[1499] are you here?

[atteSmythe]

Apr 12, 2015 6:23:59 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

Majority belief does not constitute truth.

Funny enough, in Gunnerkrigg's world, it actually does. Not that it has much relevance to the discussion here, I just thought it was funny.

[Daedalus]

Apr 12, 2015 17:56:11 GMT fish said:

Argh, Daedalus, your new avatar almost made me fall from my chair!

I was wondering when someone would notice that, heh.

The powers of photo manipulation. Unlimited POWER!!

[pxc]

Apr 13, 2015 2:27:10 GMT Whitespace said:

Facultative parthenogenesis is the term for what occurs when a species that normally reproduces sexually undergoes asexual reproduction. This is in contrast to obligate parthenogenesis, where the females reproduce exclusively by asexual means. Facultative parthenogenesis is believed to be a response to a lack of a viable male. A female may undergo facultative parthenogenesis if a male is absent from the habitat or if it is unable to produce viable offspring. This behavior has been documented in sharks, some snakes, Komodo dragons and a variety of domesticated birds.

So, Anthony being Antimony's father doesn't completely disprove the theory. Notable comments from Fire Spike:

He knows she died because of you!
We all knew it would happen ...If Surma ever had a child.
Just as will happen when you have a child!
You did not take Surma's life, she gave it to you.

The latter three comments don't seem like very strong evidence of anything when taken together. The first is interesting, in that I would expect Renard to blame Anthony if it were at all reasonable to do so, but instead he's saying that Anthony has cause to blame Antimony for Surma's death.

Facultative parthenogenesis would also make Antimony's existence substantially more plausible, assuming fire elemental hybrids can't have more than one child. That said, I'm skeptical.

Re: the bolded part, Renard didn't and doesn't actually think Anthony or anyone has cause to blame Annie. She'd just hurt him by telling him Surma didn't ever love him and that she trapped him on purpose. He was just hurting her back.

[pxc]

Apr 10, 2015 20:19:33 GMT Refugee said:

Apr 10, 2015 16:51:30 GMT pxc said:

I doubt she'll go into the ether anytime soon.  Her father will probably forbid that, if he hasn't already.

I'm not sure he can forbid that, anymore than he can forbid her to be wise.

He can in the sense that she is in a state in which she'll do whatever he tells her.  There is no rebellion in her against him.  Yet.

[Refugee]

Apr 13, 2015 16:25:35 GMT pxc said:

Apr 10, 2015 20:19:33 GMT Refugee said:

I'm not sure he can forbid that, anymore than he can forbid her to be wise.

He can in the sense that she is in a state in which she'll do whatever he tells her.  There is no rebellion in her against him.  Yet.

She might feel that she legitimately deserves what's happening to her, because she does, at least in part.

Maybe she is being abused here. But maybe not. It depends on more than what we've seen.

[Whitespace]

Apr 13, 2015 16:11:34 GMT pxc said:

Apr 13, 2015 2:27:10 GMT Whitespace said:

So, Anthony being Antimony's father doesn't completely disprove the theory. Notable comments from Fire Spike:

He knows she died because of you!
We all knew it would happen ...If Surma ever had a child.
Just as will happen when you have a child!
You did not take Surma's life, she gave it to you.

The latter three comments don't seem like very strong evidence of anything when taken together. The first is interesting, in that I would expect Renard to blame Anthony if it were at all reasonable to do so, but instead he's saying that Anthony has cause to blame Antimony for Surma's death.

Facultative parthenogenesis would also make Antimony's existence substantially more plausible, assuming fire elemental hybrids can't have more than one child. That said, I'm skeptical.

Re: the bolded part, Renard didn't and doesn't actually think Anthony or anyone has cause to blame Annie. She'd just hurt him by telling him Surma didn't ever love him and that she trapped him on purpose. He was just hurting her back.

Sure, but he could have hurt her by blaming Anthony; she was defending him when Renard snapped. Between 'at least my father didn't kill anyone' and 'he thought of nothing but trying to cure her' (paraphrased) it would have been pretty easy, assuming Renard thinks Anthony is partially responsible for Surma's death.

[pxc]

Apr 13, 2015 17:05:04 GMT Refugee said:

Apr 13, 2015 16:25:35 GMT pxc said:

He can in the sense that she is in a state in which she'll do whatever he tells her.  There is no rebellion in her against him.  Yet.

She might feel that she legitimately deserves what's happening to her, because she does, at least in part.

Maybe she is being abused here. But maybe not. It depends on more than what we've seen.

