|
|
Post by todd on Feb 18, 2014 11:49:19 GMT
Tom probably made up Lamet rather than kill off a "real" death-god. (I remember a children's television series many years ago where a brother and sister were able to visit various myths and legends - and had to do so to stop an evil trickster god from corrupting or destroying them. While almost all the legends they visited were real ones - the first one, for example, was that of Theseus and the Minotaur - one episode had the trickster-god succeed in destroying an entire mythology, one specially invented by the production team so as not to have a real mythology irrevocably erased from existence. Tom was probably using a similar approach.)
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Feb 18, 2014 12:32:14 GMT
So guy in the previous page was Lamet? If the guy in the previous page was Lamet, RobeGuy would not have described it as happening the day Lamet was lost. So the guy was some random hunter. Lamet (whom we've found NOTHING about anywhere else - Wikipedia has it as the name of an ethnic group in Southeast Asia, not as the name of any sort of supernatural being) probably came either for him or for the creature he was hunting that fell into the Gap. It makes more sense that the last guy was Lamet, all the other creatures were saying how fast she was, how they didn't have a chance. Only the last one talked about Jeanne herself, how she didn't distinguish between friend or foe. Which would make sense if he was Lamet, the phsychopomp, who would consider themselves as trying to help Jeanne, and being surprised she attacked and killed them. If that guy was just a random hunter, why would he talk about friends and foes? |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyhoo on Feb 18, 2014 13:01:33 GMT
If the guy in the previous page was Lamet, RobeGuy would not have described it as happening the day Lamet was lost. So the guy was some random hunter. Lamet (whom we've found NOTHING about anywhere else - Wikipedia has it as the name of an ethnic group in Southeast Asia, not as the name of any sort of supernatural being) probably came either for him or for the creature he was hunting that fell into the Gap. It makes more sense that the last guy was Lamet, all the other creatures were saying how fast she was, how they didn't have a chance. Only the last one talked about Jeanne herself, how she didn't distinguish between friend or foe. Which would make sense if he was Lamet, the phsychopomp, who would consider themselves as trying to help Jeanne, and being surprised she attacked and killed them. If that guy was just a random hunter, why would he talk about friends and foes? I agree. I've felt we've been putting way too much thought into a panel that has one purpose, IMO, to demonstrate that Jeanne will kill 'friend or foe' - and that she's not going to be lettin these guys free her until they take her out. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Feb 18, 2014 14:01:13 GMT
If the guy in the previous page was Lamet, RobeGuy would not have described it as happening the day Lamet was lost. So the guy was some random hunter. Lamet (whom we've found NOTHING about anywhere else - Wikipedia has it as the name of an ethnic group in Southeast Asia, not as the name of any sort of supernatural being) probably came either for him or for the creature he was hunting that fell into the Gap. It makes more sense to me that the guy was Lamet. Why else would robe guy mention the name if it wasn't him? Also, he has red glowy eyes. Kind of unlikely for some random hunter. Psychopomps are significant figures, in many cases celebrities, in the Realm of the Dead. Would you watch a video of the assassination of President Kennedy, and then comment "That was particularly interesting. It was the same day we lost President Kennedy."? Probably not. If it was Lamet, then of course it was the same day they lost Lamet. And it being the same day would not be particularly interesting. It's bog standard for things to happen on the same day that they happen. These are not things a person would normally say. RobeGuy would have instead said "That last one was particularly interesting. We don't often lose a psychopomp.". Having one event brought to the foreground (e.g. by talking about it, or watching a video of/about it) and then mentioning that some other event happened the same day, is vastly more likely. And it implies that some possible connection between the events is seen - at least by the speaker, not necessarily by (or relevant to) anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by tustin2121 on Feb 18, 2014 14:21:18 GMT
It makes more sense to me that the guy was Lamet. Why else would robe guy mention the name if it wasn't him? Also, he has red glowy eyes. Kind of unlikely for some random hunter. Psychopomps are significant figures, in many cases celebrities, in the Realm of the Dead. Would you watch a video of the assassination of President Kennedy, and then comment "That was particularly interesting. It was the same day we lost President Kennedy."? Probably not. If it was Lamet, then of course it was the same day they lost Lamet. And it being the same day would not be particularly interesting. It's bog standard for things to happen on the same day that they happen. These are not things a person would normally say. RobeGuy would have instead said "That last one was particularly interesting. We don't often lose a psychopomp.". Having one event brought to the foreground (e.g. by talking about it, or watching a video of/about it) and then mentioning that some other event happened the same day, is vastly more likely. And it implies that some possible connection between the events is seen - at least by the speaker, not necessarily by (or relevant to) anyone else. Aaaaahhhhhh. So that's why everyone DOESN'T think it was the psychopomp himself in the video: the wording of RobeGuy's remark. Now I understand all the confusion and consternation around this. (I thought it was Lamat). Thanks for explaining that. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Feb 18, 2014 15:41:23 GMT
Second, both times, AFAIK, that Annie has encountered Jeanne it hasn't been in the real world (that's why the cut on her cheek only shows up when she's using the blinker stone). There could be a large degree of difference in confronting Jeanne physically and confronting her spiritually. Nope. The first time, Antimony was physically down by the Annan Waters, hanging out with the fairies. Yes, her body was down there, but her interaction with Jeanne clearly wasn't entirely physical- the cut she receives on her cheek disappears as soon as Kat shows up and Jeanne vanishes. What I'm guessing is that Jeanne can't completely cross the Aman river, just like Muut said, but due to her inexperience at using the blinker and the proximity to the woods, Annie somehow slipped into the spiritual world (is there a better word for this?) and got attacked by a portion of Jeanne's spirit. Sort of a Freddie-Krueger-esque scenario that ends when Kat appears. Frankly, it's the best reason I can think of for how Annie has survived TWO encounters with the invincible, ruthless, monster-slaying, murdergeist. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Feb 18, 2014 16:47:25 GMT
