|
|
Post by cancerousUniverse on Dec 7, 2012 17:19:45 GMT
I wonder if Jones's commentary about the horrors of the ether is foreshadowing what Annie might run into next. Jeanne was freaky enough, and she was just a ghost, not a true creature of the ether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 7, 2012 18:04:20 GMT
I don't think Jones is implying that either Renard or Mort are "Horrors of Mankind". She's just using them as examples of ethereal beings whom are friendly to Annie, and saying that not all ethereals will be friendly like they are. "...all the horrors of mankind can be given form by the ether, they might not all be as agreeable as Renard or Mort". There are only two things "they" can refer to: 1. "the horrors of mankind"; 2. "form" given to these horrors. So either not all horrors are as agreeable as Renard or Mort, or not all forms of horrors are as agreeable as Renard or Mort. Either case, Renard and Mort are "horrors of mankind". That is what she says, regardless of what you think. What she says is "Not all the etheric beings spawned from the horrors of mankind are as agreeable as Renard and Mort are." While this can be interpreted to mean that Renard and Mort are "spawned from the horrors of mankind", Jones does not explicitly label them as such. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 7, 2012 18:08:06 GMT
I wonder what the significance is of Jeane in the last panel. I guess the reason they needed a human sacrifice to put up the barrier between Court and Forest was because it was etheric in origin, and the energy only affects the "field" when a person dies. I'm thinking they inscribed the arrow used to kill Jeane with the same script that Kat found on Diego's old robots. Didn't they actually use the arrow to kill, not Jeanne, but the green guy, and Jeanne was just a bait who was going to die there in the waters as a result. www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=778See the next page as well. Totally forgot about that! |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 7, 2012 18:54:39 GMT
It's interesting what she replied with "I say it out of respect". Man, I can't believe none of you said anything about Tom's comment!I mean, come on! If that doesn't confirm that Jones is wrong about herself in regards to her feelings, I dunno what will. Jones isn't a human, so even if she does feel something and shows this, it still may be just an imitation: there's no reason why it must be in any way wired to body language. Other than that - methinks, she have fun with playing a black box. If no one can reach her etherically and directly observe what's going on, "taking an easy way" via telepathic/empathic talents is useless - her black box is completely unbreakable. Maybe playing such mind games is why Surma disliked her?.. Or maybe because it's impossible to argue with Jones.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Dec 7, 2012 18:57:06 GMT
How exactly does this page confirm that Annie is the new Court Medium?
All I see is Jones stating that "You are important to the Court, but their patience will only stretch so far," and "Things will be changing for you shortly." Which is certainly consistent with the hypothesis that Annie has been selected as the new medium, but doesn't strike me as conclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasmijn on Dec 7, 2012 21:23:27 GMT
All I see is Jones stating that "You are important to the Court, but their patience will only stretch so far," and "Things will be changing for you shortly." Which is certainly consistent with the hypothesis that Annie has been selected as the new medium, but doesn't strike me as conclusive. Exactly. Something like this would be weak (well, mid-range) evidence in favour of this hypothesis, but Tom being Tom, I'd say it might count as evidence if favour of the "Annie's not the one" hypothesis, also known as the "Bluh bluh huge bitch" hypothesis. |
|
|
|
Post by aeturnum on Dec 7, 2012 22:01:09 GMT
I wonder what the significance is of Jeane in the last panel. My guess is that Jeane is a "horror of mankind" given form by the ether, at least in Annie's mind. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 7, 2012 22:47:40 GMT
I wonder what the significance is of Jeane in the last panel. My guess is that Jeane is a "horror of mankind" given form by the ether, at least in Annie's mind. and my guess is that Jeanne is dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Dec 7, 2012 23:17:28 GMT
I think that Tom simply meant, when he wrote that line of Jones', that not all etheric beings are as friendly as Renard and Mort, but that, since he's writing this comic on his own without an editor or beta-reader, he phrased it more ambiguously than he'd intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 7, 2012 23:32:50 GMT
"...all the horrors of mankind can be given form by the ether, they might not all be as agreeable as Renard or Mort". There are only two things "they" can refer to: 1. "the horrors of mankind"; 2. "form" given to these horrors. So either not all horrors are as agreeable as Renard or Mort, or not all forms of horrors are as agreeable as Renard or Mort. Either case, Renard and Mort are "horrors of mankind". That is what she says, regardless of what you think. What she says is "Not all the etheric beings spawned from the horrors of mankind are as agreeable as Renard and Mort are." While this can be interpreted to mean that Renard and Mort are "spawned from the horrors of mankind", Jones does not explicitly label them as such. you choose the "forms of horrors of mankind" it seems, which is not obvious because it could be also the "horrors of mankind" - but even then the exacte quote would be "all the etheric forms of horrors of mankind may not be as agreeable as Renard or Mort". And then, yes, they are referred to as horrors of mankind, explicitely because Renard and Mort are relevant; otherwise she could have as well said they are not as agreeable as icecream. I do not see what is so big a deal about this. Since when was it a surprise that demons and ghosts are horrors of mankind? |
|
quoodle
Full Member
Just a man on a planet
Posts: 168
|
Post by quoodle on Dec 7, 2012 23:46:40 GMT
"things will be changing for you shortly, and..."
