|
|
Post by nero on Mar 30, 2015 17:38:52 GMT
I guessed that she wouldn't take his class, but to be put back a whole year is too much. It seems like this is all his decision, which the Court can't really deny as he is the father.
I'm glad Kat is defending Annie, and I'm hoping that the Donlans will stop Anthony somehow. They could make an arrangement for Annie to make up her grades and still stay with Kat.
I don't think this would happen but it would be nice if they or anyone else could take custody of Annie. It probably wouldn't succeed but I'd like to see someone try.
I'm wondering what else Anthony will say that could make Annie run away to the cherry tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Mar 30, 2015 17:59:16 GMT
I guessed that she wouldn't take his class, but to be put back a whole year is too much. It seems like this is all his decision, which the Court can't really deny as he is the father. I agree. The Court had plenty of time and opportunities to call her on her bad behavior. We can only guess as to why no one saw fit to intervene earlier here. All she got was vague and informal advice to be more careful, for years of cheating and ditching detentions. That sort of thing would never exist in a real school. As for sending someone back to last year after the school year started, it's simply ridiculous, even if a parent wanted it it would never happen in reality. But hey, it's a comic. There's an immortal woman with an indestructible body out there.
Anyway, I think it's clear that the Court never even tried to change Annie's behavior. They merely observed it, and drew conclusions from it, basically treating her more like a rat lab than a student.
No, this is entirely Tony's call: coming back, teaching her class, sending her back to year 9... and I think he might be a tiny bit afraid of his own daughter at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by crater on Mar 30, 2015 18:07:37 GMT
Tony is about to get it I imagine.
Ann cheated for alot of reasons, typical ones, but she also cheated because she is so utterly so alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by csj on Mar 30, 2015 18:35:30 GMT
imagine if this whole arc was partly awareness raising of autism
I would only be half-surprised :3
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 30, 2015 19:06:06 GMT
imagine if this whole arc was partly awareness raising of autism I would only be half-surprised :3 Speaking as one with autism, I try to at least do a better job at understanding others. Not always successful, but again, I try. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Mar 30, 2015 19:27:27 GMT
Tony is about to get it I imagine. Ann cheated for alot of reasons, typical ones, but she also cheated because she is so utterly so alone. Yeah, she started cheating in year 8 after his dad failed to show for summer vacation.
Part of the reason repeating a year would be so cruel is because it would separate her from Kat, the one person she's closest to while her family was gone. But I don't think it'll go this way. I'll just wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Mar 30, 2015 19:39:46 GMT
So, in your opinion giving your children no choice is the epitome of parenting? Because he is giving her a choice ? This whole sorry situation is HIS fault alone, abondonning her daughter and then chastising her for something that would easily be avoided had he been a decent parent, but no, he didn't, cause he's a jerk. There just is not a thing that he could do that you would not describe negatively, is there? Hey, Tony is being the jerk here, I'm not the one who abandoned my daughter and then got upset of the consequences. If created this situation, if he gives her a choice, that would be manipulating her to serve his goals. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 19:40:57 GMT
No, he is not. From wikipedia (I know it's not the best source but meh): "Blackmail is an act, often a crime, involving unjustified threats to make a gain or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. It is coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property." Nothing of what Anthony is doing is truly unjustified. She did cheat the entire last year. Had she not and he instead fabricated evidence to make it seem like she did to set her back a year, that would be blackmail. That's not true, actually. An act doesn't have to be illegal or fabricated for a person to use it to blackmail someone. If you knew someone who was cheating on their wife and made them give you money so you wouldn't tell their wife what they were doing, that would be blackmail. Adultery isn't illegal, and in this case it did actually happen, and what you'd be doing would totally be blackmail. If Anthony is indeed holding the threat of being held back over Annie's head to get her to do something, that's pretty damn close to blackmail. You miss the definition of blackmail quite completely: it is blackmail, not the thing one is blackmailed for, that involves unjustified threats. Now, we know somebody can be blackmailed by a threat of criminal prosecution for something that he actually did, but in that case the blackmailing would involve concealing the information that would lead to prosecution. That is not the case. The arrangements for Annie's repeating of year 9 are ready, the Court knows of her offence, so there's nothing to blackmail her for. Anthony couldn't blackmail her if he wanted, because the relevant parties know everything already. But she may be given a choice of an alternative that could be beneficial for all parties, and that is no blackmail - she can still always choose the just punishment and repeat a year if she prefers that instead. Letting a person choose between 1) a just and proportionate punishment and 2) a moderated way to make up for the damage (s)he has caused is definitely not blackmail. It's like allowing a first offender (which Annie, however, is not) to choose a form of community service instead of going to jail and facing the full consequences of his/her crime. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 19:44:13 GMT
