Pig_catapult
Full Member
Keeper of the Devilkitty
Posts: 171
|
Post by Pig_catapult on May 18, 2010 3:23:33 GMT
I got the repeat; figured it was a glitch, but didn't think it'd be fixed until morning proper, so went to bed.
|
|
Alex
Full Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by Alex on May 18, 2010 3:25:30 GMT
I'm going to go out on a limb and bet against those that are saying that Jones is going to give Annie a serious reprimand in private. I think that Jones knows just what Annie was trying to do with Jack--that is, to help him--and I think she knows that Annie simply got caught up in Jack's trap. What would be the benefit of reprimanding her? What would she be reprimanding her for, trying to help someone with an etheric problem? When that's what she's being trained to do? I agree that Jones won't necessarily reprimand Annie in private (she might, but I'd bet against it), but that's because she just did reprimand Annie. Jones doesn't seem to be the sort to think it's okay to fail - just because Annie has an excuse doesn't mean it wasn't a failure, and that Annie shouldn't have been able to foresee and defuse Jack's trap.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 18, 2010 3:34:16 GMT
You know, why don't you guys just end all the speculation and ask Tom what he meant to convey by the look on Jones's face in the 2nd panel? Because as far as I can see, you're making all these assumptions that Jones was reprimanding Annie, that she was disappointed, that she doesn't think it's okay to fail, that Annie should have somehow been able to foresee and defuse Jack's trap -while- still trying to help him... all based on the micrometer-difference in the level of Jones's eyebrows in one frame, or something like that. I have gathered that Tom really doesn't appreciate people hyper-analyzing his drawing to such a degree, because every time you make these huge assumptions based on some minutia in the comic, if it's not what he intended then he blames himself for being a bad artist. So rather than make these broad sweeping assumptions, might I recommend either a) asking the man, or b) withholding such speculation until there's more information (which seems to be a suggestion I make on just about every new page that comes out)?
I mean, I accept that I could be the one who is wrong, and who is not reading enough into the minor subtleties. But I'm not the one making broad generalizations about a character's... character, based on these details. And I'd rather keep my mouth shut and my options open, than to assume too much and end up frustrating or insulting the author.
*shrug* But what the hell do I know anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tobu Ishi on May 18, 2010 4:24:20 GMT
*chuckles* You're missing the point, Casey. When Jones may or may not be raising her eyebrows an iota, it's a sign of her complete loss of faith in Antimony as a student, a protege and a human being. When Jack smashes a robot after doting on them earlier, it's not a sign of a plot twist at all.
When a girl in a photo might or might not be Jones, she is of immense interest to everyone. When she is explained to be a fricking valkyrie attending the Court for some reason and vanishes into thin air with a massive display of magic, interest in her wanes rapidly.
GKC analysis seems to work on the same theory as the creation of a railway cut. Build up the low points and smooth down the high ones. It is a mysterious phenomenon... XD;
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 18, 2010 4:31:15 GMT
At the risk of drawing fire to myself I have to say that interpreting a character's facial expression does seem to be a reasonable topic for respectful debate. Forgive me for paraphrasing but if one person says, "Jones is shooting Antimony a sharp glance to get her to play along with the charade" and another says, "Jones' glare makes me think she is weighing protecting Antimony or throwing her to the wolves" and yet another says, "Antimony is going to be chewed out when Jones gets her alone," that's not really insulting to the artist, is it? Isn't discussing the comic what the forum is for? Well, I suppose the last two strips just amplify this, but you just gotta wonder, WHAT IS JONES??? Every so often I like to re-post my theory that Jones is Galatea.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 18, 2010 5:40:16 GMT
