|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 6:01:56 GMT
Random points of possible interest: The "inconvenience" balloon is coming out of the door, not from Kat. The Court may not be able to forbid Annie to be the Forest's Medium, but they could definitely expel her, and forbid Parley and Smitty to protect her. It would be interesting to see if Coyote would respect Anthony's authority over her. But the real question for me is, will Annie acknowledge her Father's parental authority over her? In the story, barely an hour passed since he's been standing in front of her, and he's used every trick in the book to make her loose her footing. She will find some way to fight back eventually. And it will be a big step towards independance and adulthood. Everyone has got to do that as a teenager, break down the big parenting statues in their mind;and move on to become an adult. The only trick, if you can call it that, was Antimony's desire to please her only surviving parent. This, I expect, is why the Court called him in: she wouldn't listen to anyone else on this. And no, aline, "breaking down the parenting statues" is NOT something every teenager has to do, especially not as young as Annie. Learn to work around, them, maybe, but only in the cases of outright neglect or abuse does a child need to free themselves of her parents, and Anthony is nowhere near that. One's parents should be a standard to live up to, not opponents to defeat. The correct response to being grounded is to accept it, however grudgingly, and work your cute little butt off to prove you are worthy of having it lifted. That's the real step to independence and adulthood: showing the strength and self discipline necessary to act like an independent adult, and not a willful, resentful child. I trust Annie to be strong enough to rise to the challenge her Father has set her. To make new friends, to stop taking the easy path, and to do the work for real this time. |
|
|
|
Post by matoyak on Apr 4, 2015 6:20:06 GMT
And no, aline, "breaking down the parenting statues" is NOT something every teenager has to do, especially not as young as Annie. Learn to work around, them, maybe, but only in the cases of outright neglect or abuse does a child need to free themselves of her parents, and Anthony is nowhere near that. Hahah, whaaaaat? "Neglect" is the BEST thing that can be said of what Anthony has done for/to Antimony. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 6:59:18 GMT
And no, aline, "breaking down the parenting statues" is NOT something every teenager has to do, especially not as young as Annie. Learn to work around, them, maybe, but only in the cases of outright neglect or abuse does a child need to free themselves of her parents, and Anthony is nowhere near that. Hahah, whaaaaat? "Neglect" is the BEST thing that can be said of what Anthony has done for/to Antimony. Annie is adequately feed, clothed, housed, and educated. Even if Anthony has not been able to provide for her directly, he has at least seen she is under the care of an institution he trusts. That is not remotely "neglect" in any reasonable interpretation of the term. She's been given considerable freedom to walk her own path, even to make an alliance of sorts with a possibly hostile power. That alliance seems to be leading her astray. Her Father has returned to take tighter control of her education and career because she has shown she is not yet ready to take those responsibilities on unsupervised. Making your middle school child suffer the consequences of her actions is not neglect or abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 4, 2015 7:00:03 GMT
...fire elemental death baby... Everything else aside, an excellent name for a metal band. ("Hey dudes, Fire Elemental Death Baby is playing. Sweet!")  ---------- edit: Sorry, didn't see you beat me to the sentiment! |
|
|
|
Post by Aegis J. Hyena on Apr 4, 2015 7:01:56 GMT
Returning after an amazingly long absence, but not for long, got other things I gotta be doing.
Prediction:
1) Tony is an avatar of order (or at least an avatar of whatever is against the forest), fully logical, but has no soul to guide him whatsoever. Either that or hatred of the forest defines him.
2) Tony tells Antimony "No more Forestry. No more Kat. You will learn Order." Or something stupid like that.
3) We see (in the spirit) Tony berating and yelling at her while his physical half drones on and on, making noise and fury and calling her inferior. "You never should have been born!" Tony's in rage in the spirit. Detention "until further notice, as the more time you're there is less time with Kat and the forest"
4) Antimony slips out of her body via Blinker and goes "I'm the forest medium." with a shit-eating grin. We see Tony's "spiritual self" as a metallic lich of some kind.
5) Tony tableflips and loses it completely and tries to kill her, but is stopped by Rey, Zimmy somehow ("Message from yer brat! Heheheheh.") or even Coyote breaks all laws to step in and swat him aside to save her as a Deus Ex Machina; Antimony is too good a plaything to lose.
