major drawbacks to 'Doll by Trickery': (D) If it works, it earns him Annie's lasting mistrust once he is revealed. I'm going to cautiously poke my head up from the carpet-bombing just long enough to point out that this 'lasting mistrust' you speak of did happen, and Annie is clearly already over it less than a year later. Outside of this point, though, I'm running for cover in a battle of attrition. When the conversation turned to statistical probability analysis or whatever, I mentally checked out.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Oct 26, 2009 14:43:17 GMT
I think the predictability of Annie dropping the doll is being wildly underestimated, but so is a legendary trickster's propensity to make big gambles. (Tricksters of legend aren't like the con men you see in modern movies with perfectly detailed puppeteer plans.)
And, as you know, it's been my impression from the beginning that Reynardine was unaware of the limitations he would face in doll form.
|
|