Changes nothing. Well, for the story, etc., of course it's huge, but not regarding Mr. Carver. He is, as always, technically correct. And he has, as he has this whole chapter, implemented his policy in the about the worst way possible. He remains at ultimate fault here for being the adult in the relationship and having failed to be a father for the last two years. Moreover, failing to appoint a guardian in his absence. Antimony may be repeating a grade, but if this story were happening anywhere with a functioning government, Anthony would be imprisoned for child neglect. Who of the other kids in the Court have a guardian in the absence of their parents? E.g. Jack's parents unlikely even know that their son was hijacked by white legs, let alone had appointed a guardian to keep him from messing around the Court at nights. Edit: for that last sentence, just... oh my Jebus! Firstly, there have been and are states with functioning governments that hardly even cover physical abuse of children in their criminal law. Secondly, how on Earth is he now guilty of "child neglect"? He left the child who is in her custody to a private school that takes care of her under a contract for the time of his absence for most probably work related issues (or explained as such). Not child neglect by any means. The kid gets food, shelter, education and all needed medication. There is not even a suggestion that he would have ever subjected the girl to any kind of physical maltreatment nor even a threat of it. There not even a sign that he would have ever yelled at her, called her with degrading names, subjected her to unjust punishments (nor really any punishments for that matter) nor otherwise treated her unfairly and badly. He has demonstrably personally given her education in a careful manner and even now came back to take care of her when she has problems in school. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Mar 30, 2015 20:17:44 GMT
That's not true, actually. An act doesn't have to be illegal or fabricated for a person to use it to blackmail someone. If you knew someone who was cheating on their wife and made them give you money so you wouldn't tell their wife what they were doing, that would be blackmail. Adultery isn't illegal, and in this case it did actually happen, and what you'd be doing would totally be blackmail. If Anthony is indeed holding the threat of being held back over Annie's head to get her to do something, that's pretty damn close to blackmail. You miss the definition of blackmail quite completely: it is blackmail, not the thing one is blackmailed for, that involves unjustified threats. Now, we know somebody can be blackmailed by a threat of criminal prosecution for something that he actually did, but in that case the blackmailing would involve concealing the information that would lead to prosecution. That is not the case. The arrangements for Annie's repeating of year 9 are ready, the Court knows of her offence, so there's nothing to blackmail her for. Anthony couldn't blackmail her if he wanted, because the relevant parties know everything already. But she may be given a choice of an alternative that could be beneficial for all parties, and that is no blackmail - she can still always choose the just punishment and repeat a year if she prefers that instead. Letting a person choose between 1) a just and proportionate punishment and 2) a moderated way to make up for the damage (s)he has caused is definitely not blackmail. It's like allowing a first offender (which Annie, however, is not) to choose a form of community service instead of going to jail and facing the full consequences of his/her crime. You're assuming. For all we know, everything here is Anthony's idea and the Court has no idea about what he's planning. Others have pointed out that making a child repeat their last year at the start of the new year and only telling her then is...well, it's a big sign of incompetence and disorganization at least. And it doesn't matter if it's justified or not. If a policeman extorts money from a criminal so that they don't take them in for a murder they committed, it's still blackmail, even if the criminal totally did do something. If Anthony wants something from her (something personal, and not for her to serve a different, school sanctioned punishment) that is blackmail. And it wouldn't be out of character for him to do that, based on what we've seen so far. I just realized, actually....what if it's Renard he or the Court wants? Back when she was named the Forest Medium, the headmaster wanted Annie to relinquish his custody to the Court. If Anthony and/or the Court is blackmailing Annie, it could be to the tune of 'Give us the fox spirit or repeat the previous year and be separated from your friends'. Or maybe to give up her Medium job, or any number of things. In that case, this would be a cruelly brilliant move. If anybody else was pulling this (like one of Antimony's teachers) she'd either be skeptical or would figure 'damn the consequences' and not give in to demands made of her. If this was a setup, than the person setting it up summoned Anthony to do this because they knew he'd throw her off balance and make it more likely she'd cave. It would also explain why they never did anything about her cheating 'til now; they were saving it as a trump card to use against her. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 20:37:08 GMT