|
|
madragoran
Full Member
"If he trully does hurt you, I will rend the flesh from his bones on your word"
Posts: 232
|
Post by madragoran on Apr 4, 2015 7:12:22 GMT
This chapter is definitely making me think that Anthony is the one who made the Tic-tocs, though. He seems to have specific knowledge of Annie's time at the Court that by all rights he shouldn't have, and with his position as a sort of observer (with his satellites, watching Surma die helplessly, etc), I could certainly see our resident bastard winding up (ha) to be their creator. Don't ask me how that timeline works, though. (Time travel?) It would also make the infection that spread from the Tic-toc into the ravine wall more interesting. Maybe Ys immediately assumed that it was Anthony's doing because it was one of Tony's pet bird-monsters? It sounded like there had been some sort of altercation between Tony and the Forest previously, possibly of a similar nature, so when he found the sweater next to the abomination-bird he put two and two together and decided Tony was back at his old tricks. I am rereading from the start and I've come to the same conclusion re Tic-tocs. Kat's mum says the court has no idea who made the Tic Tocs (unless she is lying) and it would indeed fit with creepy-ass Anthony Carver. Hahah, whaaaaat? "Neglect" is the BEST thing that can be said of what Anthony has done for/to Antimony. Annie is adequately feed, clothed, housed, and educated. Even if Anthony has not been able to provide for her directly, he has at least seen she is under the care of an institution he trusts. That is not remotely "neglect" in any reasonable interpretation of the term. She's been given considerable freedom to walk her own path, even to make an alliance of sorts with a possibly hostile power. That alliance seems to be leading her astray. Her Father has returned to take tighter control of her education and career because she has shown she is not yet ready to take those responsibilities on unsupervised. Making your middle school child suffer the consequences of her actions is not neglect or abuse. I would like to respectfully disagree. Food, clothes housing and an education are good enough things. On the other hand there are other things that are less tangible but make up for the lack or poor quality of the others. First is love. Feeling that your parents love you even if they can not provide material stuff is *the thing* IMO. Respect, caring, support, being there. Helping your child feel worthy. Worthy to be be loved, worthy to be alive, worthy to succeed in life. There is an element of parenting that in the wrong hands can cause, and in my opinion is causing a lot of harm. Parents are gods in the universe of a kid. They are everything. Even worthless parents are that to their kid. Some parents try to raise autonomous human beings. Other parents use that immense power for their own ends (to compensate of their own failures for me). Anthony Carver is the later kind of parent. The manipulative, distant, controlling one. Or that's just how I see him. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 7:23:25 GMT
Annie is adequately feed, clothed, housed, and educated. Even if Anthony has not been able to provide for her directly, he has at least seen she is under the care of an institution he trusts. That is not remotely "neglect" in any reasonable interpretation of the term. I would like to respectfully disagree. Food, clothes housing and an education are good enough things. On the other hand there are other things that are less tangible but make up for the lack or poor quality of the others. "Neglect" is difficult to define, not least because it depends on the maturity (not the age, but the maturity) of the child, but it usually means that one of the criteria I mentioned is not met. Annie's parents saw to it that she was adequately, even more than adequately, covered for those items. She is not a neglected child. Having one's remaining parent being somewhat emotionally distant is not neglect. Again, we do not not Anthony's full situation, or even how closely he has been monitoring her all this time. We do not know how much choice he has in the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 7:31:19 GMT
I would like to respectfully disagree. Food, clothes housing and an education are good enough things. On the other hand there are other things that are less tangible but make up for the lack or poor quality of the others. First is love. Feeling that your parents love you even if they can not provide material stuff is *the thing* IMO. Respect, caring, support, being there. Helping your child feel worthy. Worthy to be be loved, worthy to be alive, worthy to succeed in life. This. And incidentally, while some students like Annie need to remember that school is more than just hanging out with Friends, friendship and social development is still more important than parents and/or teachers consider. Afterall, even with good education you can't always control which job you get. And some jobs require you to interact with people (i.e. the customers), as well as job interviews which you have to present not only your qualifications, but also a pleasant demeanor. Which if you have little confidence and no people skills, you're screwed. And in regards to the possibility that Anthony is dealing with some kind of threat and had to previously keep Annie at a distance. Again that's understandable, but sometimes emotional damages caused to a person can do more harm than some outside danger that could physically harm her. Having one's remaining parent being somewhat emotionally distant is not neglect. Maybe not sending her there, but leaving her no way to contact him or refusal to spend anytime with her between Years (parent/child bonding time) give off the feeling of neglect. Kat's parents in contrast are there for her to talk to and they still spend summers together. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 4, 2015 7:37:43 GMT
Hahah, whaaaaat? "Neglect" is the BEST thing that can be said of what Anthony has done for/to Antimony. Annie is adequately feed, clothed, housed, and educated. Even if Anthony has not been able to provide for her directly, he has at least seen she is under the care of an institution he trusts. That is not remotely "neglect" in any reasonable interpretation of the term. She's been given considerable freedom to walk her own path, even to make an alliance of sorts with a possibly hostile power. That alliance seems to be leading her astray. Her Father has returned to take tighter control of her education and career because she has shown she is not yet ready to take those responsibilities on unsupervised. Making your middle school child suffer the consequences of her actions is not neglect or abuse. As a child protection worker by both education (Master of Social Work with specialization) and extensive governmental and non-profit work experience, I will partially agree but largely disagree with you. First: Anthony has done at least one thing to Antimony in the past which would absolutely be actionable, legally defined Physical Abuse if it had (or did in the future) come to the attention of The Authorities. Specifically, Anthony caused Antimony to fall into extended unconsciousness and become unable to take care of herself; why he did this is unknown to anyone but him, but that is irrelevant as it would be almost impossible to justify or defend in any court. (As it is, the cause of her incapacity is known - at present - only to Kat and the pigeon on her head, Anthony himself, Zimmy, and Gamma.) Second: The one place you are almost undoubtedly correct is that by leaving Antimony in the custody of other people with responsibility, authority and ability to care for her, Anthony did not commit legal neglect (though moral is of course another issue) so long as they continue to be willing to care for her, putatively if not actually without any information about his whereabouts or further contact from him. A