|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 20:05:39 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? And again, 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. 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. And you don't consider it a possibility that it's possible to do the same even when defending him? I think the best way to deal with extremism is with moderation and a willing to give both views a chance rather than trying to beat the haters at their own game. One can believe that Anthony is concerned for his daughter and right in punishing her for cheating, while being critical of some of his other actions. Surely you had to be critical towards a friend and/or family member you hold in high regards. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Apr 4, 2015 20:39:22 GMT
Im not flatly, immovably against the notion of reconciliation, but I'm not so hugely hopeful. If a good outcome would be a return to "detached, distant, but not openly antagonistic" Tony, I can't help but have a piece of me open to the idea that Annie's been without her father for so long that it might just be best for him to make himself scarce-permanently.
I want Annie to be able to have a healthy relationship with her father, but at the present I struggle to visualize the path that would lead to that end satisfactorily.
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Apr 4, 2015 20:54:34 GMT
Im not flatly, immovably against the notion of reconciliation, but I'm not so hugely hopeful. If a good outcome would be a return to "detached, distant, but not openly antagonistic" Tony, I can't help but have a piece of me open to the idea that Annie's been without her father for so long that it might just be best for him to make himself scarce-permanently. I want Annie to be able to have a healthy relationship with her father, but at the present I struggle to visualize the path that would lead to that end satisfactorily. Depending on how things play out, I'd say one alternative would be for them both to try reconciliation, while strongly acknowledging that it won't be easy and that it will take some time before they could possibly be close. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Apr 4, 2015 21:09:54 GMT
Im not flatly, immovably against the notion of reconciliation, but I'm not so hugely hopeful. If a good outcome would be a return to "detached, distant, but not openly antagonistic" Tony, I can't help but have a piece of me open to the idea that Annie's been without her father for so long that it might just be best for him to make himself scarce-permanently. I want Annie to be able to have a healthy relationship with her father, but at the present I struggle to visualize the path that would lead to that end satisfactorily. Depending on how things play out, I'd say one alternative would be for them both to try reconciliation, while strongly acknowledging that it won't be easy and that it will take some time before they could possibly be close. To that direction, it was brought up before that perhaps the two are just too differently minded. They seem to be in diametric opposition regarding matters of magic and the forest, and it is possible that they simply CAN'T attain a healthy balance in their interactions. If that is the case, amicable understanding of their dysfunction and mutual inability to function as father and daughter in any active sense may be the best conclusion. Maybe strained if not estranged is the inevitable color of their relationship, and thus after trying every angle and method to find a way of having what the Donlans and other "normal" families have, a parting of ways could well be what's best. |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 21:34:40 GMT
And you don't consider it a possibility that it's possible to do the same even when defending him? I have acknowledged that I do not know what is going on several times. I just spent a fairly large post list listing a number of mutually exclusive scenarios. I've specified several circumstances under which Anthony hatred, and even destruction, would absolutely be justified. Well, yes. I don't recall calling for anyone to be silenced. Nor has anyone called for me to be silenced. What I do see is a large majority calling a parent, a father, neglectful, even abusive, while presuming facts not in evidence, and rejecting wholesale that even a parent who has been absent on unknown business has the natural right and power to intervene in his daughter's life when she is plainly not making good decisions on her own. The only hate I've seen in evidence is that against Antimony's Father. All I have done is to propose alternate scenarios, and asked that people wait until the scene ends, and Annie has had a chance to react and discuss things with her friends, instructors, and advisors, people like Kat, the Donlans, Eglamore, and Jones. Or, for that matter, waiting until Annie asks her Father where the hell he's been the last several years. As to being critical of Anthony's "other actions", I'll wait until I know exactly what those actions were, and why he took them, before I'll criticize him. I don't like him much, based on what little I do know. But that doesn't mean I should automatically take the position that he's a bad father. === By the way, I think I've seen people accuse Anthony, with or without the support of the Court, of trying to isolate her from her friends. While he does seem to be trying to isolate her from Coyote, I don't trust the Trickster any further than I can throw him. As for Kat and the others, he's only keeping her from attending the ninth year classes they will attend, because Annie hasn't earned her placement there, or the living quarters that go with it. I don't think he's said anything about associating with them in her free time. (I admit, I'd be a little concerned if that happened.) There's also the matter of Anthony having "arranged" for her to be kept back a year. That's being taken to mean that had he not intervened, she's still be a ninth year student. There's another possibility, though: that otherwise, she would have been expelled, or suffered other, worse punishment. I don't know. But then, I don't think anyone but Tom knows, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Apr 4, 2015 21:51:29 GMT