You miss the definition of blackmail quite completely: it is blackmail, not the thing one is blackmailed for, that involves unjustified threats. Now, we know somebody can be blackmailed by a threat of criminal prosecution for something that he actually did, but in that case the blackmailing would involve concealing the information that would lead to prosecution. That is not the case. The arrangements for Annie's repeating of year 9 are ready, the Court knows of her offence, so there's nothing to blackmail her for. Anthony couldn't blackmail her if he wanted, because the relevant parties know everything already. But she may be given a choice of an alternative that could be beneficial for all parties, and that is no blackmail - she can still always choose the just punishment and repeat a year if she prefers that instead. Letting a person choose between 1) a just and proportionate punishment and 2) a moderated way to make up for the damage (s)he has caused is definitely not blackmail. It's like allowing a first offender (which Annie, however, is not) to choose a form of community service instead of going to jail and facing the full consequences of his/her crime. You're assuming. For all we know, everything here is Anthony's idea and the Court has no idea about what he's planning. Anthony has clarified that the Court knows Annie's been cheating and suggests that they've initially informed him about it. So, they know and there is no blackmail here. I'm truly amazed of this... it seems like if Anthony gives Annie a choice, then you celebrate the parent who decides everything over his children's life. I bet, if he doesn't give her a choice, but she just has to repeat 9th year, then you will come back with that she should have had another option, which you now define as a blackmail. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Mar 30, 2015 21:25:57 GMT
But in panel #3 Anthony says that he already made the arrangements for Antimony to repeat the year. He did give her a chance to deny it, or I suppose shift blame, but I think this is/was the hearing, on the first day of the new term. That's why I've been saying that it's a bit fishy. He also says in panel #2 that he examined all of her work, so I figure that if the school knew about the cheating in the previous term they didn't know the full extent of it. So, he first lesson is over, she can start the 9th year from the beginning right away. Exactly that he had to go through all her work himself to see the extent of her cheating may have been the cause that the Court's decision was delayed so late. Now, there's really hardly a credible alternative to her repeating a year (or two!), apart from her being expelled, but panel #1 suggests that the Court was not so conclusive on basis of their knowledge (and supposedly they were unaware of the extent of her cheating). A hearing carries certain connotations - an official process with rules, involvement of certain figures of authority, options of appeal, a presumed lack of bias/conflict of interest, a chance for consultation/preparation before, documentation of the hearing and statements made etc etc, depending on the kind of hearing. Anthony, a biology teacher on his first day, - not anyone known to authority beyond any other teacher- conducting a private hearing with a student (who also happens to be his daughter) in the minutes between classes, who had not been made aware prior that she would be facing a hearing, let alone one after being put through the ringer emotionally and mentally by Anthony's appearance and his treatment of her in class, while also threatening another student with serious discipline should she be found to be involved.... No, this is no hearing. A hearing would be involve other stakeholders, such as the principle, and the question "what do you have to say for yourself?" (or something like it) would have been asked before the authority figures started talking about the penalty they were going to impose. |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Mar 30, 2015 21:28:06 GMT
This whole sorry situation is HIS fault alone, abondonning her daughter and then chastising her for something that would easily be avoided had he been a decent parent, but no, he didn't, cause he's a jerk. Whoa whoa whoa, let's get something straight here. Yeah, Anthony's a jerk for running off like he did, but he did NOT create this situation. This situation was created by Annie and Annie alone. She chose to cheat, and continued to do so just because it was easy and she was getting away with it. And this happened so frequently, that the missed work is enough to drop her back a whole grade. That is her fault. Period. Now, what options she will be given once a proper case has been made in her favor by Kat is still up in the air. But following the letter of the law here, Anthony's recommendation that she be sent back a grade is about right. Leaving aside that this is her dad, and that the court should have addressed this ages ago, he's not doing anything over the top or out of the ordinary by making that decision. As far as I'm concerned, Anthony is only an antagonist by virtue of going up against our much-loved hero. But in a neutral position, I'm fairly certain nearly all of you would take his side on this. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 30, 2015 21:36:10 GMT
zbeeblebrox: Have to agree with you. Part of my criticism towards Anthony is that others are known to deal with grief through losing a loved one without displaying problematic behavior.