situation of neglect would arise if the designated caregivers turned out to be incapable of caring for and protecting her and neither they nor The Authorities were able to find Anthony, or he were unwilling or unable to take back active care. Third: Making your child suffer the consequences of her actions is not legal neglect or abuse UNLESS you do it in a way that violates a particular law (e.g. striking a child in a way that leaves bruises, striking a child in the genitals or face, striking a child who is too young or too old under the laws of the local jurisdiction [under 2 or over 12 where I live now; why is a whole different explanation], withdrawing necessities of life such as food or heat) or - key point coming up here - if you do things that cause the child to suffer unreasonable mental health problems. It is in this area that Anthony is - in my analysis - very likely headed for a finding of Mental Abuse or local equivalent (assuming, again, that any of this came to the attention of The Authorities). By intentionally humiliating Antimony in front of her peers, telling her that she has no right to care about him in any way, refusing her any emotional warmth, breaking her off and isolating her from all other forms of support or friendship...he is very likely to cause her serious mental health problems and if anything (as others have mentioned[*]) increase her behavioural problems. Be it said, Mental Abuse is hard to prove in court compared with other identified forms of abuse and neglect, and sadly in many cases can be proven only AFTER and because the worst damage has already been done. Here, though, that might not be necessary because so much of what Anthony is doing is straight out of textbook/research-proven things-that-cause-mental-and-behavioural-problems-in-kids. With a reputable psychologist doing an evaluation of Antimony and then testifying, testimony from other kids who saw what he did to her, and Anthony himself sitting (or better yet, responding to questions from a prosecutor) in front of a judge, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that judge found his behaviour to be unreasonable and worthy of the definition of Mental Abuse. Incidentally, a parent/guardian's intentions, understanding or capacity, or other demands on him, have nothing to do with a civil finding that a child is in need of protection due to abuse, though it might on a criminal finding; the only thing that matters is what you did or did not do and the effect on the child. If you are incapable of parenting, then you need to find someone who can do it in your place; and if that person ends up not doing what you expected, coming back even though you are still incapable and heaping further abuse on top of previous injury is all the more indefensible, again without any regard to your problems because this isn't about your needs but the child's. That last is a really hard concept for a lot of parents (and other people) but it's true never the less. The best way to help a child is often to help the parent with whatever their problems are, but just because he has those problems does not mean the child does not need protection from him - especially if he does not understand he has problems, is not taking responsibility himself for them or their effects, and/or is not seeking help in fixing them. So, to sum up: Anthony is indeed guilty of Physical Abuse - in my informed estimation - under legal standards, because of his physical attack on Antimony that resulted in her severe physical incapacity. Also, he is pushing hard to go far beyond the pale of legal Mental Abuse because of his unreasonably harsh and across the board emotionally abusive treatment of her. Of course, as near as can be told there is absolutely no 'law' within either the Court or Forest other than what is thought up and handed out arbitrarily by people/beings who hold power solely through force and manipulation (no steenkin' elections) and no connection with or adherence to outside/'higher' authority. So...well, who knows. Morally, though, Anthony is an abuser and a dirtbag, full stop. [*One thing I have often seen, both in my work and elsewhere, is that it is the parent or other person/institution/organization/what-have-you that demands absolute knowledge and absolute control over everything that in fact ends up having absolutely no information and absolutely no influence because the child (or whomever/whatever) hides everything from everyone - sometimes to the point of disconnecting even herself from reality - and goes completely wild.) ------ edit adding: Under this theory, Anthony wouldn't be responsible for Physical Abuse, but the Mental Abuse argument becomes all the stronger. That is, if Antimony fell into a coma (after digging holes in her hands with her fingernails) because he left her without any contact for years and then 'made contact' only in order to get her to pass on a message asking someone to send him some tools, that is pretty solid evidence, all the more so on top of his hateful - meaning, showing hatred of her by him - treatment of her now. Of course, some people either hold across the board or in every practical situation they are presented with that parents don't ever do wrong to children and that it is always the children's responsibility to buck up and stop whining and do whatever it takes to make things work out and win the parent's approval, or die trying (which, indeed, children all too frequently do: die). I have no particular expectation of swaying such types, either the ones who are parents harming children themselves or those who dote on and defend them; I've seen it happen but usually only if it is their own children who have been removed and it has become clear to them that no one is going to buy their baloney. For what it's worth, the hardest nuts among these are not the poor and marginalized but the upper middle class with their huge senses of entitlement, stacks of money to cover up their problems, positions and appearances/styles of social status, and lots of influence and connections to back up their rationales and excuses. Like Anthony, in other words, especially if his interests here coincide with the Court leadership's. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 4, 2015 7:49:53 GMT
...fire elemental death baby... Everything else aside, an excellent name for a metal band. ("Hey dudes, Fire Elemental Death Baby is playing. Sweet!") Gods I want that band shirt so badly, the design could be amazing. Returning after an amazingly long absence, but not for long, got other things I gotta be doing. Prediction: 1) Tony is an avatar of order (or at least an avatar of whatever is against the forest), fully logical, but has no soul to guide him whatsoever. Either that or hatred of the forest defines him. 2) Tony tells Antimony "No more Forestry. No more Kat. You will learn Order." Or something stupid like that. 3) We see (in the spirit) Tony berating and yelling at her while his physical half drones on and on, making noise and fury and calling her inferior. "You never should have been born!" Tony's in rage in the spirit. Detention "until further notice, as the more time you're there is less time with Kat and the forest" 4) Antimony slips out of her body via Blinker and goes "I'm the forest medium." with a shit-eating grin. We see Tony's "spiritual self" as a metallic lich of some kind. 5) Tony tableflips and loses it completely and tries to kill her, but is stopped by Rey, Zimmy somehow ("Message from yer brat! Heheheheh.") or even Coyote breaks all laws to step in and swat him aside to save her as a Deus Ex Machina; Antimony is too good a plaything to lose. Heh, the phrase "you will learn Order" made me laugh - got me thinking of a poorly dubbed martial arts film. Also an entertaining scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Apr 4, 2015 11:54:33 GMT
Tony can't actually forbid her from being a fire elemental with etheric powers, which is basically what he wants to do.