At the risk of drawing fire to myself I have to say that interpreting a character's facial expression does seem to be a reasonable topic for respectful debate. Forgive me for paraphrasing but if one person says, "Jones is shooting Antimony a sharp glance to get her to play along with the charade" and another says, "Jones' glare makes me think she is weighing protecting Antimony or throwing her to the wolves" and yet another says, "Antimony is going to be chewed out when Jones gets her alone," that's not really insulting to the artist, is it? I hear what you're saying, but I think people have given examples, in this thread and others, where their speculation goes way beyond the meaning of a single glance, and practically creates entire psychological profiles of characters based on a single glance (e.g. "Jones doesn't seem to be the sort to think it's okay to fail") and that's what I caution against. I also am not saying that people say things with the intent of insulting the artist, but... I mean let's say I wrote a song, and I wrote the lyrics, and I posted it online, and people interpreted in a manner completely different from what I intended, or even got my intent backwards from what I meant (for example, a song meant to be satire but taken seriously) then I as the artist would be more likely to feel that the failure was mine as an artist, over feeling the failure was theirs as listeners. Tom's made comments before on his formspring to this effect, which is the reason I've mentioned it here. Discussing, sure. Sucking the life out of it via hyper-analysis, I would have to argue no.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on May 18, 2010 5:57:47 GMT
Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 18, 2010 6:20:26 GMT
I hear what you're saying, but I think people have given examples, in this thread and others, where their speculation goes way beyond the meaning of a single glance, and practically creates entire psychological profiles of characters based on a single glance (e.g. "Jones doesn't seem to be the sort to think it's okay to fail") and that's what I caution against. ... Discussing, sure. Sucking the life out of it via hyper-analysis, I would have to argue no. Correct me if this is not what you were implying, but the stuff you cited in your block of text is not an example of hyper-analysis. It's a case of extrapolating from too few data points. Considering the kind of ridiculously minor details that Tom has used to convey information before (different speech bubble colors indicate different characters, Doppel-Kat in Zim City had slightly shorter hair than Real Kat, and I kid you not, this fire hose was foreshadowing of how Martin died) trying to get meaning from Jones' facial expression seems pretty plausible. Heck, given Tom's habit of simplifying the art by blanking out unimportant faces, the fact that Tom bothered to draw Jones' face in that panel could be evidence that her expression is important. Tom has set the bar pretty high for minor details that turn out to be significant -- I wouldn't accuse anyone of hyper-analysis unless Tom himself weighs in to say that a given detail is meaningless. I'd ask Tom about Jones' face, but his formspring is wonky right now.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 18, 2010 7:00:24 GMT
I have to point out though, that "ask Tom to end speculation" and "I could be wrong and not reading enough into the subtleties" are both prominent points that I made myself, in the first of my posts on this page.
|
|
|
Post by Tobu Ishi on May 18, 2010 7:49:33 GMT
Doppel-Kat in Zim City had slightly shorter hair than Real Kat[...] ...what, he meant that seriously? I always thought it was a gentle poke of fun at the forum for overanalyzing things exactly like that. He's very disappointed, forumites, that you/we didn't immediately notice the hair length difference and start insisting that it meant Kat was a doppleganger instead of just an art inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandir on May 18, 2010 8:46:15 GMT
Personally, my own instinct to think Ms. Jones is disappointed is probably just the fact that Annie did, in fact, break school rules, and therefore somehow deserves to be disappointed in. (Or something. That made more sense in my head.)
However, it can be hard to read someone so consistently deadpan as Jones anyway. And when you come down to it, Ms. Jones is trying to teach Annie to be a medium, not to slavishly follow the rules. Even if Ms. Jones assigns Annie some kind of detention or grounding for muddling around in the power plant in the middle of the night, I do think she actually wants to encourage Annie to continue attempting to mediate problems, like she was trying to do for Jack.