And it would be hypocritical of me to justify Annie's cheating because of neglect.
I think some of Anthony's methods are still in question and merit criticism, but Annie shouldn't be absolved because her father was absent.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Mar 30, 2015 22:11:26 GMT
I think some of Anthony's methods are still in question and merit criticism, but Annie shouldn't be absolved because her father was absent. Annie cheated and it was her choice, and it was a bad one, sure. And she knows it, look how ashamed she is. But kids are kids and they make bad choices all the bloody time. That's what parents are for. Being a parent means to be responsible for your kid. The biggest fault lies with Anthony in this. The cheating is really a ridiculously small offence compared to abandoning your child for so long.
And the worst of it is that his punishment would lead to her being separated from the only person who has supported her while her family was completely absent: Kat.
On the plus side, Anthony is attempting to be a father now (hopefully). On the minus side, he's kinda three years late. Also he's making a mess of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 30, 2015 22:16:33 GMT
Hey I'm still hoping that Anthony's actual problems will be made out to be wrong (and that he's called out on them), but while good parenting helps to produce good children, there's not always a guarantee of the opposite.
Some abuse victims for instance don't always turn to abusing or victimizing others.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 22:33:52 GMT
So, in your opinion giving your children no choice is the epitome of parenting? Because he is giving her a choice ? This whole sorry situation is HIS fault alone, abondonning her daughter and then chastising her for something that would easily be avoided had he been a decent parent, but no, he didn't, cause he's a jerk. She always had the choice not to cheat, and she was never abandoned, just put in a private school where only kids whose parents teach there see their parents during the school year. Only she cheated throughout two years. Your deluudedness is amazing: Annie very personally failed unlike other kids, and once that happened, he came to take the only position in which he actually can see Annie during the school year, that is, as a teacher in the school, and yet you blame him? But well, for some people it is habitual to blame someone else for everything they do themselves instead of taking responsibility of their own actions, and it is not unheard of that people project their thought patterns to the fiction they read. And you blame him in any event: had he stayed away, you would blame him for her continuing to fail, and now that he comes to take the responsibility that his daughter was unable to take of her studies, you blame him for doing that necessary intervention. Because you have decided that no matter what he does, for no matter what reasons and consequences, he is a bad parent and a manipulative jerk and guilty to everything. There just is not a thing that he could do that you would not describe negatively, is there? Hey, Tony is being the jerk here, I'm not the one who abandoned my daughter and then got upset of the consequences. If created this situation, if he gives her a choice, that would be manipulating her to serve his goals. Your thinking epitomises the mob prosecution in the most negative sense: man is judged guilty before the trial and whatever the facts the acts are condemned as offences on ad hominem basis that he is guilty by his personal disposition. Well done! |
|
|
|
Post by mordekai on Mar 30, 2015 22:40:10 GMT
Anyway, I think it's clear that the Court never even tried to change Annie's behavior. They merely observed it, and drew conclusions from it, basically treating her more like a rat lab than a student. Isn't that true for all the children? The pupils from Chester are freaks like Zimmy and Gamma, brought there to be studied, and if any of them shows potential to be integrated or employed (like Anja and Surma), they are pulled out of there. The kids from Foley are grown in a lab, given the soul of Gillie Forest's creatures, kept isolated from the world, denied even a name (which means being denied humanity and individuality) until they graduate, and what happens with those who aren't employed by the Court after graduation? What fate awaits them? The kids from Queslett are mostly normal, but they all have some special power or gift that may be useful for the Court when they grow up. Many are children of gifted people employed by the Court. Thornhill seems to be the house for "normals"; children of Court's employees who still haven't shown any special gift, but who could express it in the future. If not, they can be employed anyway. The school is obviously a sort of farm to produce supernaturally gifted future employees for the Court. My theory goes like this: The Court needs supernaturally gifted people to advance their goal of controlling the Ether and the etheric power, so they seek that people around the world: Those who show potential are sent to Queslett, where they are trained as Court employees, while those who are too damaged, too weird, too uncontrollable, too undisciplined or too lacking academical talents are sent to Chester to be studied. A few of Chester's may get "fixed" enough to be recycled and sent to Queslett; many of them will be judged useless and kicked out of the Court; others are kept around doing menial or minor jobs, but their true