|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Apr 3, 2015 22:26:24 GMT
I will defend Anthony directly on one point: Jones' accusation that he is "devoid of emotion". But Jones is not warning Annie against her father; she's trying to anger Annie, in order to better assess her character. True. And in retrospect that is of course kind of interesting that she of all people would use the "devoid of emotion" jab at all. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 4, 2015 1:40:48 GMT
* Why it's increasingly avoided in many places - that it can affect the student mentally/emotionally in a negative fashion, and doesn't necessarily improve their academic ability either. If not done away with all together (most recent example being a number of Australian states that implanted a "no grade retention" policy). It's increasingly avoided in many places because educrats are a poisonous parasitical administrative cancer allowed to measure its own performance the way it likes. Also known as "no one left behind" - functionally illiterate pass too, what retention? And of course it doesn't necessarily improve their academic ability, why would it? Funny thing about extremism. It's wrong to employ no matter which side of the debate one is on. I'm not good at euphemisms, please remind me - "extremism" is Politician for "something that I don't like and cannot just ignore" or what? |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 3:52:09 GMT
Funny thing about extremism. It's wrong to employ no matter which side of the debate one is on. I'm not good at euphemisms, please remind me - "extremism" is Politician for "something that I don't like and cannot just ignore" or what? Well, I've been willing to concede that I was wrong with making violent comments about Anthony, and trashing his character. Even deciding to grant him the benefit of the doubt and considering that he's possibly a good person who's made disagreeable choices. Heck, while I still say his decision to cut ties with Annie lead to her having fear of abandonment (as suggested in Thread), I refuse to use his absence to justify her cheating or cutting classes. That I'm willing to say is on her. Especially because with her doing well socially, she could have asked for Kat or any friend to tutor her. And I respect those who choose to like Anthony. Though even if one likes a person/character, it shouldn't preclude someone from being able to acknowledge the flaws of an individual. Yeah, I admit hating on him extremely isn't good, but I don't think that admiring him to the point of being unable to acknowledge that he has been wrong even slightly is productive either. Overall, just as it's good for Anthony critics to give him credit for what he's done right (like calling Annie out on her cheating) and to refrain from wishing him dead , I don't think it would hurt for those who do like Anthony to be able to admit he has flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 4, 2015 6:10:37 GMT
You are hypothesizing case that is much better than Antimony's: Naturally, as you have been also. This is, after all, a discussion thread that also feature theories and hypothesis. The position was that were is no appropriate way not to hold her back, considering her cheating/results. My position is that - there are, in RL at least, a number of alternatives. Now that doesn't necessarily mean anything for The Court. But it does allow us to question their, and Anthony's, intentions about why they are uninterested in alternatives, and why they haven't felt the need to actually consult with Antimony. Indeed, but she is not being made repeat the entirety of the period she failed to complete due to having cheated, just a single year. So it stands that she's apparently at a level where she can skip at least one year she cheated through. Whose to say she might not be higher? It's hard to say without actually looking into what she's capable of. So it raises doubts about Anthony, or his intentions, as that is not what he is doing. He isn't even finding out why she cheated. Correct, I used that as an example, and as an argument, for why this shouldn't be the first and last solution without first actually assessing her. We, and Anthony (unless he is a mind reader), do not know what Antimony is capable or, or if being made repeat is best for her. She may, in fact, posses the ability to handle the current years work (or the ability to go on with minor help). Or she may not. Not knowing the school's policy means this may be the only option. It might also mean Anthony is ignoring alternatives. And if he is ignoring alternatives it may mean he is motivated by something other then ensuring Antimony develops academically. Like isolating her from friends and peers, for example. Intentionally trying to put her back in her shell maybe. But it is telling that Renard - a fox spirit with no formal education - is enough of an expert on whatever subject he was critiquing Antimony on, to actually be critiquing her. I don't doubt he's correct - it likely was a shambles. But shambles =/= absence, necessarily. Shambles are shambles. His statement wasn't "you don't know the subject" it was "how will you get this in order in time to submit it tomorrow, when it is due.