He also can't forbid the forest and ether from existing, even though he certainly wants to do that too. He seems pretty incapable of accepting anything outside his narrow world view though, so I think this will be a painful lesson for him as it already has been before. Also he is rapidly eroding his power over Annie here. She will fight back once pushed too far. This may be it, but more likely it will be the next step - no Rey and/or no Kat. Heh, "Go to your room, and don't come out until you're ready to reject reality and change the fundamental nature of your being." A pain many gay kids know too well. One thing I'm curious about is why the Court wants to keep Annie out of the woods in the first place. Anthony is supposedly very anti-magic so that explains his motive, but why would the school and the headmaster? Surma was the court's medium once upon a time; did that not work out? Did Surma cause some kind of problem for them, so they're afraid Annie will repeat it? Is there something in the woods they don't want such a potentially powerful kid to know about? (The other forest creatures backed the hell away when they saw what she was, muttering to themselves about fire elementals being strong.) Do they know about Jeanne and are afraid she might be able to exorcise her, leaving the Court more vulnerable to the whims of the creatures in the forest? What's their deal? And does this tie in in anyway to what's going on with Kat and the robots? It occurs to me that while Anthony can maybe stop Annie from walking over to the Forest, he probably can't stop her from etherically flying over to the Forest while her body's lying in bed at night. Which is why her blinker stone will be the next thing on the list that she has to give up. Although I can't remember if she's learned how to etherically travel without it yet. Has she? |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Apr 4, 2015 12:17:07 GMT
Wonder when we're going to see the planet thingy I think we've seen quite enough of Anthony's Uranus... |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 4, 2015 12:21:30 GMT
I'm beginning to see a parallel here between Antimony and Jeanne... Jeanne, as we all know, being denied the Forest and access to what she loves by a man who possesses sufficient power over her to enforce her separation from it, backed up by a Court that is on his side. If the key to Jeanne is convincing her of your understanding of her plight and her despair, I am wondering whether Anthony isn't forging that key right now in Antimony's spirit.
|
|
|
|
Post by csj on Apr 4, 2015 12:49:40 GMT
By any measure, Antimony would be considered a 'delinquent'. His intent and method are both skewed, but there was absolutely no way Annie should spend the rest of her childhood cheating off her best friend and being manipulated by a literal god. BUT... Anthony is incapable of seeing a better means of doing what he desires, which itself is warped.
Surma was not exactly a magical princess either. She deliberately trapped Reynardine on behalf of the Court, which she represented. Having Annie represent the Forest is probably not something she would desire either. Both were respected by the Forest only due to their identity/nature and strength of will.
It is Tony's desire for certainty that drives him towards seeking a controlling response. He couldn't trust a Court that was intent to watch her destroy herself in one way or another, having effectively 'defected'. She lost her potential 'utility' in their eyes.
He is an intense person and elicited an intent response. It will prove self-defeating, in my opinion, but even if it causes her distress, some good will come of it in one way or another. Will it be worth it?
Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 4, 2015 15:54:36 GMT
I have a somewhat simpler explanation for Annie's cheating (while noting that several of the explanations are mutually non-contradictory and may all be true).
Lack of reason to care.
Annie's interested in biology and mythology/history. Her other subjects, not so much. Her personal incentive in those classes was not to learn the material, it was to get along with minimum effort. She cheated once, nobody seemed to care, she saw that breaking the rules seems to be accepted (she even had a teacher telling her to be more careful to not get caught) - great, an easy way to get along in the classes she doesn't care about!