If anything, Ms. Jones' only criticism of Annie's behavior may very well be to indicate how Annie could've handled Jack better - and not to be disappointed in her at all, because dealing with Jack's problems definitely falls under the advanced mediuming course.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on May 18, 2010 9:29:30 GMT
we shouldn't discourage the young people from seeing love and romance behind every glance and under every rock LAUGHING ON LINE. That's sweet of you to say, but I'm 62. That's always been my opinion about believing Ren is innocent. I figure even if I'm wrong, I'm wrong because I want to see the best in people. Unfortunately, I sometimes wonder about the character of some of those who always see violence and conflict in every situation. It's like this comic is a giant Rohrschach test and the way someone interprets the ambiguous situations reveals their true personalities. List of Jack & Annie romance foreshadows: Jack takes Annie's blinker stone, Annie takes back (transfer of blinker stones between male and female indicates romantic attachment) Jack calls Annie an ice queen (unendearing way males have of saying they wish a particular female were warmer to them) Passing notes in hall. Renardine stops Jack from suggesting he and Annie remove their clothes (to thwart unwanted tracking devices.) He wants to carry her back across the river (like Sir Walter Raleigh carrying Queen Elizabeth over a mud puddle). Btw, relevant to nothing, I don't think Jack went to Zimmingham. I think he went to Jackville. He could see Annie in Zimmingham because seeing Annie in the ether is one of his innate abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Ignotus Somnium on May 18, 2010 9:58:58 GMT
... Heck, given Tom's habit of simplifying the art by blanking out unimportant faces, the fact that Tom bothered to draw Jones' face in that panel could be evidence that her expression is important. Sorry if I'm wrong about this, but all the panels we have of her seem like they'd look kind of strange if her face was simplified any more, since Jones is the character Annie is focusing on right now. Plus if it was simplified the whole forum would be going on about how it must be a clone/fake Jones. It's like a catch-22 breeding ground in here.
|
|
|
Post by legion on May 18, 2010 12:01:54 GMT
Again, it's not much the look on her face than how the sentence "Well done, Antimony" potentially conveys a double meaning; or even triple-meaning: to the authority it means "we planned this", to Annie it means "play along quick" AND "not a very good job you did here".
|
|
|
Post by legion on May 18, 2010 12:05:27 GMT
Also, interpretation and projection from the audience on a work, of things the author didn't actually intended, *are* also a part of the audience/author relationship; literary criticism knows this and takes advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 18, 2010 14:22:10 GMT
Doppel-Kat in Zim City had slightly shorter hair than Real Kat[...] ...what, he meant that seriously? I always thought it was a gentle poke of fun at the forum for overanalyzing things exactly like that. He's very disappointed, forumites, that you/we didn't immediately notice the hair length difference and start insisting that it meant Kat was a doppleganger instead of just an art inconsistency. I took it to mean that Tom was serious about the hair length, but joking about being disappointed in us.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on May 18, 2010 16:01:10 GMT
Hey, it's that guy! I hear what you're saying, but I think people have given examples, in this thread and others, where their speculation goes way beyond the meaning of a single glance, and practically creates entire psychological profiles of characters based on a single glance (e.g. "Jones doesn't seem to be the sort to think it's okay to fail") and that's what I caution against. ;D It's obviously so much worse than: 1) creating entire psychological profile of the author of the single twistiest comic in the Multiverse, specifically including being constantly appaled by the viewers' failure to read his thoughs and 2) claiming to be the one who did read Tom's mind, clearly and fully. As to the epileptic trees - well, duh. But they are half turned into meta-anecdote by now. Discussing, sure. Sucking the life out of it via hyper-analysis, I would have to argue no. (innocently): Because what's going on is really obvious, isn't it? I have to point out though, that "ask Tom to end speculation" and "I could be wrong and not reading enough into the subtleties" are both prominent points that I made myself, in the first of my posts on this page. I'll only note that calling to end the speculations and ask Tom instead of asking Tom looks pretty funny. It's like this comic is a giant Rohrschach test and the way someone interprets the ambiguous situations reveals their true personalities. Pseudorandom data is pseudorandom data, mysterious twistiness just enforces less ready points (until it's too late). Which provokes people to put more of their own into whatever bonsai of the epileptic trees they make. List of Jack & Annie romance foreshadows: I see it as more of a ship-tease joke on the meta-level and awkwardness on the story-level. Btw, relevant to nothing, I don't think Jack went to Zimmingham. I think he went to Jackville. He could see Annie in Zimmingham because seeing Annie in the ether is one of his innate abilities. Now that's a really wild speculation. It ran away far enough that it ignores almost entirely Jack's behaviour after visiting Zimmyland and Zimmy's remark on this. I took it to mean that Tom was serious about the hair length, but joking about being disappointed in us. Ethereal Annie usually have longer hair than Real Annie's. And a wound on her face. Which doesn't mean she's just a figment of imagination, however.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on May 18, 2010 18:26:51 GMT
My official press statement: Jones deadpan expression and delivery remains as inscrutable as ever, and I have no idea what she is thinking. That's priceless, especially in context of this thread. Did you get out photoshop and measure pixel by pixel?