Ok, what could this mean:
a) she will be the new medium - and she will be more closely tied to the court - and there's much danger there.
b) someone else will be the new medium - and so she'll just continue with her schoolwork. Not much of a change imho
c) She will be growing up and something will change - perhaps because she has fire elemental background, or something else we don't know.
Tom likes to foreshadow (which is why this comic is so fun) - so I doubt "C".
B doesn't sound likely as what could happen? A new math class? Yawn. Sword classes? dangerous, yes, but I don't think that's what Jonsey's talking about.
I think we're pretty sure she's the new medium.
Other thoughts:
- Coyote may have known somehow - which is why he summoned her quickly.
- The tension between representing the court, and her relationship with the forest creatures will surely cause tension and help the story.
- As the medium - it seems a future confrontation with Jeanne will be less a teenage "prank and more endangering her position with the court.
I'm glad she has friends to rely on - this is going to be a rocky ride.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 7, 2012 23:50:09 GMT
you choose the "forms of horrors of mankind" it seems, which is not obvious because it could be also the "horrors of mankind" - but even then the exacte quote would be "all the etheric forms of horrors of mankind may not be as agreeable as Renard or Mort". And then, yes, they are referred to as horrors of mankind, explicitely because Renard and Mort are relevant; otherwise she could have as well said they are not as agreeable as icecream. I do not see what is so big a deal about this. Since when was it a surprise that demons and ghosts are horrors of mankind? She could have. She could have also said they were "not as agreeable as Kat". The sentence would still have been valid, and the same message (that there's dangerous stuff out there) would have been carried across. The big deal is that you're reading into Jones' words something that may or may not be there, and saying that it's "explicit". Regardless of whether or not Renard and Mort are "forms of the horrors of mankind", the message isn't about them. They may be so, or maybe not. But either way, Jones is certainly not explicitly saying they are. At most she is implicitly saying so. If you insist on saying it's explicit, I'll go get a dictionary. |
|
|
|
Post by Max on Dec 8, 2012 2:00:59 GMT
All I see is Jones stating that "You are important to the Court, but their patience will only stretch so far," and "Things will be changing for you shortly." Which is certainly consistent with the hypothesis that Annie has been selected as the new medium, but doesn't strike me as conclusive. Exactly. Something like this would be weak (well, mid-range) evidence in favour of this hypothesis, but Tom being Tom, I'd say it might count as evidence if favour of the "Annie's not the one" hypothesis, also known as the "Bluh bluh huge bitch" hypothesis. I wonder if they turned her down as medium but have other plans for her. |
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Dec 8, 2012 2:27:32 GMT
"things will be changing for you shortly, and..." Ok, what could this mean: a) she will be the new medium - and she will be more closely tied to the court - and there's much danger there. b) someone else will be the new medium - and so she'll just continue with her schoolwork. Not much of a change imho c) She will be growing up and something will change - perhaps because she has fire elemental background, or something else we don't know. Regarding (b): if Parley rather than Annie is chosen as the new Medium, then things will still change for Annie because she'll no longer have the Medium training courses, and the Court will probably stop giving her so much leeway. |
|
|
|
Post by Max on Dec 8, 2012 6:55:59 GMT
Regarding (b): if Parley rather than Annie is chosen as the new Medium, then things will still change for Annie because she'll no longer have the Medium training courses, and the Court will probably stop giving her so much leeway. Mmm, I like this. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 8, 2012 10:26:06 GMT
you choose the "forms of horrors of mankind" it seems, which is not obvious because it could be also the "horrors of mankind" - but even then the exacte quote would be "all the etheric forms of horrors of mankind may not be as agreeable as Renard or Mort". And then, yes, they are referred to as horrors of mankind, explicitely because Renard and Mort are relevant; otherwise she could have as well said they are not as agreeable as icecream. I do not see what is so big a deal about this. Since when was it a surprise that demons and ghosts are horrors of mankind? She could have. She could have also said they were "not as agreeable as Kat". The sentence would still have been valid, and the same message (that there's dangerous stuff out there) would have been carried across. The big deal is that you're reading into Jones' words something that may or may not be there, and saying that it's "explicit". Regardless of whether or not Renard and Mort are "forms of the horrors of mankind", the message isn't about them. They may be so, or maybe not. But either way, Jones is certainly not explicitly