I'm not saying it's abuse, I'm saying it seems like something he'd be against her participating in.  Annie probably knows that would be his reaction.  Maybe her first small act of rebellion will be hiding her blinker stone and thinking to herself "He never told me not to so maybe I still can".  But I'm sure he knew about Surma's trips into the ether, so he'd know she can do the same.  It'll have to come up eventually.

[Refugee]

Apr 13, 2015 17:17:37 GMT pxc said:

I'm not saying it's abuse, I'm saying it seems like something he'd be against her participating in.

Perhaps, but we haven't seen that yet.

And even if you, pxc, haven't yet settled into the abuse camp, there's plenty here who have, and they're the ones I was speaking to. (I acknowledge I should have clarified; it looked like I was responding to our dialog about ether-tripping.)

[pxc]

Apr 13, 2015 17:22:02 GMT Refugee said:

Apr 13, 2015 17:17:37 GMT pxc said:

I'm not saying it's abuse, I'm saying it seems like something he'd be against her participating in.

Perhaps, but we haven't seen that yet.

And even if you, pxc, haven't yet settled into the abuse camp, there's plenty here who have, and they're the ones I was speaking to. (I acknowledge I should have clarified; it looked like I was responding to our dialog about ether-tripping.)

So many have summed up their thoughts on Anthony and his abuse or poor treatment or whatever we're calling it. I'm not sure it's worth posting my own mini-manifesto.  I do think Anthony is an irresponsible shit head that had no business having children.  His actions upon his return, when viewed in a vacuum, aren't that outrageous.  If it was surrounded by the context of him having good reasons for being gone that he'd explained to his daughter clearly beforehand, and if he'd again clearly and patiently explained the punishments he was leveling (after some measure of reconnection time with the daughter he hasn't seen for years), then I'd see it as good parenting.  As entertaining as Annie's exploits are, they're pretty ridiculous and any sane parent would put a stop to it all.

However, the context we do have is that he was cold and distant even while Surma was alive and he showed early on in life an inability to handle many social situations and responsibilities.  His actions appear to revolve around his own struggles with Surma's death and his need to do something about it, even if he's convinced himself that ultimately it is for Annie's own good.  I've mentioned this in other threads.  He does some seemingly right or good things, but often for the wrong reason or the wrong way.  Being incapable or oblivious doesn't absolve him from the damage he's done to his daughter.  I don't think he's malicious, and maybe malice is necessary for abuse.  I don't know.  But I do find him poorly equipped for, and massively incompetent at fatherhood.  And from that perspective I do think there's a case to be made that the best thing for him to do would be to recognize this inability and to just leave her alone.  Especially within the context of the GK universe, in which these children are regularly subjected to peril with only their own resources and whimsical robot assistance to rely on.

[waldojeffers]

Apr 13, 2015 17:17:37 GMT pxc said:

Apr 13, 2015 17:05:04 GMT Refugee said:

She might feel that she legitimately deserves what's happening to her, because she does, at least in part.

Maybe she is being abused here. But maybe not. It depends on more than what we've seen.

I'm not saying it's abuse, I'm saying it seems like something he'd be against her participating in.  Annie probably knows that would be his reaction.  Maybe her first small act of rebellion will be hiding her blinker stone and thinking to herself "He never told me not to so maybe I still can".  But I'm sure he knew about Surma's trips into the ether, so he'd know she can do the same.  It'll have to come up eventually.

I agree that it will probably come up eventually. Luckily he can never really "take" the blinker stone away from her because she can always find it again. Even if he tells her to throw it away or forbids her from using it, it will always be there when she needs it. If/when this situation gets dangerous for her, she will at least always have this tool available to her.

Unless of course he finds it and figures out some way to destroy it? 

[Refugee]

I've been running through Tom's Gunnerkrig Retrospective videos, and in the second one, Tom talks about a recurring theme of characters who seem initially monstrous turning out not to be quite so scary, and Annie turns them into friends.

Kinda thinking that might be what happens here with her Father.

[polioman]

Apr 14, 2015 6:48:37 GMT Refugee said:

I've been running through Tom's Gunnerkrig Retrospective videos, and in the second one, Tom talks about a recurring theme of characters who seem initially monstrous turning out not to be quite so scary, and Annie turns them into friends.

Kinda thinking that might be what happens here with her Father.

I kind of doubt it. It was assumed by all characters that Basil would be scary and evil and him being a pretty cool guy subverted that. By contrast, we'd somewhat assumed up until this chapter that Annie's dad might not be a bad guy and might even have an excuse for his actions during Divine. Having him turn 180 degrees and actually be a good guy would feel like a cliche and a gimmick, I think.

