|
|
Post by speedwell on Mar 21, 2015 18:25:04 GMT
Two things that occurred to me as I was reading the comic:
First, Anthony's obsession has been with rooting the non-human out of Surma and his daughter, and his daughter embraces it. The more she embraces it, the more he feels like she is a thing he doesn't understand and not his daughter. He may have held her at arm's length before, but now it seems he's deliberately creating a barrier between them. Fire = passion, after all, and what does he seem to fear most (unbridled emotion, you think)?
Second, he's discussing DNA and refusing to give the most interesting genetic specimen in the room a book for class. He has singled her out to be prepared for clean experimentation by removing her makeup. Of all the biological topics he knows, her genetic makeup is one that he has studied fervidly and likely has done original research on. Is she really intended to be a functioning part of the class, or does he intend to use her as a demonstration?
|
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Mar 21, 2015 18:45:06 GMT
(...) Of all the biological topics he knows, her genetic makeup is one that he has studied fervidly and likely has done original research on. Is she really intended to be a functioning part of the class, or does he intend to use her as a demonstration?Ugh, there is a chilling thought! Welcome to the class speedwell ! |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 19:07:14 GMT
Two things that occurred to me as I was reading the comic: First, Anthony's obsession has been with rooting the non-human out of Surma and his daughter, and his daughter embraces it. The more she embraces it, the more he feels like she is a thing he doesn't understand and not his daughter. He may have held her at arm's length before, but now it seems he's deliberately creating a barrier between them. Fire = passion, after all, and what does he seem to fear most (unbridled emotion, you think)? Second, he's discussing DNA and refusing to give the most interesting genetic specimen in the room a book for class. He has singled her out to be prepared for clean experimentation by removing her makeup. Of all the biological topics he knows, her genetic makeup is one that he has studied fervidly and likely has done original research on. Is she really intended to be a functioning part of the class, or does he intend to use her as a demonstration?This is the most horrifying first post I've ever seen. Genuinely, bravo. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 19:52:46 GMT
There's a huge difference between "it is not entirely impossible that it is x" and "it is x". That's my main point here. When judging the situation, you're assuming a lot of things you here say "are not entirely impossible", and what I say is we should suspend the judgment on most parts because we just lack information. That's what theories are for, though. Yup, what I'm saying is, hold your horses with your claims. One thing to propose possibilities, another to say they're clearly true. He could be well-intentioned, certainly, but that doesn't really matter. What matters are his actions. I think they are more human than some believe, but even if they are structured and planned, he's still abusing her and it doesn't alleviate the severity of his manipulative behavior at all. That's really all I care about. We could go on about what his reasoning is, that's fine, I have my opinions on the matter and others have their own, but at the core of it my main point is that he's detestable as a father and that's where my line is actually drawn. We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 19:56:44 GMT
Two things that occurred to me as I was reading the comic: First, Anthony's obsession has been with rooting the non-human out of Surma and his daughter, and his daughter embraces it. Do we actually know this? It has never been clearly stated in the actual comic, has it. It's only one of our favourite hypotheses of what happened in Divine. Second, he's discussing DNA and refusing to give the most interesting genetic specimen in the room a book for class. He has singled her out to be prepared for clean experimentation by removing her makeup. Of all the biological topics he knows, her genetic makeup is one that he has studied fervidly and likely has done original research on. Is she really intended to be a functioning part of the class, or does he intend to use her as a demonstration?A bit far fetched. A total nightmare, sure, but we're quite far from that still. And I'd wager we will be. If that really happens, I stop reading this comic. Edit: This was your first post? No wonder you had an urge to join the forum. Welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 20:04:55 GMT
He could be well-intentioned, certainly, but that doesn't really matter. What matters are his actions. I think they are more human than some believe, but even if they are structured and planned, he's still abusing her and it doesn't alleviate the severity of his manipulative behavior at all. That's really all I care about. We could go on about what his reasoning is, that's fine, I have my opinions on the matter and others have their own, but at the core of it my main point is that he's detestable as a father and that's where my line is actually drawn. We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. No. His actions are morally reprehensible and abusive. It does not matter what his motives are. He is abusing her. There are no two ways around this. His actions are directly causing Annie emotional and psychological damage. He is a detestable father. |
|
lit
Full Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by lit on Mar 21, 2015 20:08:02 GMT
We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. "I am hurting you for your own good" is an abusive mentality; there is no possible motivation he could have that would make his behavior acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Mar 21, 2015 20:09:09 GMT
First, Anthony's obsession has been with rooting the non-human out of Surma and his daughter, and his daughter embraces it. The more she embraces it, the more he feels like she is a thing he doesn't understand and not his daughter. He may have held her at arm's length before, but now it seems he's deliberately creating a barrier between them. Fire = passion, after all, and what does he seem to fear most (unbridled emotion, you think)? This is still just fan speculation, at this point. I have previously set up a counterpoint theory to Divine, that Anthony was actually trying to separate what he considered to be Surma from Annie, so that he could somehow revive her. Both are equally plausible scenarios, but both can also be completely wrong. Anthony most certainly didn't have problem with Surma's unbridled passion, and he himself is a big ball of raw emotion underneath the stoic veneer if the flashbacks to his childhood and his similarities to Annie are any judge. |
|
|
|
Post by albeon on Mar 21, 2015 20:10:16 GMT
Wait very recently we saw that cloning is a thing. What if annie is actually a clone Anthony made in order to try to get around the whole child = death thing that failed. And he is isn't a jerk because he is out to get her, but because he does not consider her a real person?
