|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Dec 6, 2013 18:03:11 GMT
Also, has Tom ever said how long this entire story is going to be? Nope. But it definitely has an ending. In the past people have speculated that we had passed the halfway point at this or that page, but we won't know until it's done. I'd estimate another few years of updates. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 18:40:28 GMT
I don't think that Jeanne is endgame at all. I'd say it's the end of the beginning, though. If I'm right, Tom's in for the long haul, and I fully expect to keep reading for the next decade.
(don't let me down mr siddell. please don't let me down.)
|
|
|
|
Post by asyetunnamed on Dec 6, 2013 19:26:23 GMT
In the past people have speculated that we had passed the halfway point at this or that page, but we won't know until it's done. I'd estimate another few years of updates. Well, unless I've missed one, this school year currently stands at about 400 pages (2.5 real years?). I'd guess that we are a little before half way (I think that we are still in year 9) and have until Tom cannot produce the comic or another decade of updates. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Dec 6, 2013 19:36:02 GMT
Well, unless I've missed one, this school year currently stands at about 400 pages (2.5 real years?). I'd guess that we are a little before half way (I think that we are still in year 9) and have until Tom cannot produce the comic or another decade of updates. That's only assuming that each school year has consistent length in the comic, that there are going to be no timeskips and that the comic does in fact end in graduation. All of these are pretty big ifs. Gunnerkrigg Court isn't Harry Potter where each school year is a self-contained adventure, after all. Originally Tom's idea was to make each paper volume match one school year, but he ditched that idea because his stories just don't fit in that kind of clear cut pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 6, 2013 20:20:05 GMT
Well, unless I've missed one, this school year currently stands at about 400 pages (2.5 real years?). I'd guess that we are a little before half way (I think that we are still in year 9) and have until Tom cannot produce the comic or another decade of updates. That's only assuming that each school year has consistent length in the comic, that there are going to be no timeskips and that the comic does in fact end in graduation. All of these are pretty big ifs. Gunnerkrigg Court isn't Harry Potter where each school year is a self-contained adventure, after all. Originally Tom's idea was to make each paper volume match one school year, but he ditched that idea because his stories just don't fit in that kind of clear cut pattern. Besides, if the Court's all but destroyed, how can there be school years? And with Kat as Robot Goddess Lady of Metallic Heart and Wing, and Annie's the Forest Medium Turned Coyote's Second, I don't seem them graduating any time soon. Beside all that, I don't really think that GC is a school that one leaves after graduating. (Notable and suspicious exception: Anthony) |
|
|
|
Post by thomassauce on Dec 7, 2013 16:18:58 GMT
Been a long time since I last visited, and I have to say this is a really cool theory. It seems to fit well. If this theory holds up and truth, then I am interested as to what happened with her eyes (or rather, the whole right of her face). gunnerkrigg.com//?p=1049 |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 7, 2013 16:40:57 GMT
Yeah... Wouldn't her eyelashes droop?
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 16:57:32 GMT
Been a long time since I last visited, and I have to say this is a really cool theory. It seems to fit well. If this theory holds up and truth, then I am interested as to what happened with her eyes (or rather, the whole right of her face). gunnerkrigg.com//?p=1049Yeeeah, I'm EDIT: *not* really sure what part of what I'm looking at, or if it's even realistic to call some part of our Zimmyvision a 'body part'. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Dec 7, 2013 17:54:56 GMT
If this theory holds up and truth, then I am interested as to what happened with her eyes (or rather, the whole right of her face). gunnerkrigg.com//?p=1049Oh wow, there's a huge crack. Never noticed that before! |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 7, 2013 18:09:52 GMT
If this theory holds up and truth, then I am interested as to what happened with her eyes (or rather, the whole right of her face). gunnerkrigg.com//?p=1049Oh wow, there's a huge crack. Never noticed that before! Wow. I never saw that. Heeeey, if she loses an arm to Coyote's Bind, a 'tyrant less an arm and an eye'? |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Dec 7, 2013 18:22:44 GMT
Friends bitterly opposing each other, leading to mutual destruction, is something that I would not describe as beautiful or heartwrenching under any circumstance. Go read Hamlet, half of Shakespeare's other tragedies, significant chunks of ancient Greek tragedy, or most of the stuff ever written about King Arthur. Heck, half of the literary power of works about the American Civil War is a result of this trope; brothers (former military comrades or actual brothers) facing each other across battle-lines happened a LOT in that war. This sort of writing is almost (not quite, but almost) the definition of classic tragedy. Just because I, personally (or modern society as a whole), prefer happy endings does not mean that this is not a beautiful and heartwrenching, katharsis-creating style of writing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2013 18:56:13 GMT
Mundane acts of cruelty do not become beautiful by declaring them a story. Nor do I like »heartwrenching«, sentimental books. The story of Lolita, for instance, is emphatically not beautiful, nor are Humbert's florid, weasely descriptions and Romantic attempts to style himself a tragic hero. Not bearing any understanding of Greek tragedy, he assumes Fate to be a counterpart to the hero, dispensing punishment and reward on a whim. Therefore the inscrutable oddities of the world around him remain inaccessible to him: he fits them into his categorical idealism and does not explore their nature, which is really quite independent of him and his alleged story.