[keef]

Apr 13, 2015 7:36:26 GMT atteSmythe said:

Troll: Majority belief does not constitute truth.

Funny enough, in Gunnerkrigg's world, it actually does. Not that it has much relevance to the discussion here, I just thought it was funny.

Can't be relevant if it is about a comic named Gunnerkrigg Court, this is a forum about child abuse, and feeding starving trolls.

[zimmyzims]

Apr 14, 2015 7:34:36 GMT polioman said:

Apr 14, 2015 6:48:37 GMT Refugee said:

I've been running through Tom's Gunnerkrig Retrospective videos, and in the second one, Tom talks about a recurring theme of characters who seem initially monstrous turning out not to be quite so scary, and Annie turns them into friends.

Kinda thinking that might be what happens here with her Father.

I kind of doubt it. It was assumed by all characters that Basil would be scary and evil and him being a pretty cool guy subverted that. By contrast, we'd somewhat assumed up until this chapter that Annie's dad might not be a bad guy and might even have an excuse for his actions during Divine. Having him turn 180 degrees and actually be a good guy would feel like a cliche and a gimmick, I think.

This could only make sense if Anthony wasn't constantly depicted negatively by the other characters in the comic and if he wasn't the most hated character on the forum (or perhaps second only to Diego) already before his comeback. This post from the thread of the page 1487 sums that up:

Mar 13, 2015 8:40:41 GMT keef said:

If this is Anthony, it is in completely in character, showing up in his daughter's class without even greeting her beforehand. It would confirm the opinion most people here have of him: Complete arsehole.

It has been rare here to expect that Anthony even possibly could be up to anything good or have good reasons to his absence - which is manifest in the recent discussions where the majority of the forum constantly denies that he could have a good reason for his absence, despite the fact that this chapter has revealed nothing about his absence (bar the fact that he lost his hand and got scarred). In comic, of the main characters only Annie believed in his reasons and her belief was brought in doubt by others constantly.

Conclusion: to show Tom turning into a good friend of Annie's in the end, or generally a positive character, would be very much in line with Tom's "theme that runs through the comic" of showing characters in a scarier light first than what they really turn out to be.

SPOILER: Click to show

I would generalise that theme a bit differently, however: Tom tends to switch between the negative and positive light on characters. E.g. Ysengrin was a much loved character on the forum and "a friend of Annie's" but then attacked her (well, second time, but this time it was taken worse) and was showed to be an insane monster, then as the reason of his insanity was revealed he turned into a pitiable victim and was later restored as Annie's admittedly deranged friend. Coyote, likewise, turned into a "villain" in that chapter, but has since been restored on the "good side" by coming to Annie's rescue twice. I think the real point of these turn arounds, that indeed are repeated (so many characters have done a couple of 180 turns already, what you suggest is a cliché), is that there is no division to heroes and villains in GKC. This is the most manifest in the Court/Forest antagonism, where both sides have been shown to be "evil", yet the main protagonists have good friends on both sides (and indeed, friends who do "evil" deeds, such as Coyote).

The main characters who have only been appeared positively would be (maybe Jones and) the Donlans, Kat included, although there have been hints towards Kat's insane side (that however has not materialised in any obviously negative way) that I'd expect to be revived later, and those who have only been depicted as in appearance opposed to the main protagonists (or in a way inviting a largely negative reaction from the majority of readers if this forum and page comments are a cue of that) are Anthony and the Headmaster Llanwellyn. It would be completely in line with Tom's story telling if in particular Kat and Anthony were seen in an opposed light, and in both cases a possible direction of that turn has already been pointed at: Anthony's unknown past that will explain his absence as well as his actions (and lead to the role he will play in future), that may turn out to aim at Annie's good or the general good of some sort, and Kat becoming a mad scientist and eventually perhaps a robot Goddess in her effort to create artificial life, which is related to the ever more insane Robot. Of course, Headmaster's real motives could turn out to be very interesting and less evil than we think, as well. For Kat's parents I don't see any obvious negative line pointed at so far, but maybe one exists or is created later.

[Jelly Jellybean]

I don't know if this is part of what zimmyzims was getting at, but this is what I thought as I read his spoiler...

If Kat is going to develop or display a mean streak, then Anthony is now a believable trigger.  Tom said that Kat was introduced so Annie could have a really good friend (IMO the character everyone should love).  Over time the story developed Kat into a multi-dimensional character (IMO Paz is now the character everyone should love).  But there would still need to be a really good reason for Kat to do something unpleasant.