RefugeeThat he's already uprooted her from her currently established dorms, is dictating what will be done with at least part of the time not devoted to her other classes, and has so far forbid one of her extracurricular activities, rings ominous to me. It depends on whether the next pages involve more revocations of her freedoms and privileges, but I don't like where he's been going.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Apr 4, 2015 21:58:35 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. I would like to add what I already said before, that the reason why Annie went unconscious is not irrelevant at all. By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). |
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Apr 4, 2015 22:17:46 GMT
By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). Yup. The etheric equivalent of a "medically induced coma" is certainly a possibility. Let's hope Zimmy didn't knock Anthony away from the operating table in the middle of life-saving soul surgery. I'm not saying it did, or that it was the best option to take under the circumstances. I'm saying we do not know, and should only speculate, not pass judgment. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Apr 4, 2015 23:01:46 GMT
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. I would like to add what I already said before, that the reason why Annie went unconscious is not irrelevant at all. By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). ....No. No no no no no. No. There is no scenario where a parent performing a medical procedure or arranging for there to be a medical procedure performed on a child without them knowing is not abuse and not completely creepy. The only scenario I can possibly think of where that's okay is when the child is too young to understand what's going on, like under four years old, or maybe if the child is unconscious at the time and the procedure is needed immediately to save their life. What the hell? |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 4, 2015 23:02:11 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? Ah, the good old, All Government Workers (or people who work in non-profits under government contracts) Are Commissars and Murderous Schemers And EVERYTHING IS AN EVIL PLOT theory. This is, indeed, exactly the kind of thing that needs no 'rebuttal' because belief in it cannot be swayed. A small portion of any population will always believe things like this, and everyone else will not. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 4, 2015 23:12:14 GMT
I would like to add what I already said before, that the reason why Annie went unconscious is not irrelevant at all. By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). ....No. No no no no no. No. There is no scenario where a parent performing a medical procedure or arranging for there to be a medical procedure performed on a child without them knowing is not abuse and not completely creepy. The only scenario I can possibly think of where that's okay is when the child is too young to understand what's going on, like under four years old, or maybe if the child is unconscious at the time and the procedure is needed immediately to save their life. What the hell? Indeed. As a teenager who is not mentally incompetent, Antimony has the legal right to a say about medical treatments performed on her - even the right to potentially reject them though that right is not absolute. In the end the decision - if contested - is made by a supposedly neutral judge in a court of law where everyone involved can have input; though again and be it said, as far as we know neither Gunnerkrigg Court nor the Forest are actually under the control or oversight of any court of law. That aside, however, to knock out someone not-incompetent, without warning or explanation, and start operating on them is indeed not just abuse under child welfare standards but assault, battery and possibly kidnapping. |
|
|
|
Post by Vilthuril on Apr 4, 2015 23:52:26 GMT
You ask exactly one reasonable question here before going off on a wild rant saying that Anthony is justified (and yes, I know that elsewhere you have said you are not justifying him but just pointing out possibilities; however, everything else you write in your multiple posts absolutely screams the opposite at great length and in expressive detail) because if he did not do everything he has done without Antimony's knowledge then she would be passed around as a sex toy and other strange things completely out of context with the story, apparently drawn from some individual case that took place somewhere and incredibly bothered you; followed, of course, by another rant about how bureaucrats, cops, lawyers and such are nefarious, the child welfare system involves putting parents in orange jump suits and dragging them away in chains (erm, child welfare is civil, though criminal charges do - rather rarely - also occur separately) and that - and here is where I saw you coming from before, and you have again put it fairly blatantly - parents ALWAYS know best and should not be questioned or opposed or a child protected in any way until every last fact has come out, no matter how much obvious harm is visible to the child involved, and even (or perhaps especially?) if the parent himself is actively hiding his actions and refusing to explain them, especially if he may be in some way involved in police/secret service/covert activities. Anyway, I will respond to that reasonable and indeed important question before ignoring your ranting from here on out. It is a question I ask myself and others and try to address as part of my practice. Specifically, you write, "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." Now understand, I obviously cannot prove any of what I am about to say, and much of it is just my opinion! One fact is that I myself am a single parent having raised my child 'alone' (meaning with the involvement of my parents, sister and her family, church people and other friends) since he was five months old. In that time I attended school for years part time while also working full time, and of course parenting full time, in order to provide my son with a better life. In my opinion, I understand the difficulty and the emotions of parenting! On another topic, I often disagree myself with various child welfare laws and the decisions made by various authorities; if it were up to me, at my current employer about half the children in foster care would never have been removed from their parents, and half of the rest would have been placed more expeditiously with relatives rather than