* Don't copy Kat's or you wont know how to think". *He'd probably die of shock if he got to see the kind of miracles university students achieve with shambles only hours before something is due. Based entirely on the fact she has cheated. Hence the problem with the process Anthony has undertaken not actually involving talking to her at any point, or actually testing her. Why did she cheat, you tell me. And no - if she passed a subject legitimately she has the obtained the same level of knowledge as the others, though potentially with different details. As evidenced by the latest strip where he's cutting her from History and Biology. The subject you reference was her medium training with Jones, which we have little idea as to the assessment system of. But she apparently did well enough at it for Jones to support her for Medium-ship. You're not suggesting every single student who passes a subject will have retained an identical set of information, are you? Dates, data on the periodic table, scientific names for countless organisms etc? Antimony's look could either be "I didn't pay attention during that", or it could also be "oh, yeah, of course I remember down to the page every entry in a book that contained hundreds, if not thousands of entries...". After all, even students who try hard often can't retain like that - I was a wonder at chemistry and biology (though I could only recall to chapters, not page numbers), but I'd struggle to reliably fish out the date a particular consul was elected in Republican Rome (baring a few notable ones), despite how many times I revised that list. Still passed with great marks (since history is more than dates). It would seem medium class - however it was assessed - was more than just being able to recall the being in a single bestiary as well. Or, in fact, a lot of cases. It can be potentially bad. I'm sticking to Antimony's case as you insisted the only option is to make her repeat a year. I'm arguing that needn't be the case, and we know it's generally not positive - in RL life - when it isn't the most suitable option. As to the "unfair to other kids" aspect - reference to RL evidence for why retention when not optimal is... not optimal. Children forced to repeat a grade for the wrong reasons (like average grades caused by lack of motivation - common issue with gifted children) can dominate teacher time etc. Which in turn proves my point - retention only has statistical support for being beneficial when it is targeted, and is the best option for the child. It is uncommon in many Nordic countries (and practically not practiced in some), and when it is used it is targeted, and individualized. Also "socio-economic equality makes it unnecessary" is not the sole reason why grade retention is a rarity there, it is just as much due to the educational philosophy that informs their policies - grade retention is rare because they choose not to use it, having found what they feel are better alternatives (which seem to have born fruit - I greatly admire the Swedish education system, for example). I'd be curious to see these many studies (though this probably isn't the place), as that seems opposed to the trend I have seen in the past two years - namely studies presenting evidence that retention can have negative affects, and either neutral or negative outcomes in terms of academics. The last study I saw that gave grade retention a truly positive report was about a decade old (and studies questioning it have been around since at least the 90s). A part of this is redefining the question - what is important for the child, and is this better/worse for them? As opposed to a lot of older studies which typically excluded a lot of things beyond - "will they pass the tests"? And that, of course, is something the increasingly anti-grade retention studies and reports do deal with - the question of whether correlation does imply causation, or whether outside issues are to blame. Unsurprising it can in fact be both. Which again is why it pays to assess the student first to actually figure out their capabilities. Again, I would be curious to see these studies, since what I've been seeing is the need to balance the two - since age advancement (or rather automatic advancement) tends to be interwoven with other kind of healths. The mindset that flies in the face of traditional academic thought and practice is the conservative one... huh. Fascinating. I didn't realize grade retention was progressive policy, while the modern educational philosophies underpinning things like the streaming systems, and an emphasis on emotional/mental well being and development being as of similar importance to grades, were the poorly thought out, conservative ones. I'd argue your mindset much more closely resembles the conservative (and out dated, but not necessarily poorly thought out) philosophy, as it puts a number or letter on a piece of paper above all else, and posits education can be brute forced with with anyone, with little potential for negative/sub-optimal outcomes. Which has been a common theme dating back for almost as long as they've been schools. Also - conjecture unsupported by what I actually wrote. That's kind of patronizing, isn't it? And kind of strawman-ish. Because are you including me in that "quite many"? I'd be curious as to where I ever said school is simply a social environment for kids to meet friends. As opposed to, you know, an environment that delivered more than a single type of education, and more than a single type of developmental potential. Hence the word "balance", and the refrain "choosing the option that is best for the student, in terms of academic learning, as well as emotional/mental well being". And if not - why bring up your theory about what people and students think of school? Of course stigma is a part of it. Or rather the stigma the student imagines. But you are confirming grade retention can cause damage, there. And - forcing them to spend longer in school doesn't necessarily advance their learning either. Which you need to recognize as what I'm saying - grade retention can be useful, in the right circumstances (which tend to be rare). It appears negative, or pointless, in many others, so better options exist (or need to) in those cases. I'm not sure why you seem to think it is an