[1498] No no no no!

[Onomatopoeia]

We get it, your e-penis is large and korba is fighting a losing battle because your power is maximum.

[zbeeblebrox]

Apr 9, 2015 3:29:24 GMT guitarminotaur said:

As a teacher myself I can also say that it is a damning indictment of the court to say nothing about Annie's cheating for two years, only to allow Anthony to drop this bombshell on her head. Consequences should have been brought out as soon as something was amiss.

Okay, there's really only one way - at this point - to redeem Tony, and it's if it comes to light that the Court was intentionally holding off on reacting to Annie cheating until it was bad enough that they could justify expelling her. So when Anthony finds out by accident (somehow), he negotiates it down to being held back a year and personally returns to carry out the decision in order to ensure they don't go back on their word. It'd still be a dickish way to go about it, but at least you could say he was saving his daughter from being kicked out onto the street or something.

I don't know, I get the impression the Court has never really liked Annie. So it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were pulling political BS like that in order to screw her over and basically exile her.


[edit] Also, can we PLEASE take the off-topic discussions about parenting and whatever to another thread? It's really clogging this place up, and it's not relevant to the update or even really the chapter specifically.

[speedwell]

Apr 9, 2015 20:53:37 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

We get it, your e-penis is large and korba is fighting a losing battle because your power is maximum.

Boredom is a terrible curse. 10-year-old Laphroaig is a wonderful whisky.

[Refugee]

Apr 9, 2015 20:09:24 GMT antiyonder said:

Apr 9, 2015 19:56:22 GMT Refugee said:

Speaking for myself, I believe that all of the edicts he has imposed on Annie are legitimate responses to her plagiarism. He and the Court are going easy on her, if anything.
...
It happens in real life; this is not a hypothetical situation. Dads go off to way, into the mines, out to sea, because if they don't their children may be enslaved or destroyed.

Right, and as I recently proposed, is there no reason he couldn't ask Donald or Anja to be there for Annie to contact in his place?

They haven't been?

Donald, Anja, and James have all been there for Antimony, in ways both large and small. I doubt we have seen anything like all the times they have been there for her.

[brokshi]

Apr 9, 2015 5:59:53 GMT Refugee said:

Ever seen what happens when important work on a curriculum vitae or resume is found to be plagiarized or fabricated?

Degrees get stripped and careers go in the toilet, sometimes very publicly, even those in positions of power in industry and government. The Bellesiles fraud, exposed by a software engineer and amateur astronomer and history buff, embarrassed historians, policy makers, and journalists that had depended on the fabricated work. Bellesiles lost his career and had to return a Bancroft prize, some $100,000, the first time in the prize's history one had been revoked.

Bro, she's like 14 or 15, you gotta keep the scale similar. This is entirely disproportionate.

I have to keep saying this, because people keep missing it: Annie is a good person. She is strong, and has many skills and talents

And she's being emotionally annihilated by a terrifying authority figure who she hasn't seen in a good 2 to 3 years. Being strong, good, or skilled doesn't make you invulnerable.

Did she do this to attract her Father's attention? Maybe. She's apparently succeeded. I don't think she's happy with the way that turned out, though.

She cheated to cheat. That had literally nothing to do with her good ol' dad, she just wanted to get through classes.

Stop focusing on Mr. Carver. The story is about his Daughter, Antimony Carver, blessed with talents, wit, beauty, a good heart, friends, and even privileges and responsibilities that only a very few children her age even know exist. Few of us have perfect upbringings. Annie's has been better than most.

The question is, who is Antimony Carver? What is she capable of? Can she rise above her own flaws? Will this set back, fairly minor as these things go, destroy her, or drive her to new heights?

The story's about Annie, yeah, but Anthony walked on in and crushed a large amount of the progress Annie has made. Annie becoming good friends with Kat? They're separated now. Annie becoming less dependent on her mask? I'd bet money she's gonna show up on the next page entirely emotionless and barely acknowledging Kat beyond saying how she's moving. Becoming the Forest Medium? Nope, no more, she has to quit, father's orders. At this point he's one step off of how Coyote treats Ysengrin.

I am not convinced that Anthony is a bad father, much less an abusive one. Many things are said of him that we have not been shown. Even if they are true, I don't care.

Therein lies the problem, mate, Anthony abandoned his daughter. Mission or not, that's terrible. He then walks back in, insults her make-up, mortifies her in front of her peers, and then isolated her from them.

And I very much care that she loves her Father, and continues to love him, that she finds the way to his heart, begins to heal the terrible wounds we know he bears, and wakens the love I know is there for her.

All we know about Anthony's opinion of Annie is that her make-up is ridiculous. Even then, that could be a ploy to remove some protective magic, as others said.
With how needlessly cruel he's being, it would be much better for her to excommunicate her father, as he did her, but that's going to take considerable effort.
Considerably less effort than trying to make him love her again, all things considered.

[antiyonder]

Apr 9, 2015 21:03:41 GMT Refugee said:

Apr 9, 2015 20:09:24 GMT antiyonder said:

Right, and as I recently proposed, is there no reason he couldn't ask Donald or Anja to be there for Annie to contact in his place?

They haven't been?

