|
|
Post by speedwell on Mar 22, 2015 19:19:00 GMT
I feel like the posts justifying Anthony's behavior as a teacher are kind of missing the point. It's true that, while he's been presented in a way that makes him look like a jerk, his actions in class are consistent with just being a good and strict teacher. Directly insulting a student based on an aspect of their appearance is about as unprofessional as it gets. That "ridiculous" was really Anthony's biggest wart. That was teaming with cold animosity. A strict teacher would certainly use phrases like "Your coursework will be more challenging than you're used to, but I can assure you you'll find it to be ultimately more rewarding" and even a cold "I am aware." But calling a student's makeup ridiculous crosses the line. The reason seeing these pages made me angry wasn't that Anthony was cold and distant, that was to be expected, it was the fact that his behavior was immediately, bitterly, unprofessional. His very first introduction to the class consisted of singling out a student and insulting them. It also happened to be his daughter. If he had said the same to Kat if Kat were still wearing her headband out of insecurity, it would be just as unprofessional, just as uncalled for, and just as inappropriate to use that word. It's a subtle microaggression that he can get away with as an authority figure without repercussion. He can insult a student to their face and the student is powerless to defend themselves out of fear of punishment. This is incredibly common teaching behavior unfortunately, but it is not the sign of a competent strict teacher, it's the behavior of a bully putting on as a competent strict teacher. There are a hundred different ways to request, ask, direct, or even mandate something in class (I say this as a corporate trainer). Why did Anthony resort to that way? It is frank, outright emotional abuse. I know plenty of people with Asperger's in and out of the engineering corporation where I teach, and we all know that Aspies can be awkward and inadvertently cause offense sometimes, but this is not accidentally stepping on someone's toes... this is selfish, malicious belittling.
That's the question you always have to ask about someone's unpleasant, abusive behavior. Why did they choose to be unpleasant? Could they have acted differently? What do they gain by choosing that method of interaction over something more appropriate and kind? |
|
Garbage
New Member
ANTHONY CARVER DEFENSE FORCE, 1ST LIEUTENANT OF THE SUPPORT DIVISION
Posts: 29 
|
Post by Garbage on Mar 22, 2015 19:51:06 GMT
Night before the update, time for predictions from ol' garbage! Somehow, someway, likely involving a loud noise, eeeeverythigns gonna turn to shit to some extent, the smallest being the final panel featuring shocked faces at previously mentioned loud noises and/or shocking statement. tldr; I predict a riot! |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 22, 2015 20:05:49 GMT
I still can't believe people are defending Anthony to be honest. We're being shown that he's rude and impolite, he's being set up as a bad person Could you please be more specific? Who is defending Anthony - and more to the point, from what/whom he supposedly needs to be defended? Really, the only reason why I'm not in the "Tony's pure evil"-camp is because it'd make for a rather boring story as it is. You nailed this. It'd make for a rather boring story.I have seen the same effect before. This boils down to a very simple trend: attempts to degrade the story into mold of a lame doujinshit. There's always someone to whom any possibility that the work in question is more complex than "U not liek Pony, u r evil, imma whack you with a bucket and chase out of the sandbox! And now, sparklies!" is obviously incomprehensible, and once it's said, the next stage is "ya-ay, the lowest common denominator!" choir of relief. Because hey, thinking hurts, and what is this, let's switch to something more recreational - like pointless mudslinging into nowhere. The third stage is a rush to moral high ground that would allow to increase range and sling the same substances at targets that aren't completely imaginable - see the rallying horn in the first quote above?.. This is indeed the most important question, and I'm bewildered as to why it's not receiving more discussion here There evidently are more important things. Like Anthony being un-kawaii, Enigmarons and BONELASORS OVER 90000.  |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Mar 22, 2015 20:48:50 GMT
Really, the only reason why I'm not in the "Tony's pure evil"-camp is because it'd make for a rather boring story as it is. You nailed this. It'd make for a rather boring story.Of course he's not just "pure evil", that's a gross simplification. Tom's a better writer than that; he's almost certainly planned lots of character depth for our dear Mr. Carver (though, to be fair, Hetty was as 2D as a character can get). Tony probably has lots of reasons for his plans, and perhaps in his own head he has justified his actions by saying he's doing what's best for Annie. But there are plenty of fascinating characters in fiction who are evil regardless, or so misguided that they do evil things. I suspect, at the moment, that Tony is in that group. Who knows what future pages will bring, though. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 22, 2015 20:56:02 GMT