ideal strategy, to the point where one doesn't even need to look at why the student has struggled/failed. No, I was just pointing out the questionable nature of this, and the conflict of parent/teacher. Anthony is making this decision as a parent? While also doing things only the school should be allowed to do? Remember, Anthony said "the court already knew about this behavior, but I will not let it stand". That does not read "the court knew, and was looking to act". It reads "the court knew, and weren't doing anything about it - but now I'm here, and I will". Also - yes, they could be on board with this. They'd need to be now. Whether they started on board though, or are just letting Anthony do what he wants is more debatable. Especially since being on board from the start, or earlier, means some faction has been keeping it from Jones, Eglamore & the Donlans in the dark. Because can you really imagine them agreeing to let Antimony continue cheating so Anthony could come in an execute his plan like he did? When just a cryptic phone call from him had the effect it did? He makes it quite clear that he was responsible for this whole audit. He makes it 100% clear that the process was started by the court while the decision about her retention was finally made by him. He makes it 100% clear the Court knew Antimony was cheating (though we only have Anthony's word for this, but I see no reason to doubt it). Everything else has been Anthony, Anthony and Anthony, by his own words. He wont let it stand. He examined all of her work and subtracted every instance of plagiarism from her overall evaluation. He made arrangements... If the Court already had a process started there's not really any point in Anthony saying "but I will not let it stand". That only makes sense if the courts plan involved letting it stand, in some way. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 6:20:01 GMT
And I respect those who choose to like Anthony. Though even if one likes a person/character, it shouldn't preclude someone from being able to acknowledge the flaws of an individual. ... Overall, just as it's good for Anthony critics to give him credit for what he's done right (like calling Annie out on her cheating) and to refrain from wishing him dead, I don't think it would hurt for those who do like Anthony to be able to admit he has flaws. I won't say I like Anthony; he strikes me as rather a cold fish. But I am seeing him under very trying circumstances, and I know very little about him. And much of that from unreliable narrators. I am sure he has flaws. Everyone does, but because I do not know his situation, or why he's done what he has, I can't be sure of what those flaws are. What I want to see is for people to acknowledge that Annie has one or two really huge flaws herself, flaws that could ruin her career, enslave her, or even kill her. (As you, antiyonder, and a few others, seem to have done.) |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 6:36:21 GMT
And I respect those who choose to like Anthony. Though even if one likes a person/character, it shouldn't preclude someone from being able to acknowledge the flaws of an individual. ... Overall, just as it's good for Anthony critics to give him credit for what he's done right (like calling Annie out on her cheating) and to refrain from wishing him dead, I don't think it would hurt for those who do like Anthony to be able to admit he has flaws. I won't say I like Anthony; he strikes me as rather a cold fish. But I am seeing him under very trying circumstances, and I know very little about him. And much of that from unreliable narrators. I am sure he has flaws. Everyone does, but because I do not know his situation, or why he's done what he has, I can't be sure of what those flaws are. What I want to see is for people to acknowledge that Annie has one or two really huge flaws herself, flaws that could ruin her career, enslave her, or even kill her. (As you, antiyonder, and a few others, seem to have done.) That's the thing though. Practically everyone, even a good majority of those who are strongly against Anthony have acknowledged that it's wrong for Annie to have cheated on her assignments. In contrast, those who strongly defend Anthony strongly hesitate to consider that some of his methods are questionable. For starters, he could have said early "I will not tolerate make up in my class". Instead, he pretty much resorts to insulting Annie. And it very much is Annie's business if a family member suffered a serious injury (his hand in this case), but if he didn't care to answer he could have just said "I'd prefer not to discuss what's wrong with my hand". And I get we don't know much about Anthony, but if Anthony critics/haters are to suspend condemnation until we know more, I think we should get to know more about him before praising him too. I mean even if he does have her best interests in mind, that doesn't mean that every method he takes are just. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 6:49:45 GMT
That's the thing though. Practically everyone, even a good majority of those who are strongly against Anthony have acknowledged that it's wrong for Annie to have cheated on her assignments. What I'm seeing is that while people are willing to (reluctantly) admit Annie did a wrong thing, they seem unwilling to acknowledge the flaw which engendered her wrongdoing, a flaw that might well require the severe shock that Anthony is delivering. I am not willing to acknowledge a similar flaw in Anthony because I do not know him well enough to do so. However, regardless of his character, I think he's doing the necessary thing for Annie, harsh as it is. Could be wrong--but given what we know so far, that's the way I'm betting. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 6:59:02 GMT