Donald, Anja, and James have all been there for Antimony, in ways both large and small. I doubt we have seen anything like all the times they have been there for her.

What I meant was Anthony going to them from the beginning, and leaving Annie a contact number for them when he sent her to the Court.

As it played out, he sent her to The Court with her thinking that she'd be alone and the fact that she met Don, Anja and James was more of a happy coincidence.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

Apr 9, 2015 16:36:42 GMT @korba said:

But why would compassion be limited to those shiny happy people reiterating one's own thoughts about where compassion is supposedly justified, mostly by their apparent lack of leprosy? And apart from that, how come that less naturally-gifted people in whatever capacity are so often pitied, met with disgust, or ridiculed when they try to live like those who have enjoyed the more blissful upbringings they desire? -- I don't mean to put you down at all. These are long-lived questions the comic itself seems to ask.

How interesting of you. If I was actually provoked to bite at that bit of pretend-philosophical literary "analysis", I'd be picking straw-man out of my teeth for weeks. As it is, I was brought up with the ridiculous ideas of my somewhat-distant cousin and family embarrassment Ayn Rand, and given the couple decades I've spent becoming a humanist and progressive, I think that even a straightforward attempt to "put me down" (as opposed to your rather oblique and ineffectual lazily sarcastic bon mots) would not succeed. I've been around that particular block a few times, comrade; I'm the old housecat blinking and yawning at your kittenish swipes. My left eyebrow is emphatically raised so far that it's in danger of making contact with the astral plane. (Oh, and don't use the word "seems", it makes you sound intellectually insecure.)

Should you wonder about my motivations as well: I do not want you to stumble into the same trap that I once lured myself into. Therefore, I would ask you to either drop the disguise of Christian/Schopenhauerian diction (the divinity-sized difference between those two models can be considered infinitesimal for the purpose at hand, I believe) and be upfront with your own motivations about this particular post -- or convince me that I am wrong and blind about you, that I have laid another trap for myself when I assume that wishing for others' supposed illnesses to remain imperceptible to "healthy" people, speaking in the interest of the greatest possible happiness total across humanity, has absolutely nothing to do with love or compassion.

Judging from the average age of the forum members, I've probably been an atheist since before you could walk, and engaging in literary analysis before your parents were married. (Assuming they were, in fact, married. One never knows.) If my diction bears some passing resemblance to that of Schopenhauer, blame his translators, not me. I talk this way in person and I long ago stopped caring whether my diction met with the approval of random strangers such as yourself. In any case, it's completely irrelevant. As for the rest of that paragraph, similarly irrelevant, I will content myself with saying that if the shoe fits, you can wear it with my wholehearted blessing. I don't have to explain, much less apologize for, my own motivations; they have been stated with crystal clarity in my other posts. You don't have to try to put me in my place, puppy; I am in it, I am content with it, and I earned the right to be here. You might also earn a similar place someday if you prove to possess the capacity.

I don't know if the comic delivers moral lessons about parenting. That's certainly possible. There's one thing I still want to say about this: I've once met someone who said that Lolita bears the danger of making child abusers more strongly resemble Romantic poets, to which I responded that for me, it actually bears the danger of making Romantic poets more strongly resemble child abusers. Reflection appears to go either way.

Don't hedge needlessly. I imagine a thinker of your apparent caliber is at least up to determining whether a work of literature does or does not deliver a given moral lesson. It doesn't appear to be a troublesome task to most of the rest of us. If you managed to state your contention correctly, which I am not sure you have managed to do, you have been seduced by its apparent symmetry into thinking that it is, in fact, symmetric. It is not. I invite you to retrace your steps and see why that adolescent bit of mockery isn't quite as impressive as it sounded over your beer.

Now that steam is coming out of your ears and you're rehearsing what to type that would be a sufficiently intemperate response to my vexatious provocation, I will drop the overerudite "pose" just long enough to stoop to your level and say, "I'm laughing at you fit to shit, princess. Do us a huge favor, will ya, and piss off until you can blather with the grownups at the big table, innit?"

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2015 18:07:33 GMT Refugee said:

The most interesting thing about these two posts is that, taken only by themselves, I can't tell what positions you hold in regards to Anthony. And I agree with what both of you are saying here.

Then I would think you are a master of analytic compromise solutions, a skillful double-crosser, or a good man trying for compassion. Perhaps there is no difference.

I do not know what this means, and a quick skim of Prof. Wiki's summary of Schopenhauer philosophy does not enlighten me.

That was a snipe, maybe an unfair one, at the use of "compassion" both in text and in context, which Christians as well as Schopenhauer define as the foundation of ethics, in contrast to such models as pre-Christian virtue ethics (although euergetism certainly featured into those, and actually declined after the reign of Diocletian), or classical utilitarianism, to which compassion is reasonable until it is no longer useful for the greater good of all people.

Unlike most Christians, Schopenhauer rejects any notions of Judgment Day as destructive to compassion between humans, because it incites jealousy and deepens the cleft between individuals, namely by comparing one's righteousness against another's as though it were a fiat currency measuring ethical worth, see Die beiden Grundprobleme der Ethik, p. 245; or instead, I could recommend you James Joyce's short story Grace: "I will set right my accounts" indeed. But compassion, according to Schopenhauer, dissolves the boundaries between individuals, and thus the cause of their suffering.