[keef]

Apr 14, 2015 9:01:31 GMT zimmyzims said:

where the majority of the forum constantly denies that he could have a good reason for his absence

Man could you please stop this. There has been a lot of dumb shouting from both sides, but that is ******* rubbish. Most people who have actually read the comic think the guy will have his reasons, and if you don't read very selectively you can see that everywhere on this forum. I skipped a lot of "discussion" but consensus seems to be that Tony was gone to look for a "cure". That's his good reason.  The noise is about whether or not he should have done some parenting during those years. We had that discussion ad nauseam, now please stop.

Tom tends to switch between the negative and positive light on characters.

As was mentioned earlier by lots of folks. To quote one:

In the Gunnerverse people are rarely just good or bad. Renard is a murderer, but he is also a great friend for Annie and almost a substitute parent. Ysengrin, Coyote, Robot, Jeanne; not exactly black and white characters. So it is unlikely Tony is just an arsehole. But at the moment he behaves like one.

[TBeholder]

Apr 14, 2015 10:35:41 GMT keef said:

Apr 14, 2015 9:01:31 GMT zimmyzims said:

where the majority of the forum constantly denies that he could have a good reason for his absence

Man could you please stop this. There has been a lot of dumb shouting from both sides, but that is ******* rubbish. Most people who have actually read the comic think the guy will have his reasons, and if you don't read very selectively you can see that everywhere on this forum.

Yes, but zimmyzims wrote "majority of the forum", not "most people who have actually read the comic". Currently there seems to be discrepancy.

Apr 14, 2015 10:35:41 GMT keef said:

and if you don't read very selectively you can see that everywhere on this forum.
I skipped a lot of "discussion" but consensus seems to be that Tony was gone to look for a "cure".

Apr 14, 2015 10:35:41 GMT keef said:

So it is unlikely Tony is just an arsehole. But at the moment he behaves like one.

Well, of course. That's not the point actually debated, though, is it?
Because before two straw "opponents" so fortunately popped up, it was exactly the same, only then flashmob screamed into nowhere in particular, mostly in non-interactive "Anti-Kitten-Burning Coalition" mode.

[warrl]

Apr 12, 2015 23:23:41 GMT Sky Schemer said:

Apr 12, 2015 23:00:12 GMT warrl said:

One theory that's been tossed up occasionally is that the hybrid fire elementals are parthenogenic - born female, they WILL become pregnant at a certain approximate age, period, end of discussion, doesn't matter if there isn't a living male of any species within a hundred miles.

Yeah, I have seen that theory discussed. I am not on board with it because of the "her father's influence" comment, but I can't completely discount it, either, since that comment is ambiguous enough that they could be referring to nurture rather than nature. I doubt it, but I see the other as a valid interpretation.

Edited to add: The larger argument against that theory is Coyote's "an interesting first union" editorial, which implies...well...a union. And Coyote is also implying that what happened there was unusual.

Well, without that first union there wouldn't be hybrid fire elementals.

My guess would be that pure fire elementals either can reproduce without the mothers dying in consequence, or frequently have multiple offspring at a time. Because otherwise they'd be extinct. But it's nothing unusual for cross-species hybrids - when they even can exist - to be fertility-impaired in some way.

Apr 13, 2015 0:31:58 GMT Sky Schemer said:

Apr 13, 2015 0:03:59 GMT Jelly Jellybean said:

I like the spontaneous pregnancy theory, but snipertom recently pointed out that Tom said Anthony was Annie's father.  I still want to believe, but that formspring answer takes the wind out of that sail.  It will take some pretty clear and unequivical in-comic evidence to bring it back to life.  Something like Anthony confessing that he isn't her biological father.

Somehow I missed this when it first came up. And, yeah, it pretty much puts the nails in the coffin of that theory.

Yep, most likely it does. (Still at least two ways it's theoretically possible. Tom changing his mind being one of them.)

Apr 13, 2015 13:57:58 GMT noone3 said:

Apr 13, 2015 7:00:16 GMT Daedalus said:

what he's doing is wrong.

Or is it?
<Advocatus Diaboli On>
So far she was doing whatever she wanted. Now she suddenly have a real role model.
We'll see what kind of dad, if any, he will prove himself, but so far we can see him:
1. Making Annie take responsibility for her previous actions - important step towards becoming adult.

So far so goood...

2. Suggesting her disposing without her makeup, which I must admit (since I'm getting into a daddy age myself) wasn't really suiting girl her age

I thought it worked quite well for her, without being excessive.