That's the thing though. Practically everyone, even a good majority of those who are strongly against Anthony have acknowledged that it's wrong for Annie to have cheated on her assignments. What I'm seeing is that while people are willing to (reluctantly) admit Annie did a wrong thing, they seem unwilling to acknowledge the flaw which engendered her wrongdoing, a flaw that might well require the severe shock that Anthony is delivering. I am not willing to acknowledge a similar flaw in Anthony because I do not know him well enough to do so. However, regardless of his character, I think he's doing the necessary thing for Annie, harsh as it is. Could be wrong--but given what we know so far, that's the way I'm betting. Point, though it bears reminding that Anthony isn't just being judged by his actions as a teacher, but how negligent he's been as a father. I mean it's good that he isn't letting her get away with slacking off, but being a parent is more than just being present only when your kid is acting up or is in potential danger. There's the necessity of emotional support when they aren't misbehaving. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 4, 2015 7:28:41 GMT
That's the thing though. Practically everyone, even a good majority of those who are strongly against Anthony have acknowledged that it's wrong for Annie to have cheated on her assignments. What I'm seeing is that while people are willing to (reluctantly) admit Annie did a wrong thing, they seem unwilling to acknowledge the flaw which engendered her wrongdoing, a flaw that might well require the severe shock that Anthony is delivering. I'm new here, and in the last few discussion threads I've been able to acknowledge that Antimony has done wrong, and needs to accept responsibility for that. And also that something needed to be done about the cheating. That's perfectly reasonable, and right. I don't even do it reluctantly. It'd good someone is doing something about the cheating - I'm just questioning whether what Anthony is proposing is the best thing for her, and if it's not why it's what he wants. I'm very much looking forward to learning more about Anthony - I think he'll be a complex, flawed character I'll enjoy reading. I've also said I'm quite open to the idea that his intentions are good. But just because we don't know much about him, doesn't mean his actions to date get to exist in a valueless vacuum, and automatically be retroactively good if it turns out he has only the best intentions. We can start to form a judgement of his actions, and deeds. We need to keep an open mind of course, and understand them in the context of his character (which could mitigate, or even forgive some of it), but I see no reason why he should get unlimited "benefit of the doubt/forgiveness" till we get to see the clockwork behind the face. For example - he'll need a pretty good reason for why the first thing he chose to say to his daughter in two years (other then the cryptic phone call ordering scalpels) was an insult directed at the makeup that's essentially her memorial to her mother*. Who can say why he felt the need to do that, but he did. Had nothing to do with her cheating, we don't know it's a school rule (makes it worse if it's not), there were numerous ways to achieve the same results without being unprofessional by any teachers standard, and cruel by parental ones... but that's what he chose to do. Plus other things that are completely unconnected to Antimony's cheating, from before he was even a teacher.* Which is to say - I think enough has been seen to be able to criticize/question Anthony for certain things he has done as a teacher and/father, but not necessarily for who he is yet. We can theorize about him based on what we've seen (but should keep in mind it could be completely wrong). *Like I wonder if he knows his daughter, at such a young age, had to guide her own mother to her afterlife. Or knows the effect a single, cryptic phone call had on her, despite her efforts to not be effected by it. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 7:42:49 GMT
I'm very much looking forward to learning more about Anthony - I think he'll be a complex, flawed character I'll enjoy reading. I've also said I'm quite open to the idea that his intentions are good. But just because we don't know much about him, doesn't mean his actions to date get to exist in a valueless vacuum, and automatically be retroactively good if it turns out he has only the best intentions. I don't think "best intentions" necessarily covers things either. But I do think he's doing the best he can under circumstances we can, so far, only guess at. As I've said before, my impression is that he's been away on something like a military or spy mission, and if so, Annie's pretty damn lucky he's been able to come back now. Now, if it turns out he's holding a grudge against her because he sees Annie as having killed Surma, and everything he's done, including his abandoning her to the tender mercies of the Court, is to punish her for something she had no control over, then yeah, let the fiery streams of hate blast him to his component quarks. If he's just a controlling jerk of a parent that Annie, wonderful, mature, strong young woman that she is, needs to find a way to defeat in order to live her own life, then may those same fiery streams blast Siddell to quarks for writing such a lame, cliched girl-book. But I'm having trouble believing either of those scenarios. Something deep and powerful is going on here, and it's more than a disobedient daughter and her distant Dad. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 7:58:28 GMT