We have no reason to think she couldn't have passed those classes. We don't even have specific reason to think that she didn't study enough to pass most of them, possibly even all of them. Because she was sure of passing them and getting decent grades if she copied Kat's work. Why take the chance of failing, when cheating is so easy and accepted, and she doesn't really care about the material?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on Apr 4, 2015 16:34:19 GMT
Yes, Annie should be held accountable for her screw-ups like any kid. But in the case of cheating it's important to get to the route of it. Why did the kid cheat? is it only laziness? or is it because their home life or expectations placed on them by their parents forced them to? because they are afraid of their parents? because their parents are absent or uncaring? Parents are not off the hook, in such cases they too are complicit. they failed to provide a safe and healthy environment for the child. And parents do this often, and often unintentionally, but they must work together with the child to correct it, instead of piling on the guilt and blame, which will only case the child more stress, more anxiety and long term damage. if Anthony thinks Annie is in any sort of state of mind to learn anything right now he's wrong. This. So very much this. Two possible interpretations here about why the Court knew and did nothing. 1. They figured they might need leverage over her some day. That day has arrived. This would be the "Asshole Court" theory. 2. They understood her background, saw that she was strong in history and biology, likely because of her parents, and was cheating to get by in other subjects where she was week. They recognized this as not having proper schooling, and they let it slide. Why? Because the Court isn't entirely about academics. Look at Zimmy for isntance: she's certainly not there to take classes. Jones has explicitly said as much. This is the "Court has other motives" theory. It might be a little of both, but I think it's primarily #2, with a dash of #1. And the latter is them being somewhat opportunistic, meaning it wasn't their intent originally to use it against her, but now the opportunity has presented itself so they aren't objecting. None of this excuses Anthony, though, because his actions here show that he doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why she's cheating, and that his own actions as a parent laid this foundation. She needs to be disciplined, yes, but as a parent punishment must be proportional to the crime, and you need to take into account the why in addition to the what. Anthony is not seeing the why at all, and would probably outright deny his own culpability. He also needs to take into account that the Court has let it slide, because there's obviously a reason for that, too. Instead, Anthony "just isn't standing for it". Put all of that together, and the correct punishment here is not "attempt to take everything away and repeat the grade". And if his goal is to push her to some reaction...to use these things to get her to do something else. Well. That's even worse. That's outright abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Apr 4, 2015 17:08:50 GMT
Now we reach the meat of the business. The grades and putting her down a year is a ruse by her father and the court to keep her away from the forest.
I reckon next week she'll snap, especially if they try and take Rey away too.
This isn't her father having control over the court, this is the court giving her father all they information they want him to have, while knowing what conclusions he will come to. Tony is simply carrying out exactly what the court want to happen to Annie.
Tony thinks that what he is doing is for Annie's own good, keeping her safe. But it's keeping her safe in the same way that locking someone in a cage where they can't do anything or be harmed also keeps them safe. Not exactly a practical thing to do, and will always backfire.
Anthony is being a dick, but he has reasons for it. They are not good reasons, and he is coming to the wrong conclusions, but he has his reasons. At some point Annie will backfire on him, she is just currently still in shock.
|
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Apr 4, 2015 17:14:52 GMT
At some point Annie will backfire on him, she is just currently still in shock. That's the expectation, but not always the reality. Some people lift their chin and take it forever, continue making excuses for their abuser, continue guilting and punishing themselves, and even commit suicide. Either Annie will sink into depression, rebel (more unlikely than many would think for abused children but easily the best result of the three), or psychologically snap, possibly to the point of violence. EDIT: We've already seen the seeds of the latter in Fire Spike. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Apr 4, 2015 17:30:51 GMT
And no, aline, "breaking down the parenting statues" is NOT something every teenager has to do, especially not as young as Annie. Learn to work around, them, maybe, but only in the cases of outright neglect or abuse does a child need to free themselves of her parents, and Anthony is nowhere near that. I didn't mean it in the sense of cutting all ties with them. I meant it's the time where you stop idealizing your parents, learn they can be wrong and question their values and opinions. It's a time where you tend to make friends they don't like, try things they forbid you and generally start to find out what kind of adult you're going to be. As opposed to a child who does as told. She's 14. She's not at the age to move out yet, but she is at the age to distance herself from her parents values and political opinions. For example an opinion that her role as a forest medium is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Apr 4, 2015 17:56:28 GMT
I do not feel surprised when teens say that it's abuse, or bad parenting. or otherwise abominable. Of course there are sub-optimal choices made. Parents are humans. They don't see the world through the eyes of a teen. Especially so if they haven't been around teens for a very long period of time. Let alone a child whom he has limited understanding of personally. It is very much reasonable however that any parent would not want Annie to be in her present schooling situation. If she is still 14, then that's a hell of a lot better than this happening at the age of around 16 plus, which is when we start setting-in life habits and such for good. If she cheated until 16 without repercussion, then she would be stuck in that groove into adulthood. I guess that's how I perceive it as a 'young adult' that is now well past this period of their life. Then again, I also know all too well how an attempted 'solution' to a problem creates their own. Sometimes, we create solutions to problems that our parents never wanted us to solve, like how to use the computer without child restrictions, or how to bypass net filters. Or play vidyagames without owning a console.  Annie's response will determine the outcome of this twist as Tony's chosen path of attack at her perceived 'deviancy'. There also lies the possibility of Tony blaming Annie for Surma's death, or even recent injuries, if some theories are true. There is malice, but also tempered compassion, though of a detached and authoritarian variety. If the Court wasn't going to restrain Annie, then why would they 'dupe' Tony into coming back? I personally reject that hypothesis, given their already self-evidently lax approach to such things as robot mutilation, manhandling, hacking abuse, etc. Even for things they refer to as 'appliances'... |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 18:27:14 GMT