In any case, the presence or absence of a rex tremendae majestatis makes no difference to utilitarian thought. In such systems, God may either exist as the slightly self-incoherent origin-meets-eidolon of any given situation's greatest possible utility for the universe, or as something supposed to be entirely incomprehensible, so that one may shoo any contradiction out of the visible universe.

But perhaps I just made that joke because I believe that an infinite God playfully hiding within a limit converging to zero is too funny an opportunity to pass up.

I think there can be no duty to love, but there may be a moral duty to exhibit compassion. (If the state, however, attempts to compel compassion, it loses its meaning, and becomes little more than armed robbery.)

This sounds similar to Schopenhauer, except that there truly is no individual duty to compassion because the principle of individuation is negated in compassion. In The Birth of Tragedy..., Nietzsche would later reshape Schopenhauer's "compassion" into the Dionysian sensation of identity (or rather the opposite) with all of the natural order, likewise created out of the realization that one was born into a cycle of suffering, which then finds its artistic expression in the Apolline pantheon of the Greeks, in which release from painful subjective existence is no longer optimal (as it was for Schopenhauer), but a bitter farewell from a blissful alternate existence, and "thus the gods are justifying human life by living it themselves" (p. 29).

Nietzsche constantly stresses that the Apolline and Dionysian modes of thought only find their highest expression in their co-dependency. The attempt to exalt either one over the other only leads back to the cycle of suffering through ignorance.

Mind you, this is only what he says in The Birth of Tragedy.

Speaking of looking into the abyss...

That's Nietzsche, yes. And apart from "God is dead", and "Ich lehre euch den Übermenschen", and something about women and whips and Christianity, this is all he has ever written.

[speedwell]

Apr 9, 2015 21:23:52 GMT zimmyzims said:

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

<snip>

Hey, I thought it was a great Severus Snape impression. I should probably switch to tea for the rest of the night, though.

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

How interesting of you. If I was actually provoked to bite at that bit of pretend-philosophical literary "analysis", I'd be picking straw-man out of my teeth for weeks. As it is, I was brought up with the ridiculous ideas of my somewhat-distant cousin and family embarrassment Ayn Rand, and given the couple decades I've spent becoming a humanist and progressive, I think that even a straightforward attempt to "put me down" (as opposed to your rather oblique and ineffectual lazily sarcastic bon mots) would not succeed. I've been around that particular block a few times, comrade; I'm the old housecat blinking and yawning at your kittenish swipes. My left eyebrow is emphatically raised so far that it's in danger of making contact with the astral plane. (Oh, and don't use the word "seems", it makes you sound intellectually insecure.)

Well, I like the bon mots you're making right now, and believe it or not, this wasn't an effort to put you down. I don't think intellectual insecurity is bad under every circumstance, but that might have been my first mistake right here. See?

Judging from the average age of the forum members, I've probably been an atheist since before you could walk,

Well, I was an atheist before I could walk. Does that impress you?

If my diction bears some passing resemblance to that of Schopenhauer, blame his translators, not me.

I read him in the original. Unless you mean "compassion", which is very specific to Christian/Schopenhauerian ethics and about whose definition we seem to disagree. Because I mean "compassion". Of which you appear to have none for me, either, even though our views on Anthony are probably quite similar (such as that he isn't doing a very good job at parenting).

I talk this way in person and I long ago stopped caring whether my diction met with the approval of random strangers such as yourself.

Here we have it: the principle of individuation according to Schopi, employed both ways. And now I stand against you - it is not a "discourse" between "philosophies". It's just two people fighting each other.

If only I could motivate myself to do that again... you could be laughing even harder, I assure you!

In any case, it's completely irrelevant. As for the rest of that paragraph, similarly irrelevant,

Go on, say it: I am also wholly irrelevant.

You don't have to try to put me in my place, puppy; I am in it, I am content with it, and I earned the right to be here. You might also earn a similar place someday if you prove to possess the capacity.

I certainly used to hope so.

Don't hedge needlessly. I imagine a thinker of your apparent caliber is at least up to determining whether a work of literature does or does not deliver a given moral lesson.

No, I am not. Not for all of humankind.

It doesn't appear to be a troublesome task to most of the rest of us. If you managed to state your contention correctly, which I am not sure you have managed to do, you have been seduced by its apparent symmetry into thinking that it is, in fact, symmetric. It is not. I invite you to retrace your steps and see why that adolescent bit of mockery isn't quite as impressive as it sounded over your beer.

Again, believe it or not, this was not meant as mockery. The intent was "If people are angry at Anthony for being a terrible and abnormal parent, maybe some people are defending Anthony for the similarities between his behaviour and normal parental behaviour". If this has never happened, I am indeed a fool. I don't drink beer.

But symmetry is seductive indeed! If only we could be talking about the seductive nature of symmetry instead! Even if I were to say nothing, and if you thought that I have nothing to say, as you constantly restate, I would gladly listen to you!

Now that steam is coming out of your ears and you're rehearsing what to type that would be a sufficiently intemperate response to my vexatious provocation, I will drop the overerudite "pose" just long enough to stoop to your level and say, "I'm laughing at you fit to shit, princess. Do us a huge favor, will ya, and piss off until you can blather with the grownups at the big table, innit?"