I'm new here, and in the last few discussion threads I've been able to acknowledge that Antimony has done wrong, and needs to accept responsibility for that. And also that something needed to be done about the cheating. That's perfectly reasonable, and right. I don't even do it reluctantly. It'd good someone is doing something about the cheating - I'm just questioning whether what Anthony is proposing is the best thing for her, and if it's not why it's what he wants. Agreed. And I still stand by what I said posts ago. People are acknowledging Annie's cheating. Some are reluctant, while others like us aren't. But when it comes to those defending Anthony, up until Refugee's post, there hasn't really been admission (even reluctantly given) that Anthony might not be entirely correct. That said, obviously the extreme hate is problematic because of flat out insults and even wishing harm on Anthony, both I concede guilt to. So being extremely patient and accepting of Anthony might seem better. But that brings to mind that some people are unwilling to admit Annie is wrong for shirking her academic responsibilities or again are reluctant to do so. Why is that? Because Annie has done somethings to make herself respected and likable. As such, some of her fans focus too much on the good parts of her character to the point of not paying much needed attention to her moral failings. And that's what I'm getting at with Anthony. He provided financial care for Annie, called her out on her cheating and even tried to save his wife a long time ago. So obviously he can't be wrong in what he does. But I'm having trouble believing either of those scenarios. Something deep and powerful is going on here, and it's more than a disobedient daughter and her distant Dad. And that's greatly possible, but even if the narrative isn't setting up Anthony to be an inhuman monsters, there's still room to suggest that some of his methods could have been better and that for the good he did, he was still wrong to a point. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 4, 2015 8:01:23 GMT
I'm very much looking forward to learning more about Anthony - I think he'll be a complex, flawed character I'll enjoy reading. I've also said I'm quite open to the idea that his intentions are good. But just because we don't know much about him, doesn't mean his actions to date get to exist in a valueless vacuum, and automatically be retroactively good if it turns out he has only the best intentions.
As I've said before, my impression is that he's been away on something like a military or spy mission, and if so, Annie's pretty damn lucky he's been able to come back now. Now, if it turns out he's holding a grudge against her because he sees Annie as having killed Surma, and everything he's done, including his abandoning her to the tender mercies of the Court, is to punish her for something she had no control over, then yeah, let the fiery streams of hate blast him to his component quarks. If he's just a controlling jerk of a parent that Annie, wonderful, mature, strong young woman that she is, needs to find a way to defeat in order to live her own life, then may those same fiery streams blast Siddell to quarks for writing such a lame, cliched girl-book. But I'm having trouble believing either of those scenarios. Something deep and powerful is going on here, and it's more than a disobedient daughter and her distant Dad. True, though he can still get to be regretful or apologetic of whatever - circumstances beyond his control may be behind his absence, but he was still absent. Sometimes there's just no right answer, or easy way. With sufficient cause I could forgive, if not necessarily forget/excuse his behavior so far. And agreed - I think there's something big going on too, which does likely mean his dealings with Antimony at the moment aren't based purely on just improving her academic ethics. Only time will tell, and I'm very much looking forward to finding out. One page at a time... one of the only reasons I find myself wishing Monday would hurry up, heh. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 4, 2015 10:39:32 GMT
But that brings to mind that some people are unwilling to admit Annie is wrong for shirking her academic responsibilities or again are reluctant to do so. Why is that? Because Annie has done somethings to make herself respected and likable. As such, some of her fans focus too much on the good parts of her character to the point of not paying much needed attention to her moral failings. I dunno if I'm the one to chime in on this since I'm in the "withholding judgement on Antimony Carver" camp, though I'll post since I'm well and truly convinced that his parenting is dismally sub-optimal however you look at it: Antimony is not an adult; I do not think at this age she can have moral failings and if she is heading in that direction the reason why is the lack of guidance. Children are irresponsible. Anthony may have established the notion of academic honesty in her life at one point and explained the reasons behind why it is a good thing but that was done at a very young age; it was not reasonable for him to expect that she would coast through the rest of her life on whatever guidance and lessons he gave her way back when. Furthermore: If to be a jerk is to act without contemplating the impact on others, then I would argue all children are jerks to one degree or other. Regardless of Antimony being the protagonist and POV of the comic she is a sympathetic character and an adolescent, which means that she is at least partly a child. The only instance of jerkiness that I can think of at the moment is Antimony possibly leading Jack on but I think that would be overlooked on the basis of her/their age even without considering her lack of socialization. Therefore expect the fanbase to continue to cut Antimony oodles of slack