Curious...In my mind, the optimal route is that Anthony is recognized as an abusive parent while also making it clear that he is in fact a three-dimensional person with actual consistent character motivation that has complete internal logic. It's critical to recognize that abusers are in fact real people and not unrecognizable caricatures, as that serves no purpose other than purely to create conflict out of thin air to further plot-points. Abusers are people; both can be true simultaneously and in my mind that's the best route to take this. Because to attempt to invalidate Antimony's obvious emotional and psychological damage and reactions to her father within the story would be a disservice to the arc of the story and her character in my eyes. Anthony's treatment of Antimony, his mere presence even, feels incredibly important. To undermine their significance and resonance for convenience' sake doesn't exactly do any favors in my opinion. Abuse can be represented in fiction in more than simple black and white, pure-evil or apologist, terms. It's my personal belief that the best avenue is to make clear that many abusers believe they have a reason for what they do but that does not excuse their behavior, and that their victims still care about their abusers but that does not invalidate their fears or mean they should be obligated to stay in toxic relationships. I feel strongly about this in particular because I feel like Gunnerkrigg Court is one of the few works of fiction I've come across that seems like it would be capable of properly handling it. I trust Gunnerkrigg more than I trust most fictional works, and even Harry Potter, which is fantastic, tried to convince me that Snape was a good person all along even though he was really no more than Dumbledore's puppet whose only reason for joining the 'good side' was that the discriminatory pureblood supremacist he'd joined with decided to kill his crush instead of just her husband and her infant child. A crush whose blood-type was exactly what the supremacist he'd joined was violently targeting. He then proceeded to be manipulated by Dumbledore for the rest his life, following direct orders at every go and only caring the slightest ounce about a boy he'd been emotionally abusing for years. What a hero. People can be three-dimensional without being labeled good guys. I'd like to see that put into practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 22, 2015 22:17:04 GMT
Secondly, I think this is the only post where somebody has taken note on the syllabus. It is extremely possible that the "no make-up rule" was not arbitrary and should not have been surprising but had been written in the syllabus. When I was in high school, I never once saw a syllabus for any class. I don't think they were made public at all, and they certainly weren't handed out to students. (I took at least two classes in high school that the school almost certainly would not have been able to offer if the syllabi had been published where parents could reasonably be expected to find them.) If they HAD been handed out to students, it would have happened during the first class session. Not in advance. Unless there was a single book containing the syllabi for every class, in which case there would be length restrictions... When I was in college, a syllabus was a very brief description of what would be taught in the class. Period. Typically published three per page in a trade-paperback format. A prohibition on makeup would NOT have been included. And I didn't bother with the syllabus for any class required for my major - it wasn't as if I had a meaningful choice about it. Syllabus-reading was for choosing between options. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Mar 22, 2015 23:35:29 GMT
That whole line of thinking is just speculation, nothing more. There is no evidence that he was/is being watched or that he felt Annie has been in danger if "someone" sees them talking. It boils down to grasping at straws to come up with any kind of justifiable reason why he hasn't called to say hello or been nice to her at all. Because there hasn't been any reason given so far. Now, there COULD be a reason (other than he is a jerk) and that might be it. We won't know until Tom tells us. Edit: That sounded harsher than I meant it to. There is some evidence, the fact that Anthony had to contact Donald through a coded message. Why bother with a code if he wasn't afraid of "someone" overhearing it? And the theory has built from there. I know it's just speculation. I was pointing out that if he was being watched he could've sent a coded message to Annie to tell her why he couldn't see her the way he sent a coded message to Donny asking for medical supplies. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 23, 2015 3:45:44 GMT
Even in the event that he's trying to act like he doesn't care about her in the event that he's trying to protect her, he could still act civilized under the guise of being in a professional position and it wouldn't necessarily mean that he cares for her. I mean some people who are jerks will at times play nice because their job requires it. zimmyzims: Yes I know who you're talking about regarding Harry's teacher, but for some reason that particular character never bothered me. Maybe it's more just cause of Anthony being her father (who has been out of her life for a while* and blaming her for her mom's death** which isn't a burden to put on a kid) and not just a new face in her life. Now I respect waiting and giving him the benefit of the doubt, but regarding the points I put a * next to: *I swear that some forget that other posters are speaking against Anthony for that additional reason and only attribute the criticism to his methods as a teacher. **If the claim that he blames her for Surma's death is baseless, it might help for some alternate interpretations of this: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=813 |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Mar 23, 2015 5:17:17 GMT