Well, good to know that laughter is with me always. Sometimes from one side, and sometimes from the other side. Trust me that I do not feel provoked all that much, though.

And that was the "trap" I had alluded to, to interpret any seemingly contrarian position as a threat to oneself (such as a virus infection), pointing to one's social and intellectual superiority and diminishing the perceived opponent to a worm-like ever-adolescent rage-driven creature, unable to execute any task but "pretend philosophy". Maybe you are even right about that. And maybe that's just exactly what should happen in this forum, among us people, all the time.

Edit: speedwell, if you thought I was being unfair, I find that reasonable. Unless you wish it, and I'll let you have any reason to wish it, we needn't be enemies.

[speedwell]

Apr 9, 2015 22:11:10 GMT @korba said:

Don't make the mistake of thinking I was taking you seriously. I could have, but I didn't. To the extent you were actually trying to be serious yourself, I probably owed you that. But I'm going to bed and everyone here should probably heave a sigh of relief.

[keef]

Apr 9, 2015 15:12:59 GMT sable0aria said:

No one is saying Annie should not face consequences for her actions.

I am. I love to read about someone getting away with such terrible crimes. I am saying that a fictional character should be able to get away with cheating. Or murder. Or stating unpopular opinions. It is fiction. It is not a mirror of society, it is a webcomic that assures Mr Siddell has food on his table.

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

Do us a huge favor, will ya, and piss off until you can blather with the grownups at the big table, innit?"

On this forum telling people to piss off is Tom's job, not yours. Almost reluctantly dropping Ms Rand's name will make some forum-members experience a flow of blood in parts of their anatomy, and telling us about your humongous wisdom and wide range of experience impresses us all, but does not make you a moderator yet.

[Rasselas]

Apr 9, 2015 20:54:26 GMT zbeeblebrox said:

Apr 9, 2015 3:29:24 GMT guitarminotaur said:

As a teacher myself I can also say that it is a damning indictment of the court to say nothing about Annie's cheating for two years, only to allow Anthony to drop this bombshell on her head. Consequences should have been brought out as soon as something was amiss.

Okay, there's really only one way - at this point - to redeem Tony, and it's if it comes to light that the Court was intentionally holding off on reacting to Annie cheating until it was bad enough that they could justify expelling her. So when Anthony finds out by accident (somehow), he negotiates it down to being held back a year and personally returns to carry out the decision in order to ensure they don't go back on their word. It'd still be a dickish way to go about it, but at least you could say he was saving his daughter from being kicked out onto the street or something.

I don't know, I get the impression the Court has never really liked Annie. So it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out they were pulling political BS like that in order to screw her over and basically exile her.

Maybe not so much didn't like her, but sought to have ways to control her. She'd been growing in power and acting recklessly. I think that might be the meaning of "The Tree" in the chapter title, because we see that Anthony is equally reckless, uncontrollable and stubborn. They are both strong-willed characters.

I don't think the Court's been trying to expel her - she belongs there, she has powers that the Court may find useful. They just needed something to hold over her, something to control her with. If they held this until it was opportune to use, it would indeed be a political move. It is an interesting mystery to consider.

Edit: Also, I wish people would remember the first rule of the forum: Don't be a jerk.
Try to be friendly. If you can't, it means you got too invested in a bad way.

[Rasselas]

Actually, I gotta add, this chapter title is brilliant. Because it's true and ironic at the same damn time. It keeps you wondering, just like the three images of Ysengrin - which one is the real him? Or Reynardine's various forms and "the mind is a plaything of the body". I love these ironies and ambiguities in the comic.

[TBeholder]

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

Now that steam is coming out of your ears and you're rehearsing what to type that would be a sufficiently intemperate response to my vexatious provocation, I will drop the overerudite "pose" just long enough to stoop to your level and say, "I'm laughing at you fit to shit, princess. Do us a huge favor, will ya, and piss off until you can blather with the grownups at the big table, innit?"

You have seen the original of that classic picture, right?

Apr 8, 2015 7:04:45 GMT edzepp said:

I know this is just going to lead to more bad things, but the fact that we won't have to deal with Anthony for a few pages just gives me an overwhelming sense of relief.

What does it change? Tonyspam will drown threads even if the next ten pages will be filled with Jones and Suttons going about their usual business. Unless a commissar whistles earlier or moderator bombs the place. That's how it rolls.

Apr 8, 2015 14:26:51 GMT Vilthuril said:

Second thought: Tom is either actively trying to troll people with his comments below the strip (today, "Come by [at an event in New York] and we can talk about Annie and her dad's happy reunion!") or he doesn't know what is good for himself if he truly does not like people feeling emotions about this, which is what he has been saying elsewhere with emotion/anger (e.g. now writing IN CAPITALS for people to NOT TWITTER ). O

As to Tom's invitation, he probably addressed fans rather than the participants of the recent raid - let's face it, whichever hugbox was messily upended above this forum less than a month ago is not going to bother and fly there just to blather at him. So it looks like Tom does exactly know what's good for him.
Alas, you aren't very scary, oh internet-tough-things.
The rest of your message, sadly, isn't coherent enough to decipher.