in general. More specifically, cheating is relatively culturally accepted these days; even at some institutes of alleged higher-learning I've run into profs who didn't give a rip if labwork got copied or assignments were plagerized (because nobody read what was turned in anyway). The schools I went to were small escalator schools that had very harsh punishments for academic dishonesty but they were exceptions. I'm not saying it never happens but it is rarely heard of. Even where cheating was/is policed and punished, retroactive punishment for same is not common. Now, to those who are convinced that Anthony was indeed behind the bonelasers incident his dysfunctional relationship with his daughter would indeed rise to meet the legal definition of abuse somewhere that is not Gunnerkrigg Court. There is an alternate explanation for those events so I am not ready to condemn him to that level, and there is a good chance he had some sort of official approval for that procedure even without Antimony's consent or knowledge. I am also waiting for another shoe to drop with regard to his character development... He must have been somewhere during these years, doing something, and for meta reasons I am expecting a twist or deepening of some sort that will paint him in shades of gray and not dark black, though it is possible that he will turn out to be a darker figure than I think. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 4, 2015 16:41:21 GMT
What I'm seeing is that while people are willing to (reluctantly) admit Annie did a wrong thing, they seem unwilling to acknowledge the flaw which engendered her wrongdoing, a flaw that might well require the severe shock that Anthony is delivering. The only reluctance I have observed is a reluctance to admit that Anthony has been neglectful except when he has been abusive. Necessary? Justify that, please. Punishment for cheating, and response to her having failed to learn the material, are two separate issues... and they haven't done a proper assessment of whether she's learned the material. (Granted, the normal regular assessment failed *because of* her cheating.) What Anthony has said can easily be interpreted as "You appear to have cheated on this one question, therefore if you hadn't cheated you would have gotten a zero on the entire paper." Which is, of course, nonsense, and inappropriate when retroactively applied to an entire school year. The consequence for cheating must be logically separated from the consequence of not having learned the material, because those are separate issues. Then in some cases it may turn out that the two consequences work well together - and in other cases, not so much. I've also said I'm quite open to the idea that his intentions are good. But just because we don't know much about him, doesn't mean his actions to date get to exist in a valueless vacuum, and automatically be retroactively good if it turns out he has only the best intentions. Good intentions are useful for paving certain roads. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 19:03:00 GMT
Necessary? Justify that, please. Given our lack of information, and Siddell's less than transparent story telling (not that I'm remotely complaining, I love it) I don't think either side of this debate is capable of much more than vague handwaving. Good intentions are useful for paving certain roads. Except, apparently, in the case of manipulative trickster gods, or headstrong fourteen year olds. Their intentions are always and everywhere pure and good. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 19:07:02 GMT
Sometimes there's just no right answer, or easy way. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 4, 2015 19:52:42 GMT
Antimony's look could either be "I didn't pay attention during that", or it could also be "oh, yeah, of course I remember down to the page every entry in a book that contained hundreds, if not thousands of entries...". Or the description was done by such a herbarium-for-brain stereotypical German Professor, that even when remembering an entry and looking at a specimen one is as likely to connect the two as not. It happens. There are many and old elaborate jokes about this. After all, even students who try hard often can't retain like that - I was a wonder at chemistry and biology (though I could only recall to chapters, not page numbers), but I'd struggle to reliably fish out the date a particular consul was elected in Republican Rome (baring a few notable ones), despite how many times I revised that list. That's because it was a list. No one remembers meaningless lists other than a few people with "photographic" memory, parrot idiot-savants and those who "cheat" using mnemonics. If it was a single "who backstabbed whom" plot, you would have a chance. "History" as it taught in any organized manner almost inevitably gets taken over by ideology and reduced to a stupid joke. He makes it 100% clear that the process was started by the court while the decision about her retention was finally made by him. He makes it 100% clear the Court knew Antimony was cheating (though we only have Anthony's word for this, but I see no reason to doubt it). Everything else has been Anthony, Anthony and Anthony, by his own words. He wont let it stand. He examined all of her work and subtracted every instance of plagiarism from her overall evaluation. He made arrangements... If the Court already had a process started there's not really any point in Anthony saying "but I will not let it stand". That only makes sense if the courts plan involved letting it stand, in some way. Not really. It makes sense if he wants to position himself as an authority rather than hide behind others. It also makes sense if no one wanted to suggest any particular course of action to Anthony - or discuss with him anything other than raw facts at all. Which may be because whoever had to deal with Anthony thought it will be more polite of them, had no desire or time to discuss anything at the time, were not sure, or avoided arguing with him about minute details, simply because they have heard of him and valued their own sanity too much.  