As a child protection worker by both education (Master of Social Work with specialization) and extensive governmental and non-profit work experience, I will partially agree but largely disagree with you. First: Anthony has done at least one thing to Antimony in the past which would absolutely be actionable, legally defined Physical Abuse if it had (or did in the future) come to the attention of The Authorities. Specifically, Anthony caused Antimony to fall into extended unconsciousness and become unable to take care of herself; why he did this is unknown to anyone but him, but that is irrelevant as it would be almost impossible to justify or defend in any court. (As it is, the cause of her incapacity is known - at present - only to Kat and the pigeon on her head, Anthony himself, Zimmy, and Gamma.) We do not know that Anthony "caused Antimony to fall into extended unconsciousness". If he did, we do not know why. All we know is what we saw through Zimmy's eyes, and I do not trust Zimmy as a reliable narrator. She is known to lie to Gamma when she translates other people's statements, in a way calculated to keep Gamma isolated and dependent on her--I'm pretty sure that would be considered signs of abuse if that were known. Also, consider Zimmy's perception of Kat. She's correct in seeing that Kat is powerful, dangerous, and possessed of her own weaknesses (as expressed by the pigeon), but I doubt she sees Kat's good natured caring. Or let's grant, arguendo, that she's correct in seeing Kat's true nature as cold, mechanistic, robotic, powerful and controlling; unable to see the spiritual aspects of life (and death, see Mort's passing) that is crucial to Antimony's nature. Would Anthony not be correct in isolating his daughter from daily, intimate contact with such a person? Consider the possibility that those bones Zimmy saw were Anthony's effort at building a scaffold allowing Annie to develop a version of Kat's etheric face, necessary in order to keep Annie from dying as Surma did. Consider the possibility that Annie herself grew those bones, for reasons we do not remotely understand, good or bad. Consider the possibility that those bones are all that keeps Annie's fire elemental aspect from completely consuming her, until she is mature enough and skilled enough to control them. Consider the possibility that they are more like child-safe covers on the cleaning cabinet, or a gun lock, or a gate across the stairs, than a prison cell. Consider the possibility that Anthony wasn't even aware of those bones until Zimmy used them to attack him. And that now that they have been revealed, other beings have, or might, become aware of them as well. Look at the next chapter, where Ysengrin nearly destroys Annie. Perhaps those bones are what made Annie vulnerable, by pinning her fire elemental down. Perhaps NOT HAVING those bones is what made her weak. Consider the possibility that Coyote's the one who's been building those bones. (I think Annie or Anthony are more likely, though, having something to do the Father/Daughter bond.) At the very least, I have to believe he was aware of them; why didn't he advise Firehead Girl of their presence? Consider the possibility that it was Donald who started the growth of those bones when he had Annie launch that rocket. Was he aware that he did that? Consider the possibility that Anthony cut himself off from his daughter because he knew that, either because of his own nature or his work, contact with Annie would put her at mortal risk. Consider the possibility that Zimmy's attack disrupted the good and necessary work Anthony has been doing, as well as alerting him that that Annie was at greater risk than he knew. All of which is to say, we do not know who put those bones into Annie, or why, or if they are for good or ill. We do not know why Anthony cut himself off. We do not even know why, really, he came back to the Court. === You've worked in real neglect and abuse cases. Let me suggest that this has given you a rather jaundiced view of the parent-child relationship. Let me also suggest that, if you are willing to condemn Anthony on such flimsy evidence, you may well occasionally do more damage than you are trying to fix. Except Anthony did in fact abandon whatever he was doing to, among other things, "take back active care". But you are condemning him for doing that. Huh. Can't win for losing, can he? I hope I have shown that while you may well be informed in the law regarding abuse and neglect, you are not in any way adequately informed concerning the facts of the case. You, of all people, should know that things are not always what they seem. I hope that, in your official capacity, you do not remove children from their parents because you think that there might be actionable levels of neglect, based on skimming a very thin and likely biased case file which derives mostly from hearsay evidence provided by an informant who herself is manipulative and unstable, and which was written up by a known fantasis who is known to delight in tricking his audience purely for entertainment purposes. A magician, in David Brin's sense that "magic is the deliberate telling of untruths". I hope that you do not consider a parent, especially a father, to be neglectful when engaged in military or intelligence work which he believes WITH GOOD REASON is necessary to defend his daughter, the society his daughter is a member of, and the institution he trusts with her life. A father, in fact, who is willing to risk his own torment or death in her defense. === Finally, I will now ask you to consider the Rotherham child-sex ring, which targeted girls in Annie's age group. Tell me, just exactly what is a father justified in doing to keep his very attractive daughter from falling in with the charismatic leader of such a thing, or of a religious cult? Especially [and here Refugee takes the gloves off, exposing a gleaming set of brass knuckles] when the authorities, INCLUDING child protective services, refuse to take any action because they do not want to embarrass the politically favored perpetrators. What is such a father justified in doing when, instead, he is threatened with having his child taken from him, or even being arrested himself, because of his natural and reasonable actions to keep her from far worse abuse? I mean, surely, a single incident of embarrassing a child in front of her classmates and best friend is