In any case, really hoping this isn't a nightmare. There's a LOT of aggression and distress hanging about us over Anthony's current appearance, and an unsatisfying reversion back to not knowing jack about the guy, is not going to go over well.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 23, 2015 7:38:34 GMT
Secondly, I think this is the only post where somebody has taken note on the syllabus. It is extremely possible that the "no make-up rule" was not arbitrary and should not have been surprising but had been written in the syllabus. When I was in high school, I never once saw a syllabus for any class. I don't think they were made public at all, and they certainly weren't handed out to students. (I took at least two classes in high school that the school almost certainly would not have been able to offer if the syllabi had been published where parents could reasonably be expected to find them.) If they HAD been handed out to students, it would have happened during the first class session. Not in advance. Unless there was a single book containing the syllabi for every class, in which case there would be length restrictions... When I was in college, a syllabus was a very brief description of what would be taught in the class. Period. Typically published three per page in a trade-paperback format. A prohibition on makeup would NOT have been included. And I didn't bother with the syllabus for any class required for my major - it wasn't as if I had a meaningful choice about it. Syllabus-reading was for choosing between options. Have to say, I only saw them starting from secondary education, so it's a bit early for them, maybe, but here there's a clear reference to it so there is a one and it should not be improbable that he has given it for the kids to read. I'd say there certainly were syllabi in your high school courses too, even if you didn't see them. If there is a one and it is available for the students to read, it is their duty to read it. Only bad students who afterwards complain about things "they didn't know" in spite of the fact that they were informed about them, do not read it. They may not "know" there was a one, but that's because they neglect it. Admittedly, I wasn't the most disciplined student myself have gone to a few courses without reading the syllabus, to a large majority of high school courses too, but there's the funny thing that people learn, if they learn at all, best from their errors. I don't recall high school that we'll anymore, but in university at least, syllabus may include exact instructions about how the work is to be done during the course and it includes things as what is allowed in exams, classes etc. if that is relevant, and if it is relevant, it often does include this because it is unlikely that instructions like this will reach every student if only told on the first class, and it is time-wasting to repeat them on every single class. Of course, that is not high school, but why would it not be more the case in high school where orders like that are more at home? And when it comes to distribution of the syllabus, it is only done on the first class if 1) there's no way to distribute it in before hand (which should definitely not be the case in modern day schools let alone in the high tech GKC), 2) if the teacher has missed his deadlines and not prepared his course in time, 3) if teacher is lazy or forgetful. Where I teach, the syllabus is required from teachers half a year before the academic year begins and given to students before the school year begins regardless of where in the academic year the course is situated, although with completely new courses more precise instructions can be added later, but that still must be months before the course begins. It is possible that worse practices exist elsewhere, of course. That said, I think it is more probable that the message that Tom wants to send here has more to do with the relation Anthony and Annie in particular than with Tony's way of teaching and Annie's discipline problems. But it is not implausible: Annie has been one awfully bad student and a strict teacher would put her in order in that way. imaginaryfriend's suggestion that Anthony is there to discipline Annie, I do not think that can be the sole reason (I also hope it is not because it would seem like a bit dull plot decision), but seems the more plausible the more you look at this situation. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 23, 2015 7:41:06 GMT