saying they are. At most she is implicitly saying so. If you insist on saying it's explicit, I'll go get a dictionary. It appears to me that your concept of explicit is "what is direct object of the sentence". But it is a different thing what becomes explicitly clear in it, that includes things that you call implicit, i.e. what is said in the sentence to form the point about its direct object - and it is not "at most" but "at least" implicitly. And that is your claim when you say that she does not mean to refer to Renard and Mort as horrors of mankind. Because she does even if the sentence is about the other horrors of mankind being less agreeable than Renard and Mort. She does not say that Renard and Mort are horrors of mankind, directly, but she does refer to them as horrors of mankind when comparing them to other horrors. And there is no way around it. You cannot possibly say it is same sentence if you say "not all horrors of mankind are as agreeable as ice cream". It is not, it is grammatically a correct sentence but is almost non-sensical and pragmatically is non-sensical and does in no way carry the same sense as saying that all horrors are not as agreeable as Mort and Renard. Or, to put it in other words, it would imply that icecream (or Kat for that matter) is sensible in that context, which it is not. It is as if I said "not all cars are as fast as your trousers" instead of saying "not all cars are as fast as yours". You get the point? You can change the words, but the sentence gets syntactically moronic. If she had said, "Annie, not all the horrors of mankind are as agreeable as Kat" it would have implied, without doubt, that Kat is considered as a horror of mankind, or that Jones is making no sense with her comparison, and Aniie probably would stop listening at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 8, 2012 10:27:20 GMT
"things will be changing for you shortly, and..." Ok, what could this mean: a) she will be the new medium - and she will be more closely tied to the court - and there's much danger there. b) someone else will be the new medium - and so she'll just continue with her schoolwork. Not much of a change imho c) She will be growing up and something will change - perhaps because she has fire elemental background, or something else we don't know. Regarding (b): if Parley rather than Annie is chosen as the new Medium, then things will still change for Annie because she'll no longer have the Medium training courses, and the Court will probably stop giving her so much leeway. Oh yeah, what a huge change, and making things reeeaaally dangerous for her. What is the point of warning her of the etheric horrors if she is no longer going to meet them? And about Parley being the most neutral and levelheaded of the three, I think she is the least: www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=388 |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Dec 8, 2012 12:33:12 GMT
I still think that the simplest explanation of this sentence is that Tom unwittingly phrased it in a misleading way, and that if a beta-reader had pointed it out, he'd have written it differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 8, 2012 14:34:23 GMT
It appears to me that your concept of explicit is "what is direct object of the sentence". But it is a different thing what becomes explicitly clear in it, that includes things that you call implicit, i.e. what is said in the sentence to form the point about its direct object - and it is not "at most" but "at least" implicitly. I warned you... dictionary.reference.com/browse/explicitdictionary.reference.com/browse/implicitdictionary.reference.com/browse/impliedIt is not simply my definition, it is the definition. You said it yourself: Therefore, by definition it is not explicit. You cannot possibly say it is same sentence if you say "not all horrors of mankind are as agreeable as ice cream". It is not, it is grammatically a correct sentence but is almost non-sensical and pragmatically is non-sensical and does in no way carry the same sense as saying that all horrors are not as agreeable as Mort and Renard. It is a grammatically correct sentence. Unusual, but still grammatically correct. "Agreeable" is a quality that may be applied to "Ice Cream", is it not? A comparison between how "Agreeable" "Ice Cream" is and how "Agreeable" any other subject that could be considered "Agreeable" is therefore is possible. And while the two sentences you are comparing have subtly different implications, they are identical in all important aspects. The purpose of the sentence was to inform Annie that there are dangerous etheric beings out there. Regardless of whether they are being compared to Mort, Renard, and/or Ice Cream, that same meaning is carried across. Or, to put it in other words, it would imply that icecream (or Kat for that matter) is sensible in that context, which it is not. It is as if I said "not all cars are as fast as your trousers" instead of saying "not all cars are as fast as yours". You get the point? The difference is, while "Agreeable" is a quality that could be applied to "Ice Cream" or "Kat", "Fast" is not a quality that can be applied to "Your Trousers". Now, if I had said "Not all cars are as fast as Superman", that would also be a