far, far worse than being passed around as a sex toy, or being swept up by a cult whose leader is KNOWN to engage in mind-wipe. Right? It is a good sign that Annie is capable of being embarrassed by this. It means she is not yet totally lost, like some gang member who considers being punished for armed robbery, assault and battery, rape, or even murder to be a badge of honor, a necessary professional credential. Anthony might be the monster you, and most people here, think he is. If so, I hope his daughter burns him to quark ash. But I think he truly cares about Annie. I also think that Annie is strong enough, and moral enough, to benefit from her punishment. She is embarrassed not because her Father publicly demanded she removed her makeup, or because she's been held back a grade. She's embarrassed because she knows she's in the wrong. And she accepts her punishment because it is her Father dishing it out, not some random teacher or petty bureaucrat. I think that what I object to the most about attacking Anthony, and defending Annie, is the view that a young woman as strong, as powerful, as good, as outright wise as Annie is, can be turned into a feeble victim when she is brought to task for endangering herself, her friends, and her society. Tell me, just how much damage do you think it would do to Annie to have a court of law take her Father away from her for acting in what he believed WITH GOOD REASON to be her best interest? How embarrassing would it be to Annie for everyone to see him taken away in chains and orange jumper for defending her against a destructive cult? Can you show that for a case like this that the damage such an action would cause would be less than what it is intended to prevent? Or must we just assume ( or else) that bureaucrats, cops, lawyers and social workers always know best? |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 18:41:57 GMT
None of this excuses Anthony, though, because his actions here show that he doesn't get it. He doesn't understand why she's cheating, and that his own actions as a parent laid this foundation. She needs to be disciplined, yes, but as a parent punishment must be proportional to the crime, and you need to take into account the why in addition to the what. He's just spent considerable time and effort to investigate Annie's cheating. I have a hard time believing that he has not thought long and hard about why she might be doing so. We do not yet know the extent of the punishment he, and the court, are imposing. I am nonplussed by comments to the effect that the Court and its leaders and agents are malign, but that the forest is good, and that Coyote is benign, even good. Despite having shown an unhealthy interest in Annie's sexuality, and a willingness to edit Ysingrin's memory. The scene isn't over, people. We are far from learning its aftermath. If Anthony doesn't know Annie's motives, after hours of studying her records*, we certainly do not know enough about him to judge. === * AS ANY CARING PARENT WOULD, if the school granted him full access to his child's records, as I expect many these days would not, out of some misguided sense of privacy. Or worse, and more likely, out of a reluctance to have their own actions scrutinized. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 18:49:28 GMT
Incidentally, at the start of The Great Secret, Annie acknowledges, quite casually, that she is not yet Coyote's Medium. She's only a Medium in training.
Egg warns her that had Coyote not "directly summoned" her, the Court would likely not allowed her to go.
And note Annie's casual attitude towards her attire. I think Egg's unease with that is borne out; it indicates Annie's casual attitude towards Coyote, and the Forest beings generally.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 4, 2015 19:00:07 GMT
As a child protection worker by both education (Master of Social Work with specialization) and extensive governmental and non-profit work experience, [...] I have no particular expectation of swaying such types, either the ones who are parents harming children themselves or those who dote on and defend them; I've seen it happen but usually only if it is their own children who have been removed and it has become clear to them that no one is going to buy their baloney. For what it's worth, the hardest nuts among these are not the poor and marginalized but the upper middle class with their huge senses of entitlement, stacks of money to cover up their problems, positions and appearances/styles of social status, and lots of influence and connections to back up their rationales and excuses. As opposed to comissars, who are entitled properly to use everything (such as this forum) as a platform to shamelessly push their witch-hunting misanthropic speeches promoting their little business - which is okay. or die trying (which, indeed, children all too frequently do: die). Oh, yes. How frequently? Secret. And not only children. What really happened to Nancy Schaefer, again? |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Apr 4, 2015 19:07:52 GMT
As a child protection worker by both education (Master of Social Work with specialization) and extensive governmental and non-profit work experience, [...] I have no particular expectation of swaying such types, either the ones who are parents harming children themselves or those who dote on and defend them; I've seen it happen but usually only if it is their own children who have been removed and it has become clear to them that no one is going to buy their baloney. For what it's worth, the hardest nuts among these are not the poor and marginalized but the upper middle class with their huge senses of entitlement, stacks of money to cover up their problems, positions and appearances/styles of social status, and lots of influence and connections to back up their rationales and excuses. As opposed to comissars, who are entitled properly to use everything (such as this forum) as a platform to shamelessly push their witch-hunting misanthropic speeches promoting their little business - which is okay. or die trying (which, indeed, children all too frequently do: die). Oh, yes. How frequently? Secret. And not only children. What really happened to Nancy Schaefer, again? Uh...the hell? |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 4, 2015 19:10:35 GMT
Refugee, you are a hyperskeptic. Mere skepticism is enough. But you protest far, far too much. This is a comic and a work of literature, not an indictment of your life philosophy or a challenge to your contrarianism. As just one example, you post:
Yes, if we are to grant that proposition (which in fact I do not grant), it is clear from the evidence presented that Anthony is a even better exemplar of that harshness than Kat could be if she lived a hundred years. Even if we argue (which I do not in fact argue) that he lacks the capacity for introspection while retaining the capacity for precise character assessment, I deny that he would be motivated to keep Antimony from such an influence; on the contrary, I think he would encourage it.