Hetty was as 2D as a character can get But Hetty was a little short term side character with the purpose of adding depth in Rey's character. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 23, 2015 8:08:23 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. Since the main discussion seems to be moving onto the more recent threads, I'll choose this moment to quibble with the tangentially-related but thought-provoking "illegal" bit. It would be illegal where I live, probably where most of us live, but would such a thing be illegal in the Court? My guess is, "hell no." Being a place where things can happen that can't happen elsewhere, founded by free-thinkers, and currently peopled by those wanting to become gods (or something like that) through meddling with various forces and things, my strong suspicion is that their formal laws and research guidelines are a tad on the loose side. These days you can get in trouble for "unauthorized human experimentation" at some universities by something as simple as asking your fellow students how they were handling some parts of a class if you write down the results to report/complain about something (because it becomes an unauthorized psychological study- true story!) so I can't imagine that the Court would allow itself to be tied up in such tedious processes of approval and oversight... at least, not if they liked where the studies were going. We know they experiment on animals and Zimmies, why the hell not shoot bonelasers into the fire-chick if her dad's okay with it? She's a minor, her legal guardian is either her dad or the Court itself. She's not exactly a team player as far as the Court is concerned, and if everything went as planned presumably she wouldn't have ever known who was responsible. And Science! Don't forget it's for Science. ^And please note that I'm making a distinction between illegal and immoral. What he apparently did was highly immoral and probably unethical in the professional sense... but probably legal. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 23, 2015 13:16:36 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. Since the main discussion seems to be moving onto the more recent threads, I'll choose this moment to quibble with the tangentially-related but thought-provoking "illegal" bit. It would be illegal where I live, probably where most of us live, but would such a thing be illegal in the Court? My guess is, "hell no." Being a place where things can happen that can't happen elsewhere, founded by free-thinkers, and currently peopled by those wanting to become gods (or something like that) through meddling with various forces and things, my strong suspicion is that their formal laws and research guidelines are a tad on the loose side. These days you can get in trouble for "unauthorized human experimentation" at some universities by something as simple as asking your fellow students how they were handling some parts of a class if you write down the results to report/complain about something (because it becomes an unauthorized psychological study- true story!) so I can't imagine that the Court would allow itself to be tied up in such tedious processes of approval and oversight... at least, not if they liked where the studies were going. We know they experiment on animals and Zimmies, why the hell not shoot bonelasers into the fire-chick if her dad's okay with it? She's a minor, her legal guardian is either her dad or the Court itself. She's not exactly a team player as far as the Court is concerned, and if everything went as planned presumably she wouldn't have ever known who was responsible. And Science! Don't forget it's for Science. ^And please note that I'm making a distinction between illegal and immoral. What he apparently did was highly immoral and probably unethical in the professional sense... but probably legal. It's like the world Anthony inhabits has been designed to enable him. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 23, 2015 14:08:27 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.  It's okay to just say "thin air". Please.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? I don't know how to bring such news gently, but on this, you're a whole lap behind, not ahead...  q.v.: "Surma". In my mind, the optimal route is that Anthony is recognized as an abusive parent while also making it clear that he is in fact a three-dimensional person with actual consistent character motivation that has complete internal logic. It's critical to recognize that abusers are in fact real people and not unrecognizable caricatures, as that serves no purpose other than purely to create conflict out of thin air to further plot-points. Abusers are people; both can be true simultaneously and in my mind that's the best route to take this. Yes, yes, and isn't everyone? Just ask the local comissar - the dingo don't eat babies, parents eat babies. With a few exceptions that according to the rules of doubletalk prove the rule. *11x eyeroll* |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 23, 2015 14:20:13 GMT
In my mind, the optimal route is that Anthony is recognized as an abusive parent while also making it clear that he is in fact a three-dimensional person with actual consistent character motivation that has complete internal logic. It's critical to recognize that abusers are in fact real people and not unrecognizable caricatures, as that serves no purpose other than purely to create conflict out of thin air to further plot-points. Abusers are people; both can be true simultaneously and in my mind that's the best route to take this. Yes, yes, and isn't everyone? Just ask the local comissar - the dingo don't eat babies, parents eat babies. With a few exceptions that according to the rules of doubletalk prove the rule. *11x eyeroll* What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 23, 2015 16:25:08 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? I don't know how to bring such news gently, but on this, you're a whole lap behind, not ahead... q.v.: "Surma". Yup. I recommend all the new forumers to search the forum for extensive discussion on names of characters, of earlier pages (such as chapters Micro Sat 5 and Divine), etc. There's a lot of it. Yes, yes, and isn't everyone? Just ask the local comissar - the dingo don't eat babies, parents eat babies. With a few exceptions that according to the rules of doubletalk prove the rule. *11x eyeroll* What are you talking about? Maybe, just maybe, despite your experience of abuse, this is not a story about child abuse. Returning something that I didn't answer earlier... 