valid sentence. But does it imply that Superman is a type of car? No. Similar sentences include "Not all cars are as fast as lightning, or the Higgs-Boson, or the local Judicial System." Granted, most of those are not just a little bit silly, but they are all syntactically valid sentences. You can change the words, but the sentence gets syntactically moronic. If she had said, "Annie, not all the horrors of mankind are as agreeable as Kat" it would have implied, without doubt, that Kat is considered as a horror of mankind, or that Jones is making no sense with her comparison, and Aniie probably would stop listening at that point. Moronic, possibly; invalid, no. It is by no means unambiguous what Jones is implying. If Annie had a problem with the implications of Jones' words, she could point it out and Jones would clarify exactly what she meant. Remember, not even Jones has the time to thoroughly think out every possible interpretation of every word they speak. Jones (and for that matter, Tom) isn't infallible. I still think that the simplest explanation of this sentence is that Tom unwittingly phrased it in a misleading way, and that if a beta-reader had pointed it out, he'd have written it differently. This. This is the point I've been trying to get across. It could be that Jones means exactly what she is implying, but a slip of the tongue (or pen, since Tom's writing it) is the simplest explanation. As such, until this is clarified (either by Jones or Tom) this reasoning is supported by Occam's Razor. |
|
|
|
Post by Georgie L on Dec 8, 2012 16:28:19 GMT
i wonder if she is the embody of something, jeanne that is. like she is Hate. confirmed, she is all that is left of a dead woman named jeanne, her heart withered away and her hate became solid and all that was left. she died and we did nothing.This. This is the point I've been trying to get across. It could be that Jones means exactly what she is implying, but a slip of the tongue (or pen, since Tom's writing it) is the simplest explanation. As such, until this is clarified (either by Jones or Tom) this reasoning is supported by Occam's Razor. You need to read up on Occam's Razor. The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "The simplest theory is the best." This is not correct in Real Life unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that all the data is accounted for. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OccamsRazor |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 8, 2012 16:36:41 GMT
I cut it here. I explained you the difference between explicit object of sentence and its explicit meaning. You do not have to bring dictionary, I know it myself, moreover you gain nothing with it, because there's just so much that you cannot learn from a dictionary. Your own claim does not concern the slightest bit the direct object of the sentence, but the explicit meaning of the sentence. The definition of "explicit" is "stated clearly and precisely", and Jones clearly and precisely, if you read her to her word, states that Mort and Renard are etheric forms of horrors of mankind even though the explicit object of her sentence is the "etheric forms of the horrors of mankind". ...Oh, I see you noticed Ocham's Razor. In fact, it obviously supports the claim that is given directly in the word, because there is nothing that we should further explain by accepting the word as it was, there is nothing that we need to further suppose to accept that Mort and Renard are etheric forms of horrors of mankind; instead you go towards an absolutely more proof-demanding claim that Tom simply is saying things other than what he means. Unless Tom says "oh, I didn't mean that", then by Ocham's Razor we accept the solution that less needs further suppositions, which is that he meant it. You make an extremely affirmative claim when you say Jones does not mean Renard and Mort are etheric forms of horrors of mankind. Tom not meaning that I once more say this: there is no problem whatsoever with Mort and Renard being etheric forms of horrors of mankind, rather they are that by definition. |
|
Ender
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by Ender on Dec 8, 2012 19:43:09 GMT
I think that Tom simply meant, when he wrote that line of Jones', that not all etheric beings are as friendly as Renard and Mort, but that, since he's writing this comic on his own without an editor or beta-reader, he phrased it more ambiguously than he'd intended. This. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 9, 2012 2:29:41 GMT