staying in non-relative care as long as they do. (Be it said, many are already placed with relatives and other times there are good reasons they cannot be; I'm not saying many good decisions are not also made.) If anything, I tend to get in trouble/be considered annoying - a 'problem' actually with many people on my specialized team that focuses on family and community engagement - because I am (we are) always questioning things and pushing for less intrusion and more family/community involvement. I believe that not only, as I wrote before, is helping the parent often the best way to help a child but indeed that is usually the case - and if not the parent then the extended family and community. Most of the people I work with as clients and families are really great, they just have problems; of course, some - a minority - are evil dirtbags. Where you and I diverge, it seems to me, is that I am willing (as well as required by law) to act to protect a child based on the evidence available to an investigation(*), and I believe that in most (though not all) cases where we intervene our actions, however flawed, are indeed better than what would happen if we did nothing, rather than - as you - allowing a parent to say, "Sorry, I have my reasons which I am choosing to hide" and letting it go at that "Because Parent/Military/ProtectingSocietyWhetherItLikesItOrNot/NefariousGovernment/UntrustworthyProfessionals/YargleBlargle." (*And yes, I do understand that this here is a story, where some shoes may yet have to drop. I'm not the one who started mish-mashing it together with some kind of real world sex ring.  ) ------ Edit: It occurred to me in thinking about this that aside from child welfare being a civil court process, it often isn't a court process at all; even if it does go to court, taking parental custody away is neither the only nor necessarily most frequent outcome. Often, if a report is even determined to be a founded concern, things are worked out by the parent essentially agreeing to not do whatever it is and everyone moving on. Then there can be what is called where I live now a Supervision Order, where the court tells the parent to do or not do one or more things, take part in particular programs, or the like. The details of these agreements and orders can be worked out various ways, including just talking it through, involvement of a neutral mediator, or of course fighting it out in court. What I would probably suggest to Anthony and Antimony in the situation in the story - assuming of course that after all the shoes have dropped it is what it looks like now (physical and/or mental abuse) - would be a voluntary program called Family Group Conferencing. Great program, where the social worker's role is just to explain the finding/research/law and maybe some resources that are available, with the family and their supports meeting privately to come up with whatever plan works for them (here say, around housing and education...) as long as it addresses the basic concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Apr 4, 2015 23:59:34 GMT
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. I would like to add what I already said before, that the reason why Annie went unconscious is not irrelevant at all. By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). It would be abusive if she didn't have prior knowledge of it and was unable to consent. She's over 14, which is the legal cutoff. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 5, 2015 0:01:43 GMT
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. I would like to add what I already said before, that the reason why Annie went unconscious is not irrelevant at all. By the information we have, what happened in Divine may likely have been a medical operation of some sort, for which Anthony anaesthetised Antimony. Which surely would not be abuse of any sort (on presumption that medical operation was made for Annie, that is, to benefit her). I'd question the ethics of any surgeon that put their own child - a mentally competent teenager - in a coma and performed (or tried to perform) an unknown operation* without even consulting with them first, let alone seeking their consent**. And I'd definitely question their qualities as a parent. Creepy wouldn't begin to approach it. How would you feel if your parents drugged your dinner when you were 14, and you woke up in a hospital days later to the assurance "oh, we had them perform an operation we believe will benefit you". Oh, and experimental surgery at that, because if what Zimmy saw was accurate I doubt it's a mature surgical procedure with known percentile chances of success/failure, and known possible side effects. So yes, why she went unconscious is very relevant, even more so if Anthony was behind it, as no matter how good his intentions were they in no way excuse the execution. It'd be quite reprehensible, really. *Which seems to be the case to me - I've been thinking of something like a exploratory surgery of her elemental side though, not "life saving". But it could be something else entirely. Maybe Antimony naturally fell into a coma due to some condition, and Anthony came to the rescue. Though that raises even more questions - like why then did it all seem to stop when Zimmy seemed to drive off the individual she identified as Anthony? ** And why wouldn't you seek consent, or agreement? The most likely situation is - because you know it wouldn't be given.*** Now if this was life saving surgery, why wouldn't Antimony agree? *** "Because there was no time/I couldn't get there to ask" is another, but it's a shakey excuse if you've been monitoring someone long enough to know they need surgery which you have had the time to organize, and you're able to contact them, or people you both trust - as Donnie notes "there are plenty of ways he could have contacted me directly". |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Apr 5, 2015 0:01:43 GMT
I think it's quite interesting to see that some of the people who have jumped to Anthony's defence then condoned all kinds of emotionally and physically abusive behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Apr 5, 2015 0:03:40 GMT
It reminds me of the time that a whole bunch of people got horribly offended that Kat and Paz hooked up and pretended that it wasn't that they were homophobic, it was that "I don't like this issue being in *my* webcomic" or "I'm not homophobic, it's just that gays are sinners".