Apr 9, 2015 6:59:38 GMT OrzBrain said:

I think I may go away for a while. Can someone call me when one, or preferably both, Carvers burst into flames?

A) The best-case scenario: I go away, you go away, the raiders take over the forum and sit on it until no one shows to actually discuss the comic anymore, trolling, playing shells (see Onomatopoeia above) and whatnot. In which case the forum will be mostly useless simply because all content except this gets drowned in meaningless circlejoy, until they run to the next place. Leaving the forum more dead than alive for quite awhile - we drop in, see it's still lethargic, leave again.
B) The worst-case scenario: the forum drowns in blather, childish name-calling and offtopic to unusable level, then socks vote their own moderator (some pseudointellectual who looks sane compared to them) to "help" the owner. Yaay.
Then most sockpuppets vanish forever, and here will be 2-3 trolls (who act fursecuted, derail newbies and keep the forum stinky enough that the author won't drop in often - one of them miraculously allowed to maintain pyrofennec's level of poo-flinging indefinitely without ever being banned) and their big daddy (who bans everyone arguing with trolls on-topic, saying "don't feed", or trying to un-derail the threads too much). It's not even a hugbox, it's just keeping the place unusable.
I have seen this pattern twice so far, just not from the very start.

[sable0aria]

Apr 9, 2015 22:23:58 GMT keef said:

Apr 9, 2015 15:12:59 GMT sable0aria said:

No one is saying Annie should not face consequences for her actions.

I am. I love to read about someone getting away with such terrible crimes. I am saying that a fictional character should be able to get away with cheating. Or murder. Or stating unpopular opinions. It is fiction. It is not a mirror of society, it is a webcomic that assures Mr Siddell has food on his table.

Apr 9, 2015 20:11:49 GMT speedwell said:

Do us a huge favor, will ya, and piss off until you can blather with the grownups at the big table, innit?"

On this forum telling people to piss off is Tom's job, not yours. Almost reluctantly dropping Ms Rand's name will make some forum-members experience a flow of blood in parts of their anatomy, and telling us about your humongous wisdom and wide range of experience impresses us all, but does not make you a moderator yet.

Ok. One person is saying Annie should not face consequences for her actions.

[imaginaryfriend]

Apr 9, 2015 18:36:34 GMT ctso74 said:

Apr 8, 2015 19:03:07 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Renard has the tooth along with the lockpicks so depending on how all this went down he may still have them. If the Court isn't sure about Renard's abilities they'll probably keep him in the same body (where it would be smarter to have him jump into a body owned by the Court).

That is an interesting idea about the tooth and the fire. One would assume that Antimony would still die without her fire even though the tooth could cut it from her, particularly in the hands of a skilled surgeon. However, perhaps the fire could be sliced into smaller pieces?

Renard is what made me think of it. If we're assuming that there's an ulterior motive to Anthony's actions, he seemed to lead right up to getting a hold of Rey. A body-jumping, former wife-stalker wouldn't help him complete his orbital surgery.

I dunno. Former attempted girlfriend/wife seducer might an make ideal experimental animal.

Apr 9, 2015 18:36:34 GMT ctso74 said:

Then, there's Chekhov's Tooth. I don't see how Anthony could have known about it, though. So...

Objection: Coyote has known several reasons to give her that thing. It wins her favor and writes himself into her story. It also transports a bit of his power over the Annan so that without breaking his pledge he can both impress people on the other side with his power and therefore perpetuate his own existence and possibly do some serious damage. Giving a child a weapon like this in real life is nearly in the "give a chimp a gun" category but it isn't a Chekhov's gun.

Nitpick aside, I don't think Anthony would know about it unless Antimony tells him. She is probably pretty desperate to win some favor and it is a nifty knife, but it is also one of her last secrets.

Apr 9, 2015 18:36:34 GMT ctso74 said:

Slicing the Fire into smaller pieces? There's a thought. I wonder if that's what he was trying to do with his unconsented remote surgery. Maybe, he wanted to leave enough to keep her alive, but started to bluntly remove too much.

That Anthony didn't seem to be actively doing anything with the whole bonelasers/Antimony coma thing always bothered me. That's why I generated that alternative theory that he wasn't doing anything. But if it was him, my guess is that what he was doing was some etheric sedation but with non-etheric means... Antimony was either placed into a remotely-generated medically-induced coma as an experiment to see if she could learn to live without her fire gradually or as a necessary first step to enable other procedures on her Fire later... like etheric anesthesia.

[Deleted]

Edit: Spoilered.

SPOILER: Click to show

Apr 9, 2015 22:13:01 GMT speedwell said:

Don't make the mistake of thinking I was taking you seriously. I could have, but I didn't. To the extent you were actually trying to be serious yourself, I probably owed you that. But I'm going to bed and everyone here should probably heave a sigh of relief. :)

There is no relief for me -- as little as you do take me seriously, you have tried to penalize me for deviant and adolescent behaviour, on the grounds of your own social status (proving your mature behaviour) and superior intellect; you have tried to make me look ridiculous in front of my peers, and justify this as you "owing" me disciplinary action; you somehow work me into your struggle against Randianism and towards human progress; and now you don't even want to take me seriously, because I am a poor, adolescent, fiery-tempered princess with a white puppy in my backpack who has not earned her place in life, and I am as good as any "random stranger" to you.