|
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 20:12:59 GMT
Wait very recently we saw that cloning is a thing. What if annie is actually a clone Anthony made in order to try to get around the whole child = death thing that failed. And he is isn't a jerk because he is out to get her, but because he does not consider her a real person? Or he'll use that technology to create a physical body in a jar, harvest Surma's soul from Annie's body, then transfer it into the new body in order to get his wife back. Lightlice's idea has some groundswell, I'd say, considering what has just been introduced in the comic. The ordering and presentation of these chapters, one directly after the other, also helps further the idea of correlation. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 20:14:15 GMT
...wait. Has all this been an elaborate (and unnecessarily jerkish) plan to avoid showing Annie his right hand when handing out a book? Not impossible, but why he's doing all this doesn't change what he's doing. But it does. It may be altogether another thing that what it seems to us now. We're interpreting this as one sort of action, while we do not know what other things each of his action is tied, and his motive would be explained by these things, and similarly, the motive would be revelatory of those connections that really define his actions. That said, if it was all about the right hand, it would not change the interpretation of actions significantly. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 20:18:10 GMT
We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. "I am hurting you for your own good" is an abusive mentality; there is no possible motivation he could have that would make his behavior acceptable. It's not that, you are deliberately putting it in absolutely wrong way. It is "this may hurt you, but I have to do it for your own good even if you may not understand it now". That is something that all good parents do with their children time to time and for good reasons. In unusual circumstances, the hurt just may be unusually big and the good unusually difficult to understand. But GKC may have those unusual circumstances for Tony and Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Mar 21, 2015 20:22:28 GMT
Very curious to see what's going to happen on the next page. These first few pages have really been set-up, showing how much of an ass Anthony is. I suspect we're going to see the consequences of that on the next page. I'm hoping someone stands up to him. I predict on the next page, class will be over and there won't be any time left for someone to stand up to him. Either Annie nervously talks to him after class, or it'll take place out in the hall between Annie and Kat. Or the rest of the chapter will follow Anthony, but that's just wishful thinking ;p |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Mar 21, 2015 20:32:19 GMT
Well, thanks, everyone  I am basing my claim that Anthony is trying to remove the non-human aspect from his wife, and then his daughter, on the fact that the fire elemental part of them is what makes them so phoenixlike and dangerous ("...you have a fire in you that belonged to your mother", Reynardine said). He's passionate under the coldness, yes, but he's always been terrified of it. Terrified. And now he's... I don't know, forty years old, at least? Take it from a 40-something individual, sometimes the fears and weaknesses of your youth are overcome, and sometimes they become magnified and entrenched. Tom is playing games with Antimony's name, I think; one of her main characteristics is that she (and the whole Court/Forest duality, come to think of it) is antinomian. Lawless, oppositional, chaotic. She's literally everything Anthony is afraid of. I'm seeing him saying that class can't continue until she returns as further evidence that she is going to be the centerpiece of the lesson in some way (as far as I'm concerned, even this is utterly insensitive and disrespectful). I don't think we should see Anthony as a demonic amalgam of Pavlov and Mengele, however; I think a lot of us have had hurtful childhoods and he's simply a good proxy to rail at. I know he reminds me of my father, who was also a lab-coat type, emotionless and distant, demanding and superior, and, as my therapist memorably remarked, "a huge jerk". I am sure the Court staff told Antimony before she went to class; she is too rigid and dry-eyed and disassociated to have been taken utterly by surprise. The chapter is only three strips old; I think we'll find out more about the Court's reaction, and the circumstances of his return to it, very shortly now. Is Antimony a clone? Believe it or not, I've had that thought. She could be parthenogenically conceived. I don't know how important it is. Whether or not she is Anthony's actual child, he is sure to see, or to be motivated to see, precious little of himself in her. I'm busy popping popcorn for the scene in which Reynardine confronts him. Anyone with me?  |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Mar 21, 2015 20:37:15 GMT
I'm just waiting for someone NOT Antimony or Anthony to talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Mar 21, 2015 20:43:20 GMT
We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. "I am hurting you for your own good" is an abusive mentality; there is no possible motivation he could have that would make his behavior acceptable. So dentists and surgeons have an abusive mentality now? Sheesh, projecting much? |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 20:43:44 GMT
By insinuation, it can be inferred that this man put Annie into a coma and altered her body from afar, without her knowledge or consent. On that alone, he is incredibly invasive and what we are led to believe he did there is incredibly illegal.
On another level, making Anthony into a positive figure within the comic at this point would require such flagrant and elaborate plot-twisting gymnastics that it would ring entirely hollow. On yet another level, it would send a terrible message, that has been given again and again and again and again, over and over and over, that when an authority figure does something wrong, by the time you're an adult, you'll come to realize they were in the right all along and you should never have doubted them and you should admire them wholeheartedly, in spite of the fact that they were abusive, monstrous, caused you intense emotional diress, prolonged suffering, and made your life miserable. So people in horrible home situations who are being beaten by alcoholic parents, cut down by emotionally insecure parents, kept in small cramped mental spaces by overbearing authority figures, will yet again have another story to add to the backlog that tells them to their faces "Yes. I understand you are being abused. But you see, what's actually going on is that they were doing what was best for you all along. And all of the pain and suffering and emotional abuse you had to endure was all for your own good, so you should forgive them for all of the terrible things they've ever done to you and even admire them for it. Stay in that horrible, awful family situation that you would do incredibly well to get out of. Because we told you to. Over and over and over again."
I think that's what bothers me the most about this being a possibility. It's the fact that Tom is smart enough to be able to do that but that people think he's insensitive and dickish enough to do that. Tom has always seemed like the kind of person who took serious matters seriously and gave them the level of genuine consideration they deserved. What I would expect Tom to do, and I say that in a way that implies I think the way he'll execute it will be surprising, is to show that Anthony is not a complete caricature of a person, but a human being who also happens to be abusive, in order to give a realistic face to abuse that's more than just a cartoon but is still very apparently in the wrong and that a person can be both. To undermine every bit of depth and emotional weight presented by this plotline would not just be a waste, it would be downright insulting.
Think of that as overly-emotional, maybe it is. I don't care. I do not need another story about an abusive authority figure being forgiven by the narrative because it pulled a bunch of ridiculous nonsense out of thin air and thought that would retroactively change the direct emotional and psychological consequences of their actions.