In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet.
I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Dec 11, 2013 8:16:52 GMT
Mundane acts of cruelty do not become beautiful by declaring them a story. Nor do I like »heartwrenching«, sentimental books. The story of Lolita, for instance, is emphatically not beautiful, nor are Humbert's florid, weasely descriptions and Romantic attempts to style himself a tragic hero. Not bearing any understanding of Greek tragedy, he assumes Fate to be a counterpart to the hero, dispensing punishment and reward on a whim. Therefore the inscrutable oddities of the world around him remain inaccessible to him: he fits them into his categorical idealism and does not explore their nature, which is really quite independent of him and his alleged story. In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet. I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though. Apologies for the patronization. It was late and I was tired. I still disagree with you, but I am impressed with your knowledge of literature. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 11, 2013 8:42:41 GMT
I don't think that Jeanne is endgame at all. I'd say it's the end of the beginning, though. If I'm right, Tom's in for the long haul, and I fully expect to keep reading for the next decade. (don't let me down mr siddell. please don't let me down.) I also think it would be a bit odd if she was. She's not half that central, and anyway, what would be the point of her being "endgame"? What would this story be about then? I think she is very remarkable side character who has a role to play in the big scene, but this is not a story about Annie winning Jeanne. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 11, 2013 9:04:02 GMT
Mundane acts of cruelty do not become beautiful by declaring them a story. Nor do I like »heartwrenching«, sentimental books. The story of Lolita, for instance, is emphatically not beautiful, nor are Humbert's florid, weasely descriptions and Romantic attempts to style himself a tragic hero. Not bearing any understanding of Greek tragedy, he assumes Fate to be a counterpart to the hero, dispensing punishment and reward on a whim. Therefore the inscrutable oddities of the world around him remain inaccessible to him: he fits them into his categorical idealism and does not explore their nature, which is really quite independent of him and his alleged story. In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet. I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though. Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Dec 11, 2013 9:22:48 GMT
Mundane acts of cruelty do not become beautiful by declaring them a story. Nor do I like »heartwrenching«, sentimental books. The story of Lolita, for instance, is emphatically not beautiful, nor are Humbert's florid, weasely descriptions and Romantic attempts to style himself a tragic hero. Not bearing any understanding of Greek tragedy, he assumes Fate to be a counterpart to the hero, dispensing punishment and reward on a whim. Therefore the inscrutable oddities of the world around him remain inaccessible to him: he fits them into his categorical idealism and does not explore their nature, which is really quite independent of him and his alleged story. In the tragedies of Sophocles, the struggle is not between character and character, but between individual desire and fate. In Greek drama, fate alone triumphs, whether the characters accept or resist it. Acceptance turns one into an instrument of inexplicable purpose, and to do this, one must surrender one's will to improve upon the natural order of fate. Resistance, however, forces one to develop a code of distinction (good—bad, right—wrong) to gauge one's success. Invariably, the tragic hero will be deceived by their morality because of its orderliness, which fails to capture important details of its contants. Oedipus, for instance, despite solving the riddle of the Sphinx about »human nature«, cannot know his own mistakes — he wants to marry a beautiful woman, and chooses his own mother (unknowingly); he wants to assert his dominance and defend his right of way, but thereby kills his own father (unknowingly). Creon, imagining the ideal state, abuses his political power to enforce his personal will, revealing the flaw in his thinking. Neither the acceptance nor the resistance of fate lead to the improvement of the characters' situation. There is no right thing to do, since neither desire nor fate can be relinquished until one's inevitable death. This is all too familiar, and it seems to me that the fascination of tragedies (and comedies) comes not from the story, which matters very little in literature (Queneau proves this), but from the viewpoint of the audience, which mimics the impartial stance of fate for the duration of the play, and allows them to design the world around the characters. This imaginative game of self-reflection and self-indulgence is stimulated less by the story, and much more by the oddities it features — the unclear semblance of a world around the characters. An example of such an oddity would be the ghost's armour in Hamlet. I'll go on later if you wish. I ask that you do not patronize me, though. Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate. Thank you zimmyzims. You managed to encapsulate several of my general objections to korba's characterization in a specific analysis of this story. Though I'm not entirely sure that I get the pokemon metaphor. In addition, in reference to korba's post, I recognize that fate is ultimately what the heroes struggle against. Yet sometimes through that they end up struggling against each other. I overstated it as being "the definition of classical tragedy," but I feel like it's still an important element in the struggle against fate. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Dec 11, 2013 9:34:23 GMT
Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate. Thank you zimmyzims. You managed to encapsulate several of my general objections to korba's characterization in a specific analysis of this story. Though I'm not entirely sure that I get the pokemon metaphor. In addition, in reference to korba's post, I recognize that fate is ultimately what the heroes struggle against. Yet sometimes through that they end up struggling against each other. I overstated it as being "the definition of classical tragedy," but I feel like it's still an important element in the struggle against fate. It may be because I know very close to nothing about pokemon, so the metaphor may just be a complete miss. What I meant is that mundane acts of cruelty in a fight between characters and not fate makes me think of these animations where two or more characters are set to battle each other for no reason. And what I know of pokemon, which equals pretty much what I have read from this webcomic/blog (that I find funny although I often am very sure I have no idea what they are talking about), it is all about that: characters arbitrarily put to battle each other. I still want to add that the thing about fate is, you can struggle, but as long as it is a fate, you will always lose. And Annie's and Kat's fate, according to me, leads them to fight each other. Of course, it can be something completely different, but as things stand, this is a very real possibility. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 14:57:12 GMT
Just a little point. I feel you are treating our prophecy as if it was some kind of pokemon. Try to see the role of fate in our visions, because it is a bit disrespectful to talk about our vision of the storyline as "mundane acts of cruelty". We talk about threads that draw Annie and Kat to opposite directions, both rising in power, both surpassing their limits, both victims of ruses that eventually turn out to demise of the villains who planned them; but also, eventually, leading Kat and Annie against each other in their hubris as they aim to the glory of what they love (rather than who they love), the excess growth of their sides being incompatible with each other, leading to mutual hatred of the side where the other one resides. And this leads to violence. There will be blood, because they are setting to crashing courses. That is no freaking pokemon. That is fate. In a work of art, the role of fate is assumed by the author first, and then the readers are allowed to share this viewpoint — like at the end of the Lusiads, where Vasco da Gama gets to see the Universal Machine. (Why this happens to Vasco da Gama of all people, I don't know.) The power of the readers to influence fate, however, is limited to constructing where the text omits something. That's still much more freedom than the characters get. It is not your imagination, but the unnecessary clash of friends over flawed categories, that I don't see as beautiful. To actually address the comic I should be discussing, the division between the Court and the Forest is artificial and was created by something that doesn't even exist when it's not being paid attention to. Thank you zimmyzims. You managed to encapsulate several of my general objections to korba's characterization in a specific analysis of this story. Though I'm not entirely sure that I get the pokemon metaphor. In addition, in reference to korba's post, I recognize that fate is ultimately what the heroes struggle against. Yet sometimes through that they end up struggling against each other. I overstated it as being "the definition of classical tragedy," but I feel like it's still an important element in the struggle against fate. You're right: the conflict between characters is indeed an expression of fate (as is everything else they do), yet conflict need not lead to mutual destruction. Comedy involves exactly the same struggle, where those characters resistant to fate develop an orderly set of morals. In Much Ado About Nothing, Benedick and Beatrice also struggle against fate, and their idealism fails to save them, but the difference lies in the characters' judgment of the outcome. Bonne chance with your Chinese, by the way. It may be because I know very close to nothing about pokemon, so the metaphor may just be a complete miss. What I meant is that mundane acts of cruelty in a fight between characters and not fate makes me think of these animations where two or more characters are set to battle each other for no reason. And what I know of pokemon, which equals pretty much what I have read from this webcomic/blog (that I find funny although I often am very sure I have no idea what they are talking about), it is all about that: characters arbitrarily put to battle each other. The characters in Pokemon all fight because they want to be the very best, like no one ever was. That's as good or arbitrary a reason to fight as any other. If you meant to say that I Tackled anyone's opinion purely to flaunt my Ultra Balls; that's not what I'm after. That's what I wrote as well; fate alone triumphs. We're also not disagreeing on what may happen: The names of Annie and Kat themselves seem to be opposed to each other. Attic Greek »ana« means »upward« or »land-inward«, as in »Anabasis«; »kata« means »downward« or »land-outward« (but it can also mean »according to« as in »the Gospel according to John«, for example). I'm not criticizing that you see this possibility, but rather the notion of viewing the end of such friendships — or the resistance to such a break-up — as tragically beautiful, or justified through art, because the beauty lies in something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightwind on Dec 11, 2013 15:33:37 GMT