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. This likely all stems from me having an averse reaction to abuse. I've seen many an apologist completely undermine valid concerns in too many real life situations to be at all comfortable seeing it repeated in fictional ones as well, simply because the consequences can be dangerous and harmful. Media and fiction are important as they are influential and help inform real life perception. To put Anthony in a positive light at this point would serve only to undermine the weight the story has put on his immoral behavior at this point. It would be equivalent to having the cake and eating it too. The comic gets to be serious and show the averse effects of abuse, then undercut it with a twist that attempts to undo all the unpleasant aspects of the plotline. Some things are plainly unpleasant. Some times are simply bad. Often times there are layers of complexity residing within those more simple structures, but acknowledging that sometimes people really are just that unhealthy to be around is incredibly important and rarely done in a manner that's not so in-your-face that it feels forced and unnatural. This is one of the most realistic representations of neglectful abuse I've ever seen in fiction, and the idea of it being needlessly undermined is disheartening. I'm not sure if you read the forum when Kat came out of closet, but I wonder, how does this differ from all those who came to rant how Kat being with a girl was unacceptable plot twist either because it was immoral (which it was not for many readers) and fiction should not give a positive representation of unnatural sexualities, or because that plot-twist was completely out of the blue and unthinkable (which it was not for many readers)? You read the whole story if this was about Anthony abusing Annie, and as if great weight was put on "immorality" of his behaviour, yet most everything about him and his morality is left as a complete mystery so far. What if, what if this was not a story about abuse? Now, I am not saying that Anthony was a great moral character and a hero. Only: suspend judgment in want of decisive information. There are many ways this story can fold out, not all of them will show this as a continuous abuse of Annie from Anthony's part. I, for one, hope for the better, not for the worse. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Mar 23, 2015 16:27:48 GMT
What are you talking about? Maybe, just maybe, despite your experience of abuse, this is not a story about child abuse. It already is that at present. I think most of us are expecting it to change shortly, though. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 23, 2015 16:40:59 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, despite your experience of abuse, this is not a story about child abuse. It already is that at present. I think most of us are expecting it to change shortly, though. No, you're interpreting it as if it was. I, for one, am not. There are two reasons why: firstly, this is not necessarily abuse; secondly, and more importantly, if it is, it still does not make this a story about abuse. Leaving a kid into a private school may be lousy parenting, but as such is not abuse. Telling kid to go wash off her ridiculous make-up is not polite, but it is not necessarily abuse. If it is showed that what he is doing is precisely aimed at Annie without as an attack against her personality rather than for a good (objective) reason, then it is abuse. Even that would not necessarily make this a story about abuse, and I will simply stop reading the whole comic if it becomes a story about abuse (say, if it starts to focus on Annie being abused by his father and Ys by Coyote), because to me, if there is abuse in this (as there certainly is in the relation of Ys and Coyote), that is not the object of the story, but one of the things affecting the real object of the story. Although Coyote's abuse of Ysengrin is quite largely Ysengrin's story at the moment (it has been signaled that most of what he is now is because of what Coyote does to his memories), I could not say that Annie's story is largely that of being an abused child, and if it now becomes a one, if this becomes a story about Annie's abusive relation to her father, it is a massive disappointment to me as it practically shuts many of the more interesting story lines that were about to develop. |
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 23, 2015 21:14:04 GMT