Could it happen? Absolutely. But Anthony could secretly be Reynardine in disguise and it wouldn't be any less ridiculous, contrived, or unsatisfying. And I desperately hope neither come to pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 20:51:03 GMT
"I am hurting you for your own good" is an abusive mentality; there is no possible motivation he could have that would make his behavior acceptable. So dentists and surgeons have an abusive mentality now? Sheesh, projecting much? Both professions requiring consent from the patient or the patient's close relatives when said patient is not consciously able to provide consent, as well as a monetary transaction which provides the payer of the money with a legal contract that ensures any wrongdoing can result in compensation. Anthony is a father and a teacher. Neither of which Annie has any say in whatsoever. And he is using that position to manipulate her. The two are different things. |
|
lit
Full Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by lit on Mar 21, 2015 20:53:47 GMT
"I am hurting you for your own good" is an abusive mentality; there is no possible motivation he could have that would make his behavior acceptable. It's not that, you are deliberately putting it in absolutely wrong way. It is "this may hurt you, but I have to do it for your own good even if you may not understand it now". That is something that all good parents do with their children time to time and for good reasons. In unusual circumstances, the hurt just may be unusually big and the good unusually difficult to understand. But GKC may have those unusual circumstances for Tony and Annie. No, actually. Yeah, parents do things their kids don't like or understand, all the time. Of course it doesn't all qualify as abuse. Abusers still use this mentality to enact abuse on others. Whether or not he believes he's helping her doesn't change that he decided it was acceptable for him to treat her this way. I think there is a pretty clear difference between a child crying in a grocery store because their parent won't buy them the cereal they want and Anthony deliberately singling Annie out for continual humiliation after abandoning her for three years, so I don't really follow your analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Mar 21, 2015 21:09:47 GMT
So dentists and surgeons have an abusive mentality now? Sheesh, projecting much? Both professions requiring consent from the patient or the patient's close relatives when said patient is not consciously able to provide consent, as well as a monetary transaction which provides the payer of the money with a legal contract that ensures any wrongdoing can result in compensation. Nope – at the very least, that would depend on the jurisdiction. But even if in a given jurisdiction it did, it would not change the mindset: "I am hurting you for your own good". |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Mar 21, 2015 21:24:26 GMT
Beneath this entire conversation there has often been the conviction that somehow Tony has a reason that he's doing this, which will benefit Annie (hence the emphasis on "for her own good" or "ends justify the means" arguments). Which personally I contest but whatever.
Can we all agree that if he doesn't have such a reason, or if his reason is selfish, or he had a way to achieve the same goal without humiliating his daughter, he is indeed being terrible and borderline abusive here?
(That being said, that reason better be pretty damn good if I'm to forgive him for his emotional abuses in the last three pages.)
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 21:26:30 GMT
You say this is "power play and nothing more", but well, why nothing more? You see, if some act serves many functions, then it is all these functions, which is more than one of them. An example that your language reminds me of is that some people say rape is only about dominance. But obviously it is also about satisfying one's more basic sexual urges. It can be both at once, and possibly even more things, and indeed usually is more than just one or two things. Personally, that is not the metaphor I would have chosen for a couple. First, often rape is mostly about the power play, significantly more than any other factor (although I agree