I'm very much looking forward to learning more about Anthony - I think he'll be a complex, flawed character I'll enjoy reading. I've also said I'm quite open to the idea that his intentions are good. But just because we don't know much about him, doesn't mean his actions to date get to exist in a valueless vacuum, and automatically be retroactively good if it turns out he has only the best intentions. We can start to form a judgement of his actions, and deeds. We need to keep an open mind of course, and understand them in the context of his character (which could mitigate, or even forgive some of it), but I see no reason why he should get unlimited "benefit of the doubt/forgiveness" till we get to see the clockwork behind the face. Yup. He's a blackbox and that's why everyone is filling spaces with wishful thinking. Annie, perhaps James, Kat and forumites. But this part is rarely absent completely, which is why reserving some leeway to interpretations rather than jumping ahead, aside of "acting nice", significantly lessens one's chances to end up looking like a rabid ass. Which apparently was the lesson Anthony never learned. For example - he'll need a pretty good reason for why the first thing he chose to say to his daughter in two years (other then the cryptic phone call ordering scalpels) was an insult directed at the makeup that's essentially her memorial to her mother*. That's about the only thing about his behaviour where we can make at least somewhat reasonable guess. After seeing how Renard and James acted around Annie - and she was much younger back then. I'm not saying that's not a red herring, of course, but here we have at least some facts. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 20:16:20 GMT
For example - he'll need a pretty good reason for why the first thing he chose to say to his daughter in two years (other then the cryptic phone call ordering scalpels) was an insult directed at the makeup that's essentially her memorial to her mother*. That's about the only thing about his behaviour where we can make at least somewhat reasonable guess. After seeing how Renard and James acted around Annie - and she was much younger back then. I'm not saying that's not a red herring, of course, but here we have at least some facts. At any rate, AUC's comment that I quote is what many of us are mainly getting at when critiquing Tony. I mean using Kat's parents as a counter example, they actually enjoy spending time with their daughter and choose to do so even when she isn't in trouble or in danger. And while it's good that Tony might be seeking to protect Annie, as well as calling her out on her cheating, that leaves room to debate on his status as a father if those are the only reasons he would be involved in her life. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 5, 2015 1:56:19 GMT
Good intentions are useful for paving certain roads. Except, apparently, in the case of manipulative trickster gods, or headstrong fourteen year olds. Their intentions are always and everywhere pure and good. Right? Are you hallucinating that someone actually took that position? |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 5, 2015 4:44:24 GMT
Except, apparently, in the case of manipulative trickster gods, or headstrong fourteen year olds. Their intentions are always and everywhere pure and good. Right? Are you hallucinating that someone actually took that position? I'm suggesting that there is something of a double standard in operation here. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 6, 2015 1:20:36 GMT
Are you hallucinating that someone actually took that position? I'm suggesting that there is something of a double standard in operation here. I might agree if anyone had ever actually asserted the view that you are attributing to someone, that constitutes one side of this alleged double standard. However, that view seems to exist only in your imaginings. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 6, 2015 1:30:13 GMT
I'm suggesting that there is something of a double standard in operation here. I might agree if anyone had ever actually asserted the view that you are attributing to someone, that constitutes one side of this alleged double standard. However, that view seems to exist only in your imaginings. "Pull the other one, it got bells on it." |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 7, 2015 0:40:00 GMT
Ah, then I am sure you can easily cite where someone has proclaimed Antimony innocent of any wrongdoing.
Otherwise, the bells also exist only in your imaginings.
|
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Apr 7, 2015 0:43:59 GMT
Ah, then I am sure you can easily cite where someone has proclaimed Antimony innocent of any wrongdoing. Otherwise, the bells also exist only in your imaginings. Oh, come on. That would be one double standard, yes, but it would not be the only double standard imaginable. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 7, 2015 0:53:22 GMT
It was the only one dragged out and used to brand criticism of Anthony as hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Apr 7, 2015 1:05:16 GMT
It was the only one dragged out and used to brand criticism of Anthony as hypocritical. Um, no, it wasn't. In fact, I can recall several other double standards mentioned. But even if it were the only case mentioned, there is no call to deny the possibility of others. |
|