|
|
|
Post by legion on May 18, 2010 18:44:25 GMT
That's priceless, especially in context of this thread. Did you get out photoshop and measure pixel by pixel? The difference is perfectly visible though, you just have to watch how far on her face her streaks reach.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on May 18, 2010 20:48:59 GMT
Everyone on this forum is daft, bonkers, or sardonic; I haven't the foggiest who is which, though.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on May 18, 2010 22:22:49 GMT
Can I be Sardonic?
|
|
|
Post by lurker on May 18, 2010 23:16:00 GMT
Btw, relevant to nothing, I don't think Jack went to Zimmingham. I think he went to Jackville. He could see Annie in Zimmingham because seeing Annie in the ether is one of his innate abilities. Now that's a really wild speculation. It ran away far enough that it ignores almost entirely Jack's behaviour after visiting Zimmyland and Zimmy's remark on this. [...] It's plausible that that was his very first visit to Jackville, triggered by the blasphemous combination of the Power Station's etheric blast with Zimmy's distorted ethereal abilities. Zimmy's remark on that page is simply her assumption that he was there too: an inference based merely on the fact that he tried to "gop" her. Who's to say that Jackville doesn't have the same "gopping" phenomenon as Zimmingham? Having said that, though, if the two cyclopean monstro-cities are this similar, and Jack can see and hear both Zimmy and Annie from wherever he was, then we might as well just call them the same place.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 18, 2010 23:36:02 GMT
I took it to mean that Tom was serious about the hair length, but joking about being disappointed in us. Ethereal Annie usually have longer hair than Real Annie's. And a wound on her face. Which doesn't mean she's just a figment of imagination, however. "Shorter hair = imposter" is so ridiculously unsupported by the text that I hope you guys would call me on it if I were to suggest it in seriousness. The point, as I saw it, had nothing to do with whether or not we figured out that Kat was a doppelganger, and everything to do with the fact that Tom snuck in a minor detail to hint to us that Something Is Amiss, and no one noticed it. We don't know the exact meaning behind the cut on Ethereal Annie's face, but at least we noticed the cut. Imagine if no one had noticed it prior to this page. Doppel-Kat is basically that on a much smaller scale. That's priceless, especially in context of this thread. Did you get out photoshop and measure pixel by pixel? No, I read Tom's words below the comic and assumed that there was at least a tiny kernel of non-sarcasm in his words. ----- "No! I must correct the wrong people on internet" he shouted The radio said "No, Mezzaphor. You are wrong on internet" And then Mezzaphor was a zombie.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pitchfork on May 19, 2010 0:19:09 GMT
Compare the last page with Fake Kat in it with the first page before it started raining. You'll see Tom was totally right.