it's not the only one). Tony's main goal may be, for whatever reason, to establish his dominance over his daughter, even if he has other lesser goals. Second, it comes across as a slippery slope argument ("if you are arguing that Tony's just doing a power play here, you're making inaccurate conclusions about rape"...um, what?), even though I see what you're trying to say. And third, on a pragmatic level, opinions about rape make everyone climb out of the woodwork and begin to argue, especially on this forum. First: as said, the point is that the example given is one where there is one clear factor about it (so called power play), but people have a tendency to reduce it to just that, similarly to this case. There are many ways to establish dominance. The one that is chosen will have other sides than the mere power play. Second: I do not see how this can come across as a slippery slope. It is an analogy. The point is to illustrate the mistake by a more familiar one. 3. I know. Don't think I didn't hesitate using this analogy. There's a huge difference between "it is not entirely impossible that it is x" and "it is x". That's my main point here. When judging the situation, you're assuming a lot of things you here say "are not entirely impossible", and what I say is we should suspend the judgment on most parts because we just lack information. But one could also say there is a large difference between "it is likely that Tony is a jerk without sufficient reason to justify this" and "it's not entirely impossible he has a good reason, so let's wait and see". It's possible that Tony is a paragon of virtue who feels terrible about being cruel to Annie and has good reason, but not likely. And while it's also possible that these sufficient reasons will appear later (emphasis on "sufficient"), it's "possible" in the same sense that it's possible that the Theory of Evolution is just a statistical coincidence. The words were put between inverted commas because they were quotes. That last clause is just wrong. There's nothing to prevent this webcomic from having a later point where Tony's internal suffering is revealed, but there's quite a lot to prevent Theory of Evolution to be shown to be just a statistical coincidence. To understand the reason of Anthony's actions is really essential now, because only then we can understand what he really is doing. It is wholly unclear now. We see some part of it: Annie gets humbled in front of the whole class. Alright, but this seems arbitrary and I hold fast that GKC so far has described Anthony precisely as a person who does nothing arbitrary. So, at least I do not understand what he is doing. And what he is doing is again essential when judging him as a character on basis of his action. I'll be waiting. I hope Annie escapes to ether vision fast to get us some more information. But I fear that we'll be only revealed much later towards the end of this book, or even towards the end of this whole story, what happened here, and until then Anthony will look simply as a petty douche. You know, there's a quote I think of in these sorts of situations (originally written about the Dirty War in Argentina but applicable in general here). Your mileage may vary:No matter what he's trying to achieve, he's hurting Annie terribly in the process, and even if he has some benevolent reason for doing it, it doesn't make what he's doing acceptable. Without knowledge of his final goals, we obviously can't know for sure if "it was worth it", but we have to consider his actions in light of what we already know, because we have no better option (and then be willing to change our perspective if more information comes to light, of course). And in light of what we know, Tony's actions aren't looking too good right now. With each page, it seems harder for Tom to craft Tony's motive such that random petty actions towards Antimony are necessary/acceptable*. Thus, I am judging Tony harshly until future notice**, or until we have more information, because (nearly) all of the information we have so far leads us there. *(without the reasoning seeming like a deus ex machine, eg "Ah, Antimony, the Court was watching me through my nanites and unless I undermined your confidence as far as possible they would destroy us both!")