Commentariat, I'm beginning to be convinced that the debate is too heated and will become more heated still if we don't moderate ourselves. Let's please think before we deliver polemics. I promise to do so myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 19:23:17 GMT
Refugee, you are a hyperskeptic. Mere skepticism is enough. But you protest far, far too much. This is a comic and a work of literature, not an indictment of your life philosophy or a challenge to your contrarianism. *sigh* My problem here is exactly that far too many here are accepting certain aspects of this story as CONFIRMATION of their philosophy. And their contrarianism when it comes to certain realities of child raising, to wit, the idea that sometimes parents must be be more than a little harsh. And, as noted, that sometimes there are no good answers, only less bad ones. But above all else, my problem is that people are jumping to conclusions before the scene, to say nothing of its consequences, has played out. I am, as so many like to say, merely raising questions. Merely trying to hold a hand up to what I see as something of a five minute (well, five day) hate. I am expressing my faith in both Anthony and Antimony. In Anthony, that he is at heart concerned, properly so, for his daughter's well being. In Antimony, that she is strong enough, and good enough, to not only survive her punishment, but to benefit from it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Apr 4, 2015 19:40:24 GMT
I think I've said before, I don't know where, and will say here that I am put at some unease by Zimmy and Gamma's relationship. There's no doubt that the two care for each other on levels above and beyond many persons' concepts, but Zimmy's jealousy and attempts to keep Gamma isolated are-in my mind-indisputably unhealthy behaviors. I believe it's obvious enough to us viewers that even if enlightened to Zimmy's social sabotage, Gamma cares too much about her to up and abandon her as Zimmy fears. Just as we've seen that Kat isn't about to cut ties over Annie's unhealthy behaviors.
With those two instances, I wouldn't find it a stretch to believe most people here would advocate measures to alter or eradicate those dishonest and or controlling practices.
Here, now unfolding, we have Anthony evaporating Annie's social opportunities and forbidding her interests for X reason or justification. As with Antimony lying to (among other things) preserve her friendship with Kat, and Zimmy actively sabotaging Gamma's potential other relationships, which I don't think I've seen a person here flatly justify as being in the moral right, is not true that no matter how the committing party reasons the necessity of their act, a deleterious action remains harmful?
|
|
|
|
Post by calpal on Apr 4, 2015 19:43:24 GMT
But more importantly, I think this goes towards someone else entirely: Katerina. The Court must surely be aware of Kat's connection to the robots by now, especially after the cruise ship incident. They probably want her to continue her work post haste and, most importantly, without any distractions to impede her work. There are, currently, three major distractions: Annie, Paz and school work. If they could remove Annie's impact on Kat, that might improve her willingness to focus on her robotics; even Kat has admitted that seeing people less - in the last two chapters, Paz - would help her focus on her robotics work. Or Kat might be so upset and angry that she can't focus on the work. (I've sometimes thought that the Seraphs were fortunate that Kat's response to the "Torn Sea" incident wasn't to smash everything in her workshop to pieces and vow never to do anything with robots again.) that, while Kat's a sensitive girl, she won't let something like that hold her down for life. The Seraphs were pushing it to the limit by nearly trapping everyone on the cruise ship within Zimmingham with the intent that she would actually work harder - which she did. So if they can't break Kat and stop her from continuing her work, then Mr. Carver definitely would not by removing Annie from a large portion of her life. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 19:59:53 GMT
Except Anthony did in fact abandon whatever he was doing to, among other things, "take back active care". But you are condemning him for doing that. Huh. Can't win for losing, can he? As you and TBholder don't take into consideration, being a parent requires more than showing up to discipline a child or possibly in this case showing up to protect them from some possible threat down the line. I can only give him a modicum of praise for calling her out on her cheating, but if the only reason he show up is because she's in danger or to merely give her the "reason you suck speech" then the criticism is still valid. Again, Kat's parents actually spend time with her between years and don't need some emergency or trouble as a reason to do so. |
|
In the story, barely an hour passed since he's been standing in front of her, and he's used every trick in the book to make her loose her footing. She will find some way to fight back eventually. And it will be a big step towards independance and adulthood.