The story doesn't need to become all about one subplot, there's far too many things going on for the story to boil down to just this. Plenty of plotlines can progress simultaneously, at the very least parallel to each other. Anthony will most likely be a major player in the plot, one who might even have a positive effect on the overarching outcome of the story, but that doesn't mean the story can't also acknowledge his poor behavior. To me, his being entirely vindicated would have fewer dimensions than him having a positive impact but also being deserving of admonishment. He's too complex a character for simple "He was in the right all along" labels. Why is the concept of Anthony being taken to task for his behavior so unfavorable? He doesn't have to become a boring evil caricature that the story wastes its time and potential with. If anything, it could help him improve as a person or at the very least make his character fleshed out if handled properly. I fail to see how accepting that Anthony's behavior is abusive would in any way weaken the plot. I can't fathom it. There's a reason Hetty only got one chapter and Anthony's gotten 51. Tom's got far more elaborate plans for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 23, 2015 23:06:39 GMT
What are you talking about? Well, you see, when there's obvious wishful thinking, it inevitably raises the question "why anyone would wish that?"... and in this case, the answer is about as obvious as to "why a statue under open sky needs cleaning so often?" - the way you formulated it just spelled it out more. Even if it wasn't obvious, it's easy to demonstrate that that here we have the end point is set in iron, while arguments leading toward it are individually weak and in bulk vary enough to directly contradict each other. Hence, the only meaningful way to make sense of this mess is to ignore variable half-baked pretext and watch for the common points. Which happens to wink at exactly the same conclusions as knowing where legs grow from in the first place. |
|
erro
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by erro on Mar 25, 2015 2:28:27 GMT
EDIT: WRONG THREAD
Alright, this will be the third time I have attempted to write this- And this is my random guess, and one I’ve been mulling over in my head:
Anthony hasn’t talked to his friends yet- Either due to just arriving, or court interference. The important thing is, he has not established contact with anyone who knows antimony.
Now that we established that he is not up-to-date on Antimony, we begin with his introduction- That his class will be difficult but overall more rewarding. This is true, however, early on, such a class will inspire the ire of the class members. He then proceeds to single antimony out, to establish himself as a cruel man. The purpose of this is twofold- To remove contact with him to ensure the other students will not pick on her because of her relation, and to make her an object of pity, so that people are willing converse with her. He establishes himself as an enemy early on, to encourage the class to converse about it, which will result in antimony being someone folks sympathise with, and can befriend. He sends her out to remove her makup to remove the mask she hides behind, so that the kindness that everyone else shows to her will encourage her to work to befriend everyone else. This is ensured by requiring her to share a textbook with someone else, guaranteeing contact with a friendly individual.
Anthony has not been informed by anyone that she is already acquaintances of the rest of her class, and failed to realize so due to making this plan ahead of time, after reading through a sizable amount of psychology textbooks to formulate a plan to encourage social contact.
And, to the slightly less reasonable guess (I’m not too good with social cues, but running the pages I’m about to reference by others, it appears that most think she’s somewhat happy), I’m making a guess that Antimony figured it out. Hence why she appears to be somewhat more happy, bordering on glowing, with a somewhat more light and joyus stance.
I’d talk more, but that’s all I have at the moment before I fall asleep- So I’m just gonna finish with that instead. I will, however, make a guess that anthony does not know why Antimony sent someone to punch him in the face, because Divine is actual partially Kat’s dream, and a manifestation of her concerns for antimony, and a worry about the grasp he has on her still, manifest due to her slowly becoming an angel and the massive web of belief that sprouts from her.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 25, 2015 12:10:21 GMT
I guess that we now can say it is anthony for 100%? I think this also confirmed that Tom wants us to see Tony negatively here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 22:57:49 GMT
I have seen the same effect before. This boils down to a very simple trend: attempts to degrade the story into mold of a lame doujinshit. There's always someone to whom any possibility that the work in question is more complex than "U not liek Pony, u r evil, imma whack you with a bucket and chase out of the sandbox! And now, sparklies!" is obviously incomprehensible, and once it's said, the next stage is "ya-ay, the lowest common denominator!" choir of relief. Because hey, thinking hurts, and what is this, let's switch to something more recreational - like pointless mudslinging into nowhere. [...] I wonder where you might have seen such an effect before. *whistle* Three questions, should you wish to answer them: 1) Have you read Korzybski? 