**specifically, I think he was probably much happier and kinder until Zimmy interfered with his plans to do with his etheric bone laser, then regressed upon that plans failure.Let me answer you with another quote: "no pain no gain". A lot of bad experience is required for growth to greatness. True, what Anthony is doing is not looking good right now. That is, however, not the conclusion, but the start of the discussion. What he does may turn out to be very good later, possibly for Annie as well. Have you read Zadig? Now, that's a bit far fetched, but say, extremist example. For a more familiar situation, I say above (however, after the post I quote from you) that we often have to do things that at the moment hurt our children, say put them in order in public and not give them what they want. And they cry for it and they feel bad for it. And it is good for them, for two reasons: 1) they want things in short term of which the long term consequences they do not want; 2) getting what they want constantly in itself is bad for their growing up. And: Cutting someone's teeth is bad in itself. However, if that can avoid that given person's gums from rotting, it is good. In fact, I can give you yet another quote: "punishing is always an evil". That's Bentham. The point is, society still has to punish sometimes to avoid an even greater evil. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 21, 2015 21:34:49 GMT
Can we all agree that if he doesn't have such a reason, or if his reason is selfish, or he had a way to achieve the same goal without humiliating his daughter, he is indeed being terrible and borderline abusive here? I'll drink (something nonalcoholic anyway) to that. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 21:37:20 GMT
It's not that, you are deliberately putting it in absolutely wrong way. It is "this may hurt you, but I have to do it for your own good even if you may not understand it now". That is something that all good parents do with their children time to time and for good reasons. In unusual circumstances, the hurt just may be unusually big and the good unusually difficult to understand. But GKC may have those unusual circumstances for Tony and Annie. No, actually. Yeah, parents do things their kids don't like or understand, all the time. Of course it doesn't all qualify as abuse. Abusers still use this mentality to enact abuse on others. Whether or not he believes he's helping her doesn't change that he decided it was acceptable for him to treat her this way. I think there is a pretty clear difference between a child crying in a grocery store because their parent won't buy them the cereal they want and Anthony deliberately singling Annie out for continual humiliation after abandoning her for three years, so I don't really follow your analogy. As said: this would be very unusual case, but Tony and Annie in GKC just happen to be very unusual persons in very unusual circumstances. It is a fair possibility that there are things in the background that make this even necessary. bluevitriol pointed out how Tony has a military tone in him. There have been signs of war here and there, some have read more into them than others, but there may be very big things happening that could require this from Tony. Notice that there may be a whole a lot that this has to do with just Tony being in military, and on a mission, what is more. |
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Mar 21, 2015 21:38:28 GMT
Upon reading the post in this thread, so many ideas come to my mind...
What if he never loved Surma, and only wanted to experiment on her? What if he purposely impregnated her in order to study the process of lifeforce transference and once done he had no use for Annie...at least until she's old enough for another experiment?
What if Annie isn't his daughter? What if he refused to impregnate Surna because he knew she would die, but she believed she had a chance of surviving pregnancy (maybe Coyote tricked her into believing that she could survive pregnancy as revenge for her part in capturing Renart), and she cheated on Anthony in order to get a baby?