Edit: You're right, there is no reason to be lazily sarcastic about this. I perceive your behaviour towards me as similar enough to Anthony's behaviour in the comic that I don't understand why you were wondering about the motivations of people who "defend" him. They do not necessarily condone his actions; but they might have seen similar misjudgments. That doesn't make them bereft of compassion, I believe. That's all.

And let's not speak of the motivations of people who just want Abusive Anthonology 101 to stop either way. I might be one of them.

I repeat, I don't want to be a jerk here. I do want to challenge what you have said about me, though. Give me that right; you sure made use of yours.

Alternate solution to this problem: You do not take me seriously, and I do not take you seriously. Mystery solved. Maybe it is that easy...

[Chancellor]

Apr 9, 2015 23:35:32 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Apr 9, 2015 18:36:34 GMT ctso74 said:

Slicing the Fire into smaller pieces? There's a thought. I wonder if that's what he was trying to do with his unconsented remote surgery. Maybe, he wanted to leave enough to keep her alive, but started to bluntly remove too much.

That Anthony didn't seem to be actively doing anything with the whole bonelasers/Antimony coma thing always bothered me. That's why I generated that alternative theory that he wasn't doing anything. But if it was him, my guess is that what he was doing was some etheric sedation but with non-etheric means... Antimony was either placed into a remotely-generated medically-induced coma as an experiment to see if she could learn to live without her fire gradually or as a necessary first step to enable other procedures on her Fire later... like etheric anesthesia.

If I recall, the "fingers" seemed to be piercing into the Fire elemental thing. Maybe the bones had the passive role of holding it in place/suppressing it, possibly for whatever Anthony (and I do at this time take Zimmy's word that it was him) was planning to do later on before Zimmy slapped his shit.

[imaginaryfriend]

Apr 10, 2015 0:03:32 GMT Chancellor said:

Apr 9, 2015 23:35:32 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

That Anthony didn't seem to be actively doing anything with the whole bonelasers/Antimony coma thing always bothered me. That's why I generated that alternative theory that he wasn't doing anything. But if it was him, my guess is that what he was doing was some etheric sedation but with non-etheric means... Antimony was either placed into a remotely-generated medically-induced coma as an experiment to see if she could learn to live without her fire gradually or as a necessary first step to enable other procedures on her Fire later... like etheric anesthesia.

If I recall, the "fingers" seemed to be piercing into the Fire elemental thing. Maybe the bones had the passive role of holding it in place/suppressing it, possibly for whatever Anthony (and I do at this time take Zimmy's word that it was him) was planning to do later on before Zimmy slapped his shit.

Aye but Antimony being in the infirmary/hospital means that she collapsed somewhere and was transported there... Therefore a bunch of time elapsed before the suppression and Zeta entered the scene. It is not standard practice to leave a patient sedated on a table before a procedure like that... There are some procedures where a recovery coma is indicated, I guess, so maybe whatever he was doing was already done... but then what was it? I don't recall any evidence of anything Anthony would want having been done unless it's the Jones mask... but again, no clue that it's artificial and that's a real reach...

[quark]

Apr 10, 2015 0:03:32 GMT Chancellor said:

Apr 9, 2015 23:35:32 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

That Anthony didn't seem to be actively doing anything with the whole bonelasers/Antimony coma thing always bothered me. That's why I generated that alternative theory that he wasn't doing anything. But if it was him, my guess is that what he was doing was some etheric sedation but with non-etheric means... Antimony was either placed into a remotely-generated medically-induced coma as an experiment to see if she could learn to live without her fire gradually or as a necessary first step to enable other procedures on her Fire later... like etheric anesthesia.

If I recall, the "fingers" seemed to be piercing into the Fire elemental thing. Maybe the bones had the passive role of holding it in place/suppressing it, possibly for whatever Anthony (and I do at this time take Zimmy's word that it was him) was planning to do later on before Zimmy slapped his shit.

Yeah, those bones were more or less piercing the heart of that fire elemental. It also seemed considerably weakened, so I think you're right with the suppressing theory. Also, the chapter came right after 'Microsat 5', where Anthony requested some scalpels or something - I always thought it was an indicator that Anthony performed some kind of etheric surgery (Or at least surveillance) that hurt Antimony; I have no reason to doubt Zimmy's word. She's manipulative, but at that moment she just tried to figure out what was going on and was pretty sure nobody would remember her intervention. 

And now he's missing a hand (or can't use it any more)... after Zimmy destroyed the five bones with fire. (Not sure if that is related, but it's very strongly suggested)

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2015 0:23:16 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

There are some procedures where a recovery coma is indicated, I guess, so maybe whatever he was doing was already done... but then what was it? I don't recall any evidence of anything Anthony would want having been done unless it's the Jones mask... but again, no clue that it's artificial and that's a real reach...

In fact, I think Anthony does want the Jones mask; but that's unrelated to the events of Chapter 38.