2) Is that your reason for challenging notions of a world united in the blissful ignorance of fraudulently-seized equanimity (that is, world-building by word-bending), and especially people who imperfectly use the methods of a science they apparently wish to destroy, until they realize, when forced to explicate their assumptions, how schizophrenically destructive such an attempt is? (Don't consider the healthy motive of a desire not to conform to self-imposed animalic constraints, which I will just presuppose, you ruddy rascal) 3) Do you consider the desire for such a world necessarily linked to a decline of personal health? The Birth Of Tragedy... has Nietzsche vehemently answer "yes", but he also identifies the desire for dissolving the confines of identity in communion as the Dionysian root, and pastoral fantasies as this same desire, merely warped out of philosophical action by a deceptive obligation to "temperance". For some strange reason, I suspect you think alike. Nabokov has shown similar thought in his debut novel: When faced with the threat of another Mary foreign to his thought, Ganin first sentimentally reinforces his carefully-constructed Mary, before, avoiding the climactic clash in which either must dominate the other one, he rejects both as non-existent ex tunc. By the way, if nothing else, I am glad that I could at least do a service to entomology, if only through the unwitting donation of my undead body. Of course, that circumstance raises (not "begs") the Biblical question: where was my sting? I don't know. Surely, I must have lost it in Paradise. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 28, 2015 23:39:09 GMT
I guess that we now can say it is anthony for 100%? I think this also confirmed that Tom wants us to see Tony negatively here. While I would hope so, it's still hard to say. I mean he actually tones down the act when bringing up her cheating, and there's Tom leaving the comment "fair point" when Anthony dismissed Annie's concern over his hand. But aside from the fact that one's injury/decapitation/etc is the business/concern of a friend or family member (as opposed to say a random student looking for gossip fodder), he could have simply said in the first place "I'd prefer not to discuss it". Had he responded that way, it would be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Mar 29, 2015 2:28:16 GMT
I can think of a bunch of scenarios in which he might have to avoid Annie, or even appear to have a bad relationship with her, but I can't think of many scenarios where he wouldn't be able to communicate his intentions to Annie in some way. That's the sticker for me. Okay, you have to keep your distance from Annie for her own protection...any chance of you, you know, TELLING her that somehow? In SOME way? That's where being socially awkward and an arsehole comes in. Or, if you want a benefit for doubt, he could be under surveillance and unable to communicate freely. My personal theory is still that Tony doesn't really want to be in contact with Annie for personal reasons, i.e. reminding him that Surma is dead, but has come to the Court either compelled by an outside force or knowledge that Annie is in some sort of danger that he can't ignore in spite of inability to function as a parent. Basically, I have a Severus Snape-style thing in mind; a genuine jerkass who nevertheless wants to sincerely look out for the child who is the last remaining link to his dead love interest. Really, the only reason why I'm not in the "Tony's pure evil"-camp is because it'd make for a rather boring story as it is. When you've got a disappeared parent who comes back to be a dick, I feel there should be a bit more to him than a one-dimensional antagonist. Hence all the various scenarios I'm coming up with, none which negate the fact that Tony's a jerk. Indeed, I doubt he's pure evil - I imagine he's got depth and complexity to him, and behind why he is the way he is. Which of course doesn't excuse it, or being a genuine jerkass, but will help us understand. For some reason the parallel that keeps jumping to my mind is Gendo. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 29, 2015 8:49:04 GMT
I wonder where you might have seen such an effect before. *whistle* Pick a forum of a webcomic. Any webcomic. Rates differ, of course. It's usually more concentrated for comics with fanservice, but the Buttzone may blur the difference. Nope. From the first glance, ToC gives an impression that it's an exploration of rabbit holes just for the sake of seeing how far down a rabbit hole you can go. Which could be entertaining - but won't hit my reading queue until there's some reason to read it or, as long as any unread possibly interesting novels are available. 2) Is that your reason for challenging notions of a world united in the blissful ignorance of fraudulently-seized equanimity I'd like at this point to claim not challenging the notions which presently are not visible to me as such, and let the rest of this road zigzag away into atmospheric mist as it goes. (that is, world-building by word-bending) That should be a good reason to invoke the spirit of Carroll. Speaking of the adventures down the rabbit holes. 3) Do you consider the desire for such a world necessarily linked to a decline of personal health? (nods at two fresh craters cutting off the road to a strange place, but puts the hazmat suit on nevertheless) Then again, "the desire for such a world", if strong enough, can be unhealthy in itself - regardless of exactly what is desired. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 15:37:55 GMT