|
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Apr 5, 2015 0:16:50 GMT
physically abusive behaviour. Wait, what? |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Apr 5, 2015 0:31:15 GMT
physically abusive behaviour. Wait, what? such as operating on an adolescent without consent or notification |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Apr 5, 2015 0:36:49 GMT
such as operating on an adolescent without consent or notification That was etheric. There was nothing physically wrong with Annie. Ethically, there's no difference, but it's not literally physical. There are a couple of other issues I have with this post, which I won't raise in hopes of this not turning into a "how do you feel about Kat being (possibly) gay?" thread. |
|
|
|
Post by machival on Apr 5, 2015 0:43:10 GMT
such as operating on an adolescent without consent or notification That was etheric. There was nothing physically wrong with Annie. Ethically, there's no difference, but it's not literally physical. There are a couple of other issues I have with this post, which I won't raise in hopes of this not turning into a "how do you feel about Kat being (possibly) gay?" thread. Come now fwip, calling it spiritually abusive would have just been silly. |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Apr 5, 2015 0:43:55 GMT
That was etheric. There was nothing physically wrong with Annie. Ethically, there's no difference, but it's not literally physical. There are a couple of other issues I have with this post, which I won't raise in hopes of this not turning into a "how do you feel about Kat being (possibly) gay?" thread. Come now fwip, calling it spiritually abusive would have just been silly. Yeah, I was mostly being pedantic. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 5, 2015 1:14:56 GMT
By the way, I think I've seen people accuse Anthony, with or without the support of the Court, of trying to isolate her from her friends. While he does seem to be trying to isolate her from Coyote, I don't trust the Trickster any further than I can throw him. As for Kat and the others, he's only keeping her from attending the ninth year classes they will attend, because Annie hasn't earned her placement there, or the living quarters that go with it. I don't think he's said anything about associating with them in her free time. (I admit, I'd be a little concerned if that happened.) I don't mind admitting I'm one of those that thinks this could be an isolationary tactic on Anthony's part (for reasons yet to be seen), because at the moment it's sounding like a duck, and looking like one from a distance. Yet to see if it walks like one too. But up close it may indeed turn out to be some other kind of water fowl - it's quite possible Anthony doesn't wish to isolate Antimony, intentionally. In RL people being isolated usually aren't locked in a cell without windows, it starts with making it increasingly difficult for them to interact with the various support and social networks you want to isolate them from. It's awfully convenient the Court maxed out it's year 8 living quarters, making it necessary to put Antimony by herself away from other students (outside of the classes she's still allowed to take), because it's simply impossible for her to stay in her current room, for some reason. And true, he's yet to ban her from going and seeing others out of class... providing lower year students can go and hang out in higher year dorms, or others can go visit Antimony wherever she is going to be living (will Antimony's new dwelling have someone like Anja, Lindsey or Friendsbots watching out for her?). And she can see them in the library, or the robot lab or whatever if they can't. Though that's still a barrier now, especially considering the lack of communication devices in GK. In a school the size of a small city I suspect many of their interactions were planned in their dorms, or in/after classes. As for Coyote... well, that's more normal parent territory. But no more trips into the forest is more than just Coyote - Antimony does have friends there too, and as a part fire elemental it's been important to her for other reasons - the forest seems to have played more of a role in her understanding of herself than Anthony has. If the Court had been preparing to expel her, or otherwise punish her - they were taking their sweet time, if they did indeed know about the cheating**. And if that were the case it raises questions about Anthony's "The Court knew about this, but I will not let it stand". **It's quite possible they knew and were not taking action for some other reason. But if they were intending to act - it's a weird tactic to learn someone is breaking a rule, and then not do anything straight away preferring to let them keep doing it and then spring a punishment. Of course maybe they wanted to expel Antimony, so were waiting till they could, and that's what Anthony "wont let stand". It's also possible the cheating wasn't that big an issue to them - I think there could be something in the idea The Court has concerns (good or bad, or grey) beyond just learning (and Zimmy is an excellent example of that). Of course, and he guards his secrets well. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Apr 5, 2015 1:35:08 GMT
Also just pointing out Tom's Tweet saying that this is apparently the 10 year anniversary, or thereabouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Apr 5, 2015 2:13:08 GMT
Anthony's choices don't have to be illegal for me to consider them unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 5, 2015 2:17:13 GMT