Jones had initially assumed that humans resembled her, since she looked similar at first glance, but went on to find that she was quite different. It is possible that Tony, supposedly being familiar with Jones (after all, he dialed her number to deliver his message), implicitly assumes that if he looked similar to Jones at first glance, he could become more like her; however, he lets his emotions get the better of him all the time, while wearing the Jones mask. It should shatter the moment that the reasons for wearing it become fully apparent, but then the wearer also "gets their fight back".

Perhaps Tony has "lost his fight", too - he cannot see Surma in Antimony, and thus he refuses to see Antimony for herself, and thus he cannot fight for Surma anymore, even though he might justify what he presently does as "prevention" so as not to make Antimony repeat Surma's mistakes, whatever Tony assumes that those were. If that sounds slightly self-contradictory, that's either how Tony works, or it might just be how I work.

[Chancellor]

Apr 10, 2015 1:22:59 GMT @korba said:

Apr 10, 2015 0:23:16 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

There are some procedures where a recovery coma is indicated, I guess, so maybe whatever he was doing was already done... but then what was it? I don't recall any evidence of anything Anthony would want having been done unless it's the Jones mask... but again, no clue that it's artificial and that's a real reach...

In fact, I think Anthony does want the Jones mask; but that's unrelated to the events of Chapter 38.

Jones had initially assumed that humans resembled her, since she looked similar at first glance, but went on to find that she was quite different. It is possible that Tony, supposedly being familiar with Jones (after all, he dialed her number to deliver his message), implicitly assumes that if he looked similar to Jones at first glance, he could become more like her; however, he lets his emotions get the better of him all the time, while wearing the Jones mask. It should shatter the moment that the reasons for wearing it become fully apparent, but then the wearer also "gets their fight back".

Perhaps Tony has "lost his fight", too - he cannot see Surma in Antimony, and thus he refuses to see Antimony for herself, and thus he cannot fight for Surma anymore, even though he might justify what he presently does as "prevention" so as not to make Antimony repeat Surma's mistakes, whatever Tony assumes that those were. If that sounds slightly self-contradictory, that's either how Tony works, or it might just be how I work.

Huh...I'm not quite getting a lot of what you're saying. Are you proposing that the mask is a real object, one that can be tangibly manipulated and taken?

[Deleted]

Etherically real, just like that which caused Jones to exist. Yes, you can take and manipulate it. It is as real as you, as well as others, let it be.

There is a number of Jones masks out there, though. I doubt Anthony's and Antimony's are quite the same.

Edit: I tend to ramble, sorry. Jones sees people, they look like her, they actually aren't much like her. Anthony sees Jones, he wants to be like Jones (to some degree: this is, I assume, part of the Etheric feedback he gives to Jones), he tries to look and behave like her (to some degree: this is the mask), but gets one-upped by his emotions, which he later rationalizes away (to some degree: this is why he's a bad parent, but also has the potential to be a good parent). I'm afraid I can't say what I feel any more clearly.

I have one big clue for Anthony wanting to mimic his perception of Jones, which is Antimony's similar desire that Zimmy saw in Chapter 38. Surma allegedly couldn't stand Jones. I have a few smaller clues, too, such as the colour of his eyes. (Eyes are important in this comic.)

[Daedalus]

Apr 10, 2015 1:37:40 GMT @korba said:

Edit: I tend to ramble, sorry. Jones sees people, they look like her, they actually aren't much like her. Anthony sees Jones, he wants to be like Jones (to some degree: this is, I assume, part of the Etheric feedback he gives to Jones), he tries to look and behave like her (to some degree: this is the mask), but gets one-upped by his emotions, which he later rationalizes away (to some degree: this is why he's a bad parent, but also has the potential to be a good parent). I'm afraid I can't say what I feel any more clearly.

Interesting. Do we have any other evidence for etheric feedback? I definitely can see rationalization in his actions here: he's probably convinced himself what he's doing is right.

(No debates over whether it is or isn't in reality, please, haven't we done that enough?)

(and actually, have Jones and Tony ever met (on-screen)? They might have an interesting conversation...)

[TBeholder]

Apr 9, 2015 23:35:32 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

Nitpick aside, I don't think Anthony would know about it unless Antimony tells him. She is probably pretty desperate to win some favor and it is a nifty knife, but it is also one of her last secrets.

More importantly, Anthony made it clear that he doesn't appreciate that wood nonsense.

Apr 9, 2015 23:35:32 GMT imaginaryfriend said:

That's why I generated that alternative theory that he wasn't doing anything.

It looks more like null hypothesis than alternative hypothesis to me.

Apr 10, 2015 0:03:32 GMT Chancellor said:

If I recall, the "fingers" seemed to be piercing into the Fire elemental thing.

What does this have to do with Orz of all critters?

[quark]

Apr 10, 2015 1:47:26 GMT Daedalus said:

(and actually, have Jones and Tony ever met (on-screen)? They might have an interesting conversation...)

In Microsat 5, he called her when he wanted to speak to Antimony. I've been wondering, because it seems very convenient that he'll just call that person who stands right next to Antimony, but it could have several reasons:

1. He knew where Antimony was, and called the phone next to it (which would have several implications; it would mean he has extensive surveillance on Annie and that he's very good at hacking computers/phones/the court's surveillance system. Which I don't think he is.)
2. He needed to call somebody he trusts. Why not call the Donlans, then? Donald's his friend, and he needed his help anyway; nobody else could decrypt the message he was sending, and the Satellite was Donald's design.