Nope. From the first glance, ToC gives an impression that it's an exploration of rabbit holes just for the sake of seeing how far down a rabbit hole you can go. His premise could be reduced to the following: human behaviour copies that of animal nervous responses only because humans have not yet succeeded in building more sophisticated "semantic relations" towards their environments, partly because the structure of language, which he regards as humanity's most distinctive invention so far, misleads them. That is to say, after isolating sign from sign, they do not make attempts to discover the non-verbal relations between the signs, which cannot be expressed in words because the underlying assumptions do not originate in language. Schopenhauer already alludes to this problem in his introduction to The World as Will and Representation when he muses, "What this book is meant to express is but a single thought. Yet I could not, despite my best efforts, express it more briefly than by this entire book". Anyway, Korzybski then proposes that the language of mathematics, in which meaning does not exist apart from relations, most closely resembles the structure of the world, even though its signs, such as perfect circles, do not correspond precisely to any "real" phenomena. As an example of the divide between knowledge and understanding, he proposes the following: the scientific discovery that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth has not truly stopped even the most skillful scientists from implicitly presuming a geocentric (and by extension anthropocentric, and by extension egocentric) universe in their "ordinary" behaviour, except when they currently find it useful to presume the contrary, etc. So to sum this up, the book advocates for the conscious integration of specialized scientific knowledge into general modes of thought (or "emotions", but Korzybski denies the separation of "emotions" and "thought"), details the pillars of structural relativism and whimsically flirts with Russell, while addressing the very problem that the Principia Mathematica could not overcome. Korzybski also mentions how, by repeatedly requesting someone to define all his words, you will inevitably catch him in circular reasoning sooner or later; or rather, the reasoning appears circular because the unspoken assumptions, which connect word and object in one's "personal aesthetics" (for lack of a better term), become apparent. Briefest possible summary: The hazmat suit is indeed a good choice. I think so, because any successful attempt to reinvent the world, particularly by purging all those deemed insufferable, will ensure that such a world becomes a mirror image of one's actual suffering. Then humans will have become a means to an end, embracing their functionality in service of the self-derived idea that unites them. To my belated amusement, this is tied into the reason why I dislike the conclusion of Chapter 43, because Hetty's persistent insanity lets Renard get away with his version of events too easily. But anyway, how does a Beholder put on a hazmat suit??? That is obviously impossible, because I could not do that without arms, and neither would I want to bid farewell to them, and I have never seen arms on a Beholder. QED. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 31, 2015 16:33:35 GMT
As an example of the divide between knowledge and understanding, he proposes the following: the scientific discovery that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth has not truly stopped even the most skillful scientists from implicitly presuming a geocentric (and by extension anthropocentric, and by extension egocentric) universe in their "ordinary" behaviour, except when they currently find it useful to presume the contrary, etc. Well, relativity tells us that all frames of reference are equally valid. And if you're pouring a cup of tea, the egocentric frame of reference is quite adequate to the task - and takes a lot less calculation than even the heliocentric frame of reference, let alone the galactic or big-bang frame. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 17:53:15 GMT
But even the sentence "I am pouring a cup of tea" is problematic here, because the cup of tea does not exist as such until the act of pouring tea into it has commenced. Its existence depends on the "I" executing the action, and yet the cup, the tea and the "I" all exist before this happens; all that changes is the relation between them, which is perceived as the instrumentalization of the cup for egocentric purposes. In the example given, this is indeed no problem; but we could potentially be discussing questions of ethics. For example, if I wanted to start with the assumption that people make others suffer whenever they engage in solipsistic objectification, yet constantly used a language that, in at least one instance, presupposes that the subject's actions create the object's identity, either the assumption or the language must be flawed.
Hlör u fang axaxaxas mlö.
(Footnote edit: That story of Borges' works similarly to PKD's The Man in the High Castle - when confronted with an alternate reality in which the Axis Powers were victorious, yet humans can still empathize with each other, the reader would gradually be alerted to the inverse: the Allied victory has not at all eliminated totalitarian thought and action. Similarly, the obviously-flawed languages of Tlön, in which object permanence seems impossible to express from a "common-sense" viewpoint, still rouse the strangest suspicions about the deficiencies of our languages.)
|
|
q.v.: "Surma".