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. Parents must sometimes be harsh. But, even in those circumstances, they must first and foremost be parents. Not in the biological or legal sense - neither really matters - but in the emotional and moral sense. We have very little evidence, and none lately, that Anthony Carver has ever been a parent. |
|
anisky
Junior Member
Posts: 72 
|
Post by anisky on Apr 5, 2015 2:46:02 GMT
such as operating on an adolescent without consent or notification That was etheric. There was nothing physically wrong with Annie. Ethically, there's no difference, but it's not literally physical. There are a couple of other issues I have with this post, which I won't raise in hopes of this not turning into a "how do you feel about Kat being (possibly) gay?" thread. Well, it physically put Annie in a coma. There was nothing etheric about her being unable to get up and move around. She was literally physically incapacitated. |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 5, 2015 3:04:28 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? We assume he abandoned it. Whatever Anthony's been doing could have brought him to the court, or perhaps could be continued from there. Or it's finished. It's also possible Antimony is a part of whatever he's been doing, so returning for this could coincide with his plans, or even help them. It's possible he's abandoned nothing, or just moved onto a new phase of whatever has caused him to be absent to begin with. Plus, well, I think most would say being a parent generally involves... more. If someone asked me to rank the importance of "pulling a child up on cheating" and, say, "explain the circumstances of their mother's death, so they don't blame themselves for it, and be there to help them - if they need - when they do anyway"... well both are serious, and needing to be addressed, but I'd put the latter first. Antimony had to learn about that in an argument with Rey, and work her way through it alone (in the process making friends in the forest, who Anthony is banning her from seeing). But we should pat Anthony on the back for maybe abandoning something to act like guided missile on the subject of cheating? Rey was even ahead of him on that (unless Anthony also knew months ago that Antimony was cheating). Dealing with the cheating is all well & good, but he's been heartless in doing so. It also kind of emphasizes all the things he hasn't been there for. He might have an excellent reason for that, but it's still tripped up by how heartless he's being now - "Saving the world from invasion by armless aliens has made me miss much, but that doesn't matter because I'm resuming active care now: your makeup is ridiculous, my well-being is not your concern, and I'm disappointed you cheated. You're repeating, your friend will be punished if they were involved, and no more forest." |
|
|
|
Post by AnUpliftedCuttlefish on Apr 5, 2015 3:15:55 GMT
Also just pointing out Tom's Tweet saying that this is apparently the 10 year anniversary, or thereabouts. Huzzah! I wasn't hear from the start (though I wish I was - I'd have loved it just as much when I was 11), but I'm terribly happy to have had the chance to be following it for as long as I have - it's wonderful. Thank you Tom for 10 years of amazing work, and I look forward to what the future brings for Gunnerkerigg Court. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Apr 5, 2015 5:06:43 GMT
Im not flatly, immovably against the notion of reconciliation, but I'm not so hugely hopeful. If a good outcome would be a return to "detached, distant, but not openly antagonistic" Tony, I can't help but have a piece of me open to the idea that Annie's been without her father for so long that it might just be best for him to make himself scarce-permanently. I want Annie to be able to have a healthy relationship with her father, but at the present I struggle to visualize the path that would lead to that end satisfactorily. For example, she may bluntly point out that she indulged in wishful thinking about him, which he stomped out now, and that he still does it, so she's about to do him the same favour. And that right now his choice is to either deal with reality and ditch the nonsense or to try and continue pushing his delusions on her and see what he will have in his hands in two weeks. Or go formal, start addressing him "sir" and point out he just overstepped his authority. If he ever utters that he requires this not as a techer, there's conflict of interests and he have to choose which of the roles to drop. I think it's quite interesting to see that some of the people who have jumped to Anthony's defence then condoned all kinds of emotionally and physically abusive behaviour. ...and anyone who condones a heretic or a witch is likely to be a heretic or a witch, too! "For those it may concern in the Holy Inquisition..." The thing you do with this torch is rather entertaining, but your appendages are a little too thick and short to get through internet connection. No, still short even with pitchfork.  |
|
|
|
Post by fwip on Apr 5, 2015 5:19:40 GMT
That was etheric. There was nothing physically wrong with Annie. Ethically, there's no difference, but it's not literally physical. There are a couple of other issues I have with this post, which I won't raise in hopes of this not turning into a "how do you feel about Kat being (possibly) gay?" thread. Well, it physically put Annie in a coma. There was nothing etheric about her being unable to get up and move around. She was literally physically incapacitated. You think you can out-pedant me, young man? You merely adopted pedantics. I was born in it, raised in it - (Quite literally. In a family with six siblings arguments get really silly really fast.) |
|
)