purpose is to act as "breeding stock" to get more gifted children; and others will be quietly disposed of... Foley is quite literally a breeding installation for supernaturally gifted people. I doubt most of Foley's kids are entrusted important jobs when they grow up, they come from the forest, after all, but they bring fresh magical blood to the mix; their children or grandchildren or great-granchildren will be members of Queslett. And Thornhill? Well, sometimes the employees of the court have "normal" children, or maybe their gifts take their time to express, but those are the children of members of the Court, so they need to receive an education, so they are sent there. While Annie's parentage make her a Queslett recruit, many people in the Court probably see her as a Chester or Foley stuff. A lab rat to be studied, or a broodmare with strong magical blood, and they don't care her education too much. And anyways, even if she became useful for the Court, they would use her etheric, survival and diplomatic skills, not the academical ones. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 22:42:07 GMT
I think it is obvious that this is the hearing. So, he first lesson is over, she can start the 9th year from the beginning right away. Exactly that he had to go through all her work himself to see the extent of her cheating may have been the cause that the Court's decision was delayed so late. Now, there's really hardly a credible alternative to her repeating a year (or two!), apart from her being expelled, but panel #1 suggests that the Court was not so conclusive on basis of their knowledge (and supposedly they were unaware of the extent of her cheating). A hearing carries certain connotations - an official process with rules, involvement of certain figures of authority, options of appeal, a presumed lack of bias/conflict of interest, a chance for consultation/preparation before, documentation of the hearing and statements made etc etc, depending on the kind of hearing. Anthony, a biology teacher on his first day, - not anyone known to authority beyond any other teacher- conducting a private hearing with a student (who also happens to be his daughter) in the minutes between classes, who had not been made aware prior that she would be facing a hearing, let alone one after being put through the ringer emotionally and mentally by Anthony's appearance and his treatment of her in class, while also threatening another student with serious discipline should she be found to be involved.... No, this is no hearing. A hearing would be involve other stakeholders, such as the principle, and the question "what do you have to say for yourself?" (or something like it) would have been asked before the authority figures started talking about the penalty they were going to impose. Have you ever been to school? An involved teacher could just send her an email and tell she's been caught and ask whether she confesses it or not and that would be the hearing and then the officials could expel her regardless of her answer. Possibility to appeal would of course exist, but there's no question on whether it wouldn't exist in this case nor is there any place for that anymore as she already pleaded guilty and the punishment is definitely not unexceptionally harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Mar 30, 2015 22:51:29 GMT
If this weren't a) her father and b) their first time interacting in 7(?)ish years, I would say that this is just about the right conversation to be having. Again, though:
YOU HAVEN'T SEEN HER IN MANY YEARS! SHOW HER SOME AFFECTION, GODDAMNIT!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 22:54:10 GMT
If memory serves, year 9 was SAT year. SATs being, in the UK, when students have to sit exams in Maths, English and Science to assess what progress they've made in the past three years. If Annie's progress in her studies was entirely down to cheating then she never would have passed those exams and she would have been confronted about her dismal grades at the end of the school year, assuming that the Court takes their responsibilities as educators seriously. (Unless of course she was using her blinker stone to spy on other kid's papers but as we never saw that then that's left to speculation) The fact that this is - as far as we know - the first Annie's heard of her poor performance then we can assume one of two things. 1) She's absorbed enough over the past few years to earn a passing grade for herself but cheats more than she needs to out of habit, peaking at Kat's book as it's easier/quicker than figuring out the problem for herself or 2) Tony was over zealous in his assessment of Annie's work and attributed parts as cheating even when Annie had in fact managed to work out the correct answer for herself. The fact is that we don't know the full extent of Annie's cheating and neither does Tony really. Annie should at least be allowed to take a retest just to prove how much knowledge she actually attained over the last year or so, preferably while an examiner/teacher who isn't her (prejudiced) father holds onto her blinker stone so that they can know for sure that she isn't psychicly looking up the answers. That's my assessment, anyway. Annie is an intelligent young woman. Assuming that because we've known her to cheat a handful of times it means that she was cheating 100% of the time doing her a disservice. Your assumptions do not exhaust possibilities. We can with much more likelihood say that she cheated in the exams, too. People cheat in exams even without ether vision and if her all answers are exactly the same as Kat's, it is a proof that she has cheated - and anyway, she already admitted that, so end of that story. By the way, it has been provided that her home work is shambles and she doesn't know the taught matter even on subjects with which she should be at her best, e.g. the fauna of the Gillette forest. So that much of her having also learned something. And in other news, she most likely no longer needs the blinker. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 22:56:39 GMT