What if Surna got pregnant with somebody else's baby, but she tricked Anthony into believing that he was the father because she didn't want Annie's real dad to feel guilty for her death?
What if Surna married Anthony on orders from the Court (the same way she lured Renart) to keep him under watch, but she got pregnant by mistake?
What if Annie becomes so depressed that she asks Coyote to remove all her memories of her parents, so she can treat Anthony as a regular jerk instead of as an abusive parent?
Is her name Antimony a clue of something? Is it mere coincidence that the girl who would kill her mother by being gestated is named as a poisonous substance? Antimony comes from anti-monachos, "monk-killer"...is Anthony that monk? Is Antimony a contraction of Anti-Anthony? Is Annie he father polar opposite and Nemesis?
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 21, 2015 21:42:41 GMT
At any rate, I have the link to this page: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=813Now if Anthony doesn't blame Annie for her death, what are we suppose to take away from the pictures and dialgoue. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 21, 2015 21:49:04 GMT
On another level, making Anthony into a positive figure within the comic at this point would require such flagrant and elaborate plot-twisting gymnastics that it would ring entirely hollow. On yet another level, it would send a terrible message, that has been given again and again and again and again, over and over and over, that when an authority fi... And so on. This has the "if Kat is gay that is completely implausible to the extent that the whole plot no longer makes any sense" written all over it. It is rather simple to make Anthony a positive figure: reveal the reason why he has been away and tell what he has been doing, and by that help see that there indeed is a bigger issue that he is dealing with all the time. This would be completely in line with the plot so far, at least with the plot of the webcomic that I have been reading. Of course, it would not probably make him completely positive in black/white manner. Thank goodness for that. One of the best things in GKC is that its characters are not simple, they are certainly not simply heroes and villains. If Tom now starts to introduce simple heroes and villains, I'm very much disappointed. But so far there is no reason to suppose he has started to do so, these characters may remain as ambiguous as they are. Applying to Tony as well. By the way, it is pretty bizarre how you emphasise how we don't know anything and then follow that by stating massive speculations as facts. Again, it would maybe not make sense that Anthony was a good figure, if we take all your interpretations of events and persons in the story so far. But we do not all share your interpretations, and it is sometimes hard to see how you can justify those interpretations. And then, to claim that Anthony could not be seen as positive character without such a plot-twist "that it would ring entirely hollow" is just to impose your interpretation about the story over those of others. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 21, 2015 21:53:17 GMT
zimmyzims: Well, his moments of decency tend to be the exception (anything else has merely been informed rather than shown) compared to his less pleasant behavior. While that doesn't mean that we are right, it certainly doesn't contradict him being in the wrong either.
|
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 21, 2015 21:54:29 GMT
Is her name Antimony a clue of something? Is it mere coincidence that the girl who would kill her mother by being gestated is named as a poisonous substance? Antimony comes from anti-monachos, "monk-killer"...is Anthony that monk? Is Antimony a contraction of Anti-Anthony? Is Annie he father polar opposite and Nemesis? A very interesting question is raised here, which is not raised all that often in fiction surprisingly. Either Surma or Anthony (or another unknown parental figure) had to give Antimony that name. Who did it? Why? Was there a symbolic reason? Is this a part of fire elemental heritage that's been going on for a few generations now and Surma's mother was named after another similar element? Was this Anthony being uncharacteristically cute? Why Antimony? This is surprisingly interesting to me because I never really thought of it this way before. Her legal guardians had to legally give her this name. It's not just a narrative symbol, this was actively decided in-universe. Does it mean something in-universe, to individual characters as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Hamilton on Mar 21, 2015 21:58:10 GMT
The number of things that could justify Anthony's behavior at this point is very low. What possible circumstances could require him to act like a ass to his daughter? Some villainous threat hiding in the background that will only attack if he develops a healthy relationship with Annie? He needs Annie to hate him for her own safety?
That might be more believable if there weren't already so many signs that this isn't strange behavior from him. As the page antiyonder posted indicates, he acted in such a way that Surma felt compelled to reassure Annie that he still loved her.
I'm a fan of cold, logical, emotionally repressed characters...but most of those characters aren't petty bullies.
|
|