So, why Jones and not the Court/Donald/Eglamore (okay, I know why not Eglamore)?
Jones is the only one we know who is completely unaffected by the ether. She cannot manipulate it, and nothing can harm or manipulate her. She'll threaten a god ('you know I can take her if I wish') and we have no reason to doubt that she can go through with it. She has no human emotions and sees no need in faking them (example: she's not hurt when Eglamore's only topic of conversation is Surma's rejection of him, and carries on being his companion and supporting him). You're right - she's everything he wants to be. 

[AnUpliftedCuttlefish]

Apr 9, 2015 21:03:41 GMT Refugee said:

Apr 9, 2015 20:09:24 GMT antiyonder said:

Right, and as I recently proposed, is there no reason he couldn't ask Donald or Anja to be there for Annie to contact in his place?

They haven't been?

Donald, Anja, and James have all been there for Antimony, in ways both large and small. I doubt we have seen anything like all the times they have been there for her.

I believe the implication is - why couldn't they be the middle man between Antimony and Anthony? Not "why couldn't they be stand in parents while Anthony was absent". Even most soldiers on deployment, or people working down mines, on navel vassals etc can communicate, if they want. Can be infrequent, but letters are nothing new. Webcams and satellite phones are nothing new.

Though your theory can still account for it. Anthony may indeed have been doing something that meant he couldn't be contacted under any circumstances (in the real world I guess an example of that is special forces or intelligence operatives, as opposed to miners or navel personnel). The fact he coded his requests for scalpels does mean he didn't want people to know he wanted scalpels. Or that he wanted to make sure Antimony spoke to Donald.

Apr 9, 2015 19:56:22 GMT Refugee said:

I'm a little confused. You say he's entirely in the right (at least based on how the bolded parts are worded), but you're also saying he could have handled things better.

Speaking for myself, I believe that all of the edicts he has imposed on Annie are legitimate responses to her plagiarism. He and the Court are going easy on her, if anything.

Though the question can be asked of how the following two things* are legitimate responses to her plagiarism. What do they have to do with it? How did they contribute to it? How does removing them improve Antimony's school work? Anthony himself doesn't even bother trying to link them to the plagiarism - unless we count calling the forest a "distraction" as that (but Antimony started cheating before the forest, so...).

- The Forest
- Rey

The only answer is "they're not", which means not all his edicts are legitimate responses to her plagiarism. They are motivated by something other then correcting Antimony's schoolwork. Now arguments can be made that it's fatherly concern, or something like that - though that still comes off as unreasonable, given the circumstances.

*We'll ignore everything else, as there are some actions that can be argued as justified, if executed in an needlessly heartless, counterproductive way.

Apr 9, 2015 18:56:20 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

Apr 9, 2015 14:35:40 GMT AnUpliftedCuttlefish said:

unnecessary (threatening Kat)

This particular quoted bit in particular is pretty much case in point for your rampant demonization of Tony.

You probably should explain the necessity of it then.

Anthony, at no point indicated that Kat was a suspect (or that he had the power to sanction her as he was Antimony) till she intruded. The way it was portrayed was him saying exactly what he knew would panic Antimony. And it worked. Or do you mean to say you actually believe Anthony is investigating Kat as we speak? That he's going to call her to the office and question her? That there is actually any meat to the threat?

Because if there isn't, it was uncessary and simply a method of affecting Antimony emotionally. I would be curious as to how Antimony deserves that.

You know, I would have responded to all of your points, but it's clear that you're never going to change your opinions, so it's a waste of my time and effort and quite frankly, I'm too lazy to continue this argument one way or the other.

I'm sure you would have, and thank you for taking the time to respond, to tell me you wont waste the time to respond. *Pats head*

So congratulations, you win the argument. Don't let your meteoric rise to the top make you forget the little people that helped you along the way. =D

We were arguing?

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2015 1:47:26 GMT Daedalus said:

Interesting. Do we have any other evidence for etheric feedback?

It is only as realarghlblarghl-- Sorry again.

imaginaryfriend has noted that the Coyote Tooth apparently strengthens Coyote's power by demonstrating his power. One instance down already.

Jeanne might have bound herself by her hatred into becoming a murderous psycho rage ghost of hatred. This is a bit shaky; it seems clear that her biggest problem is being unable to love despite longing desperately to love (thus her contempt for Parley, who loves but doesn't act on it); but perhaps this bitterness is indeed keeping her alive, because otherwise, she would embody nothing, and therefore no longer be an Etheric creature, but Ether itself, just like other dead souls.

Blinker stones may create etheric feedback loops to yourself, functioning both as a lens and as a narrow shard of a mirror. (This is personal speculation with absolutely no evidence.)

(and actually, have Jones and Tony ever met (on-screen)? They might have an interesting conversation...)

"Is it your concern?" - "I have no concerns." - "Let me restate: Is it your business?" - "..."

[CoyoteReborn]

Apr 10, 2015 2:09:00 GMT quark said:

we have no reason to doubt that she can go through with it

*bares teeth and growls*

Just you all wait. My tooth can cut the very earth.