If this weren't a) her father and b) their first time interacting in 7(?)ish years, I would say that this is just about the right conversation to be having. Again, though: YOU HAVEN'T SEEN HER IN MANY YEARS! SHOW HER SOME AFFECTION, GODDAMNIT!!! I think it's about 3 years, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by KartoffelnMcNugget on Mar 30, 2015 22:59:15 GMT
(I know it's a bit late, but...) |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 30, 2015 23:00:50 GMT
had he stayed away, you would blame him for her continuing to fail, and now that he comes to take the responsibility that his daughter was unable to take of her studies, you blame him for doing that necessary intervention. If the cheating and dismissing the rules proves to be the only reason he showed up, I think criticism towards him is still valid. Yeah many parents are often shirking their responsibility to penalize their kids, but being a parent is more than enforcing authority. It also means being there to support them when they're down and providing encouragement when they do good. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Mar 30, 2015 23:08:42 GMT
Who of the other kids in the Court have a guardian in the absence of their parents? E.g. Jack's parents unlikely even know that their son was hijacked by white legs, let alone had appointed a guardian to keep him from messing around the Court at nights. Edit: for that last sentence, just... oh my Jebus! Firstly, there have been and are states with functioning governments that hardly even cover physical abuse of children in their criminal law. Secondly, how on Earth is he now guilty of "child neglect"? He left the child who is in her custody to a private school that takes care of her under a contract for the time of his absence for most probably work related issues (or explained as such). Not child neglect by any means. The kid gets food, shelter, education and all needed medication. There is not even a suggestion that he would have ever subjected the girl to any kind of physical maltreatment nor even a threat of it. There not even a sign that he would have ever yelled at her, called her with degrading names, subjected her to unjust punishments (nor really any punishments for that matter) nor otherwise treated her unfairly and badly. He has demonstrably personally given her education in a careful manner and even now came back to take care of her when she has problems in school. It's a boarding school, but that only covers the school term. Immediately after his wife dies, he disappears, leaving their daughter no way of contacting him. The boarding school in whose care she was left also could not contact him. He left instructions, likely compensation, but no guardianship or guidance. Antimony was under the impression that she would only be staying the term. No one from the Court told her otherwise when they discussed the next term's plan with her. Of course, we all know he never showed. The Donlans are the closest thing that Annie has to caretakers at the moment, and they didn't know he'd be gone all summer, either. Jones considers the situation effectively abandonment. She was trying to get a rise out of Antimony, but it's not like her to lie. At least she took the Donlans up on joining them for their next summer vacation, so she wouldn't be left alone again. Her attempted murderer shows more interest in her schoolwork and raising than her father had since her enrollment. But hey, at least in his absence she could spend the summer in the care of one who would maim her for an indiscretion. The unsupervised child becomes uncontrollable. The Court knows she's cheating, but what can they do about it? If they expel her, it's straight to child protective services. But forget that, she's useful to them, and the Court is always willing to experiment on children. Especially the apparently homeless. Finally, after more than two years, she gets the phone call, which nearly gives her a nervous breakdown. Yeah, let's just take a moment to recall the emotional devastation his neglect has wrought. But at least he's back in contact with his daughter. Haha, no, her name was just a cipher key (and it's inconceivable that he'd refer to his daughter familiarly). He's bullied plenty of people into making excuses for him. Of course including his daughter. Donny thinks Anthony wanted to hear her voice. Too bad she never had the option of hearing his when she needed it these past two years and more. When Antimony ends up in the infirmary again, at least he tries to help from afar. Hah, no, it turns out that breaking his connection is the event that triggers her recovery. More excuses incoming. Move along, move along, no abandonment issues here. No blaming yourself for your loved ones leaving. The man is not incapable of emotion. He's just apparently incapable of raising his child, or even making sure someone else would. But Anthony left her someplace where they have family friends, and there will be a support network. Wait, that was Surma's idea. And Annie didn't know about the family friends. The adults she's managed to make connections with try to help her, but it's too late. Lacking discipline at home, the only recourse is institutional reprimand. But at least he waltzes back into her life. Unannounced. After three years apart, his first words to his daughter are used to humiliate her in front of her friends, without explanation. But only before reaffirming that there is no emotional connection between them and punishing her for making poor choices with her complete lack of guidance. Yeah, he's the father of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 30, 2015 23:17:06 GMT