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 19, 2010 0:32:41 GMT
One thought on why Jones is so ready to get Annie out of trouble (or in less trouble than she otherwise would be):
The Court needs a new medium, especially since relations with Gillitie Wood are becoming troubled again. The other two candidates, Parley and Smith, are too distracted by their confused feelings towards each other to focus on their work - and it doesn't seem that they'll resolve that problem soon. That just leaves Annie - who has shown herself, despite her failings, to be the most observant candidate, and the one to give most attention to the etheric nature of the Court (more so than most of the students there, so far as we can tell, in fact). If she's expelled, or at the least, disqualified from potential mediumship, then there may be little hope for lasting peace between the Court and the Wood.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on May 19, 2010 8:33:01 GMT
Now that's a really wild speculation. It ran away far enough that it ignores almost entirely Jack's behaviour after visiting Zimmyland and Zimmy's remark I could have been clearer. When I say "went to Zimmingham" I mean it to include the idea that the nobody dungeon is created by or in some way specific to Zimmy. I believe that it is separate from Zimmy (or Jack) and has existed for a long time. (The power station is the court's work in progress to try to find a way to deal with its effect on certain people.) So, when I said Jack "went to Jackville", I meant that he has the same "disease" (vulnerability or gift) as Zimmy, but did not contract it from her and was not drawn into it by Zimmy.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on May 19, 2010 14:00:01 GMT
Having said that, though, if the two cyclopean monstro-cities are this similar, and Jack can see and hear both Zimmy and Annie from wherever he was, then we might as well just call them the same place. And if we'll assume that it was a shared mindscape, the question is moot: everyone who's inside participates in its formation. Arguments in the favour of this interpretation are phantasmal Kat and the clean area around Gamma. They would be unlike most of Zimmyland's features just because they are made by Annie and Gamma respectively, whose brains aren't choke full of crap. So, when I said Jack "went to Jackville", I meant that he has the same "disease" (vulnerability or gift) as Zimmy, but did not contract it from her and was not drawn into it by Zimmy. It was at least the second time Jack saw the station working - he already knew enough to bring an umbrella. And the first time he was pulled in, because he didn't yet see it as something to worry or freak out about before this happened. So, it happened to him the first time in Zimmy's presence, but is not related to her at all? Too much of a coincidence, even for being around Annie. And Renard first acted as if Zimmy has cooties and then said that Jack is contaminated by her without any reason?
|
|
|
Post by lurker on May 19, 2010 16:54:13 GMT
Having said that, though, if the two cyclopean monstro-cities are this similar, and Jack can see and hear both Zimmy and Annie from wherever he was, then we might as well just call them the same place. And if we'll assume that it was a shared mindscape, the question is moot: everyone who's inside participates in its formation.[...] I like this idea -- that Zimmingham is a mindscape -- perhaps produced by the etheric projection of the participants involved? Zimmy obviously has some etheric abilities, however messed up, as has Gamma and Annie. Jack might have had some etheric tendencies he was unconcious of at the time, strong enough to draw him into Zimmingham, but too weak for him to be able to communicate with the others. Actually, now that I think of it -- Zimmingham may in fact be entirely a product of Zimmy's mind. It's obvious that she has powerful etheric tendencies, even if it's completely distorted and uncontrollable. It's possible that she (or rather, her messed up etheric state) is actually the source of the nobodies and the arachnidal abominations that lurk within Zimmingham. This would explain why Rey, an etheric being, would find her utterly repulsive. Jack was drawn in because the power station seriously messed up the ether nearby, causing Zimmy's out-of-control etheric power to warp, pull in Jack, and infest him. An alternative theory is that some time in the not-yet-revealed past, a catastrophic etheric event occurred to Zimmy, causing etheric abominations to infect her. Things have steadily gone downhill ever since, and now the abomination has grown so strong in her that given the opportunity (e.g. the etheric disturbance caused by the Power Station), it will pull in potential victims and infect them. Annie is too strong etherically to be affected in a lasting way, but Jack, having never been made aware of his etheric abilities and never been trained to control it, succumbed. It's possible that many others have been infected before Zimmy; she is but the last (and now second last) in the line of victims ever since the initial catastrophe. Perhaps one day she will die in Zimmingham, as she herself feared, and become one of the nobodies haunting the place. It seems quite obvious that Jack is headed in that direction rather quickly as well.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on May 20, 2010 20:49:32 GMT
So, it happened to him the first time in Zimmy's presence, but is not related to her at all? Its root cause is not Zimmy. She is "infected" by the GC doppelganger, and her presence + the power station may have contributed to his being sucked in too, but he had to have been susceptible to it on his own. Renard called Zimmy a demon because she was able to force him out of his hidey-hole and he didn't like that. ( 80) He thinks she infected Jack because that's how he see it. The question is: Is it foreshadowing or misdirection? Only the unfolding of the plot will tell. In 614 , a nobody is walking towards Jack while he holds the blinker stone, Zimmy being nowhere around. He is in his dungeon Nemesis on his own.
|
|
|
Post by lurker on May 21, 2010 16:00:01 GMT
[...]In 614 , a nobody is walking towards Jack while he holds the blinker stone, Zimmy being nowhere around. He is in his dungeon Nemesis on his own. Uhh, actually, he was sensing Annie's ether-self.
|
|