You need to read up on Occam's Razor. The Razor is commonly misinterpreted as saying, "The simplest theory is the best." This is not correct in Real Life unless it is the simpler of two theories which make predictions with identical degrees of accuracy. All other aspects of the theory have to be equal before simplicity is taken into account. It also requires that all the data is accounted for. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OccamsRazorThe data is Jones' words. The theories are "Jones is deliberately implying that Mort and Renard are spawned from the horrors of mankind" and "Jones misspoke/Tom messed up". Both theories account for all the data. Accuracy of predictions is not really applicable here. But you're right, it's not quite right to apply Occam's Razor here. But it's close enough: The former theory requires that "Jones believes Renard and Mort are spawned from the horrors of mankind". However, it has not even been shown if Jones agrees with Coyote's Theory or not. The latter theory only requires that Jones and/or Tom be fallible, and we know that both of them are. The former theory requires us to assume something which has not yet been shown to be true, yet the latter does not. Therefore, the latter theory should be favored. I cut it here. I explained you the difference between explicit object of sentence and its explicit meaning. You do not have to bring dictionary, I know it myself, moreover you gain nothing with it, because there's just so much that you cannot learn from a dictionary. Your own claim does not concern the slightest bit the direct object of the sentence, but the explicit meaning of the sentence. The definition of "explicit" is "stated clearly and precisely", and Jones clearly and precisely, if you read her to her word, states that Mort and Renard are etheric forms of horrors of mankind even though the explicit object of her sentence is the "etheric forms of the horrors of mankind". She does not. Did you not even read the rest of my post? She is in no way explicitly labeling them as such. Sure, it's implied that they are, but that is not the same thing. It would be explicit if she had said "not all of them will be as agreeable as others, such as Renard and Mort." But as it is now, it is certainly not explicit. Tom not meaning that I once more say this: there is no problem whatsoever with Mort and Renard being etheric forms of horrors of mankind, rather they are that by definition. Of course not. I have no problems at all with this concept. What I have a problem with is you insisting that they are being explicitly labeled as such by this sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Dec 9, 2012 8:01:42 GMT
Nnelg and Zimmyzims make me think of two titans fighting over a peanut. Completely pointless, but funny as hell to watch.
And now that I think about it, it's more like a titan fighting a god, since Nnelg is beating the crappy out of Zimmyzims, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 9, 2012 10:06:00 GMT
You can change the words, but the sentence gets syntactically moronic. If she had said, "Annie, not all the horrors of mankind are as agreeable as Kat" it would have implied, without doubt, that Kat is considered as a horror of mankind, or that Jones is making no sense with her comparison, and Aniie probably would stop listening at that point. No, it would have meant forumites are about to jump on this image - no more, no less. ;D Because you failed to prove there are no possibilities other than those you considered. E.g. if you're into practical use of the language, a comparison with something that belongs to an implied set which includes "horrors of mankind" would not be completely random. The data is Jones' words. The theories are "Jones is deliberately implying that Mort and Renard are spawned from the horrors of mankind" and "Jones misspoke/Tom messed up". Both theories account for all the data. Or both. Or neither. Simply taking two theories as "it must be either A or B" without proving this is the sort of logic best reserved for politicians. Example: "My esteemed opponent either drives while drunk or eats babies".  And then there's... |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 9, 2012 12:50:54 GMT
Or both. Or neither. Simply taking two theories as "it must be either A or B" without proving this is the sort of logic best reserved for politicians. Example: "My esteemed opponent either drives while drunk or eats babies". And then there's...Well, feel free to suggest a theory C, then. But really, it is either one or the other. Either Jones/Tom intentionally implied Mort and Renard are spawned from the horrors of mankind, or that was unintentional. The choice isn't between A and B, but between A and ¬A. Unless you wish to argue that Jones' words do not even unintentionally imply that. Good luck with that one.  |
|
Søren
Junior Member
Pursuing Authenticity
Posts: 78
|
Post by Søren on Dec 9, 2012 20:35:20 GMT
Example: "My esteemed opponent either drives while drunk or eats babies". Ah yes, the old black and white fallacy. One of many classics.  |
|
|
|
Post by stef1987 on Dec 13, 2012 22:08:25 GMT
"If Coyote is correct, then all vegetables are edible,
they might not all be as tasty as ice cream though."I now explicitely stated ice cream is a vegetable, ... or atleast implied it, I'm still not sure, it's an ongooing discussion.  (get it?) (to me, the only thing Jonesy implied, was that Renard and Mort are given form by the ether.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Dec 14, 2012 7:25:46 GMT
I now explicitely stated ice cream is a vegetable, ... or atleast implied it, I'm still not sure, it's an ongooing discussion. Your words do imply such. They also demonstrate the difference between implicit and explicit labeling. (to me, the only thing Jonesy implied, was that Renard and Mort are given form by the ether.) I agree that's the only thing Jones deliberately implied, but even then only on the condition that Coyote's theory was correct. |
|