had he stayed away, you would blame him for her continuing to fail, and now that he comes to take the responsibility that his daughter was unable to take of her studies, you blame him for doing that necessary intervention. If the cheating and dismissing the rules proves to be the only reason he showed up, I think criticism towards him is still valid. Yeah many parents are often shirking their responsibility to penalize their kids, but being a parent is more than enforcing authority. It also means being there to support them when they're down and providing encouragement when they do good. Of course. I doubt he only came back for that - or let's say, I would be quite disappointed if that was such an important matter for this comic that Tom wasted a character potential of Anthony to just to get Annie back in school. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 30, 2015 23:27:53 GMT
Of course. I doubt he only came back for that - or let's say, I would be quite disappointed if that was such an important matter for this comic that Tom wasted a character potential of Anthony to just to get Annie back in school. At any rate, I do get it. Some of us have gone overboard (or still are) on judging him harshly. But I think it's important to keep in mind that it's possible to go overboard in defending him as well. Crediting him for when he's right is a good thing to do, while not dismissing the possibility that he's wrong in some of his other actions or methods. I mean sending her to Gunnerkrigg Court isn't necessarily even problematic as long as he's still willing to be there to reach in some fashion. Financial care and good education are nice, but social development and emotional support are just as important when making it in the world. And while things have worked out for Annie in terms of friends and the like, that's really more a case of luck working in her favor. |
|
|
|
Post by psybershadow on Mar 30, 2015 23:35:00 GMT
imagine if this whole arc was partly awareness raising of autism I would only be half-surprised :3 Speaking as one with autism, I try to at least do a better job at understanding others. Not always successful, but again, I try. Same here. Understanding's really important to me and I feel it's necessary for a better world. |
|
|
|
Post by ctso74 on Mar 31, 2015 0:05:39 GMT
Of course. I doubt he only came back for that - or let's say, I would be quite disappointed if that was such an important matter for this comic that Tom wasted a character potential of Anthony to just to get Annie back in school. At any rate, I do get it. Some of us have gone overboard (or still are) on judging him harshly. But I think it's important to keep in mind that it's possible to go overboard in defending him as well. Crediting him for when he's right is a good thing to do, while not dismissing the possibility that he's wrong in some of his other actions or methods. I mean sending her to Gunnerkrigg Court isn't necessarily even problematic as long as he's still willing to be there to reach in some fashion. Financial care and good education are nice, but social development and emotional support are just as important when making it in the world. And while things have worked out for Annie in terms of friends and the like, that's really more a case of luck working in her favor. Great balanced point. The story development of his return is great and all (especially for speculation), but in regards to the current situation, I sometimes pretend he's someone else. If it was an unknown woman in a labcoat, who singled Annie out for makeup, didn't give her a book the whole period, and then pulled this afterwards, I think we'd be saying similar things. Not just Annie. If Margo had been cheating, and this happened to her, many would be saying how unprofessional it was. Teaching at university is probably a lot different than teaching secondary school (or not, given some freshmen), but if a teacher had ever acted like this, there would have been a disciplinary hearing. There are far better ways to do such things. I think when you add the father/Anthony component, it either makes it better or worse, depending on the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 31, 2015 0:51:35 GMT
Thanks. And overall I think the only problem I see with the defense towards him is that he's not a bad parent on the grounds that he is calling her out on her cheating. That said, being able to scold and discipline a child when they are out of line is good. Even sending them to a place like Gunnerkrigg Court can be good, especially if they are covered financially. Heck, Anthony might even be acting to protect Annie from an unknown threat which is possibly admirable. But self-confidence and well adjusted emotions are just as important as discipline, financial care, health care and safety when it comes to childcare. |
|