Aaaaahhhhhh. So that's why everyone DOESN'T think it was the psychopomp himself in the video: the wording of RobeGuy's remark. Now I understand all the confusion and consternation around this. (I thought it was Lamat). Thanks for explaining that. I'm convinced it is Lamet. I think Robesguy says his name to inform someone who would recognize the name, but not the face, of a particular psychopomp. He doesn't say "the same day Lamet was lost," he says "the day Lamet was lost." The difference is that the latter, as a lament, works perfectly well in the Zapruder film example above. "The day President Kennedy was lost." As always, IMO, YMMV, TTYL, BBQ |
|
|
|
Post by goldenknots on Feb 18, 2014 16:49:05 GMT
It makes more sense to me that the guy was Lamet. Why else would robe guy mention the name if it wasn't him? Also, he has red glowy eyes. Kind of unlikely for some random hunter. Yes, I'm at a loss to understand why anyone thinks otherwise. It seems obvious that "that last one" is the subject of the comment. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Feb 18, 2014 17:35:06 GMT
It makes more sense that the last guy was Lamet, all the other creatures were saying how fast she was, how they didn't have a chance. Only the last one talked about Jeanne herself, how she didn't distinguish between friend or foe. Which would make sense if he was Lamet, the phsychopomp, who would consider themselves as trying to help Jeanne, and being surprised she attacked and killed them. If that guy was just a random hunter, why would he talk about friends and foes? I agree. I've felt we've been putting way too much thought into a panel that has one purpose, IMO, to demonstrate that Jeanne will kill 'friend or foe' - and that she's not going to be lettin these guys free her until they take her out. That panel also informs us that she can quickly kill Anything and Anyone, regardless of how powerful they are or despite their immortality and supernatural ability. This is a critically important revelation as it leads to the realization that Parley doesn't dare try to fight Jeanne, even with Coyote's tooth and her Unsichtbarhau fighting technique. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Feb 18, 2014 17:41:04 GMT
It makes more sense to me that the guy was Lamet. Why else would robe guy mention the name if it wasn't him? Also, he has red glowy eyes. Kind of unlikely for some random hunter. Psychopomps are significant figures, in many cases celebrities, in the Realm of the Dead. Would you watch a video of the assassination of President Kennedy, and then comment "That was particularly interesting. It was the same day we lost President Kennedy."? No I wouldn't And that's not what RobesGuy said either. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 18, 2014 23:02:05 GMT
Maybe Tom meant it to be Lamet but unintentionally wrote the dialogue in such a way to suggest it wasn't. Remember, he's writing this on his own, without an editor or beta-reader. I've often found that something I've written came across misleading when a friend read it and interpreted it differently from what I'd intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Feb 19, 2014 2:51:16 GMT
Maybe Tom meant it to be Lamet but unintentionally wrote the dialogue in such a way to suggest it wasn't. Remember, he's writing this on his own, without an editor or beta-reader. I've often found that something I've written came across misleading when a friend read it and interpreted it differently from what I'd intended. Out of curiosity, how do we know that Tom has no editor? It's not particularly surprising, but I've just never heard anything one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Feb 19, 2014 7:37:58 GMT
Maybe Tom meant it to be Lamet but unintentionally wrote the dialogue in such a way to suggest it wasn't. Remember, he's writing this on his own, without an editor or beta-reader. I've often found that something I've written came across misleading when a friend read it and interpreted it differently from what I'd intended. i'd say this is a case of user error. to me and several other commentors, tom's writing seems perfectly clear; "the day lamet was lost" is meant to refer back to and expand upon "that last one". |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Feb 20, 2014 14:51:57 GMT
It makes more sense to me that the guy was Lamet. Why else would robe guy mention the name if it wasn't him? Also, he has red glowy eyes. Kind of unlikely for some random hunter. Yes, I'm at a loss to understand why anyone thinks otherwise. It seems obvious that "that last one" is the subject of the comment. So... this guy could only point out that Lamet was lost on the same day when he was lost, that what they just have seen is important because of what they just have seen, and that demise of a psychopomp is something unusual... because connecting anything else to it would not make sense? To rephrase Jeff Grubb - "if you have to redefine the basic ways in which a language is used to make your argument valid, your argument is not valid". Psychopomps are significant figures, in many cases celebrities, in the Realm of the Dead. Would you watch a video of the assassination of President Kennedy, and then comment "That was particularly interesting. It was the same day we lost President Kennedy."? Probably not. If it was Lamet, then of course it was the same day they lost Lamet. And it being the same day would not be particularly interesting. It's bog standard for things to happen on the same day that they happen. These are not things a person would normally say. RobeGuy would have instead said "That last one was particularly interesting. We don't often lose a psychopomp.". Having one event brought to the foreground (e.g. by talking about it, or watching a video of/about it) and then mentioning that some other event happened the same day, is vastly more likely. And it implies that some possible connection between the events is seen - at least by the speaker, not necessarily by (or relevant to) anyone else. Aaaaahhhhhh. So that's why everyone DOESN'T think it was the psychopomp himself in the video: the wording of RobeGuy's remark. Now I understand all the confusion and consternation around this. (I thought it was Lamat). Thanks for explaining that. What? It's possible for common sense to win against a bondwagon? My worldview is shattered!  |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Feb 20, 2014 18:08:31 GMT
imma just...
that last one, the day lamet was lost, is particularly interesting.
|
|