I'm not criticizing that you see this possibility, but rather the notion of viewing the end of such friendships — or the resistance to such a break-up — as tragically beautiful, or justified through art, because the beauty lies in something else. This may be overused, but doesn't beauty lie in the eye of the beholder? Do you really denounce someone's subjective view on beauty or did I misunderstand you terribly? |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 11, 2013 16:10:29 GMT
I'm not criticizing that you see this possibility, but rather the notion of viewing the end of such friendships — or the resistance to such a break-up — as tragically beautiful, or justified through art, because the beauty lies in something else. This may be overused, but doesn't beauty lie in the eye of the beholder? Do you really denounce someone's subjective view on beauty or did I misunderstand you terribly? ...challenge being announced...? |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 11, 2013 16:35:45 GMT
This may be overused, but doesn't beauty lie in the eye of the beholder? Do you really denounce someone's subjective view on beauty or did I misunderstand you terribly? ...challenge being announced...? ABANDON THREAD. |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Dec 11, 2013 16:46:03 GMT
...challenge being announced...? ABANDON THREAD. PREPARE FOR 10PAGES OF DEBATE. |
|
|
|
Post by thshrkpnchr on Dec 11, 2013 16:48:45 GMT
...challenge being announced...? ABANDON THREAD. PULL THE SELF-DESTRUCT LEVER. zimmyhoo, the new text looks way neater! But the sig Veggie game link is wrong though... should remove the /gunnerkrigg in the url. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Dec 11, 2013 16:53:03 GMT
PREPARE FOR 10PAGES OF DEBATE. No!! Not my precious theorypost! Have mercy! |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 11, 2013 17:11:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Dec 11, 2013 17:12:08 GMT
PULL THE SELF-DESTRUCT LEVER. zimmyhoo, the new text looks way neater! But the sig Veggie game link is wrong though... should remove the /gunnerkrigg in the url. Thanks, will fix. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Dec 11, 2013 17:18:23 GMT
For what it's worth:
I don't believe for a moment that Kat an Annie's friendship will end over a split between the Forest and the Court.
At this point in the story, I also don't believe for a minute that they will not end up in conflict if there is a split between the Forest and Court.
I can't see this story going into 'utter destruction.' The story too whimsical and as too many innocent, heartwarming moments for that. I don't believe those are just there to set us up for the fall. Rather, I believe they're there to show us that the good, innocent things are worth fighting for. c.f. Jeanne and Parley
I...I don't know what thread that goes in any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Dec 11, 2013 18:47:03 GMT
I think that between them, Annie, Kat, Robot, and Shadow (and the others in their circle) will bring about a new way for the Court and the Forest to relate to each other. Right now, the powers-that-be on either side appear to hold each other in contempt, Court vs Forest, magic vs technology, Donny and Anja being outliers (maybe there are more?). I personally think endgame is about turning that 'versus' into an 'and' while still leaving separate entities. And maaaaybe Robot tricks Kat into connecting the robots to the ether (the crackier theories are my favorite).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Dec 11, 2013 21:47:49 GMT
For what it's worth: I don't believe for a moment that Kat an Annie's friendship will end over a split between the Forest and the Court. At this point in the story, I also don't believe for a minute that they will not end up in conflict if there is a split between the Forest and Court. I can't see this story going into 'utter destruction.' The story too whimsical and as too many innocent, heartwarming moments for that. I don't believe those are just there to set us up for the fall. Rather, I believe they're there to show us that the good, innocent things are worth fighting for. c.f. Jeanne and Parley I...I don't know what thread that goes in any more. I totally agree with that, with the added point that I think things are going to get worse before they get better. I predict that Annie and Kat will still be friends when the comic is over, but it's looking more and more likely that there will be a major falling-out between them, and it will be followed by sweet, sweet reconciliation. |
|
piat
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by piat on Dec 12, 2013 4:09:56 GMT
What if Jones and Coyote are the players? Kings are Annie and Headmaster, and queens are Ysengrin and Kat. I like that, you are really thinking out of the boxes here |
|