And even if I agreed it didn't suit her, he shouldn't have singled her out for ridicule and embarrassment *in class*. Why was her makeup deserving of that unprofessional treatment, when at least one other student was also wearing makeup and drew not a word?

3. Making sure no one would consider Annie to be favorised in class, by the teacher. Actually it's a common problem of children taught by their parents in school - in some cases they have to work harder, since parent automatically takes them upon harsher judgement. Happens as frequent as unjust favorisation.

Which makes it explicable, but not acceptable.

And there's also the stuff about stripping away everything she has accomplished and every bit of a support network she has built over two and a half years. You do that when someone is totally gone AND in a toxic environment. The only ones who were knowingly and willingly tolerating her cheating were the teachers and the school administration - who are the only ones he ISN'T removing her from. So he isn't removing her from a toxic environment. And there's no reason to think that she's so far mentally gone as to need her entire personality torn down and rebuilt...

... unless he thinks of all the etheric stuff as akin to a drug addiction...

Oh, and all the stuff that happened BEFORE he reappeared as a dickwad teacher without bothering to even say hello to her first.

<Advocatus Diaboli Off>

Acknowledged. Well done.

[Onomatopoeia]

Apr 12, 2015 6:41:28 GMT antiyonder said:

1. To answer your question, kids need parential support when they grow up, and not just for discipline or protection from danger.  And Anthony is the parent.  How is he not at fault?

It helps, but it is not necessary.

Certainly failure to spend every waking moment with her is not a reason to condemn him.

2A. For that matter, is abuse, lack of proper care for their children (financially and health wise) or lack of willing to discipline the only situations in which a parent can be wrong enough to merit criticism?

Criticism is not the issue. Criticize if you will, certainly he could have handled the situation better. The issue here is the blatant demonization and the labeling of him as an abuser because HE WAS MEAN TO ANNIE!

This issue is mainly in reference to his actions in Chapter 51, but it has somehow extended to encompass his previous absence as well, with detractors upholding his absence as a reason he should have no right to discipline Antimony for her actions, because apparently he had his chance to act and didn't so he now forfeits all right to ever object to Annie doing stupid or dangerous things ever again ever for ever and ever.

Just because he could have handled the situation better does not mean he is abusing her.

3A. Heck, as you were asked several times, do you actually believe that Annie's cheating makes Anthony's previous abandonment of her okay in a retroactive fashion?

Anthony's absence and Antimony's cheating have no bearing on eachother, neither as a justification for punishment, nor as a reason he should have no right to punish her in the first place.

Apr 12, 2015 10:28:47 GMT rococozephyr said:

Anthony has not just been "mean" to Annie. He has neglected and abused Annie, and the fact that charges would not necessarily be brought against him does nothing to change that. A lack of justice does not indicate a lack of crime.

Neglected in what way? Because he wasn't there during every waking moment of Antimony's life? Poppycock.

And we've already been over the abusive part.

You're either a troll who thinks it's funny to defend abuse, in a space where there are likely people who have survived abuse and who may actually be upset or hurt by this callousness, or you're somebody who honestly doesn't believe that harming others should be considered wrong when you can get away with it. Actually, those sound like pretty much the same thing, huh?

I have a different theory to propose:

I don't believe Anthony's actions consitute abuse.

This is an interesting theory on account of the fact that, you know, they don't.

Apr 12, 2015 11:03:18 GMT AnUpliftedCuttlefish said:

On the other hand pretty much every time you talk about why cutting Annie off from the forest is a fair response to her cheating you say the forest is dangerous. Which is not why Anthony said he was doing it.

You know what? You're right. So let's see. I believe the term he used was "silliness", correct? Silliness is defined as engaging in "a ludicrous folly", showing a "lack of good sense or judgment".


Fact #1: As previously established the Forest is incredibly dangerous and working for Coyote is a really really really really really stupid idea.
Fact #2: Annie works there.
Fact #3: Given fact #1, it can therefore be concluded that working as the forest medium is silly.

And we don't know that he wont disappear now. But if he doesn't it could mean A. Rey isn't in any way what he's there for, B. Rey is only a part of what he's there for, C. Rey is completely what he's there for, but there's a reason he's going to stay, D. controlling Ray is about controlling Annie, E...

E: He's not there for Rey and you're continuing to misrepresent his actions in order to further your demonization.

[warrl]

Apr 14, 2015 20:30:01 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

The issue here is the blatant demonization and the labeling of him as an abuser because HE WAS MEAN TO ANNIE!

I didn't see any demonization, and it looked to me like he was labeled as a child abuser because he was abusing a child. As previously certified by a forum participant with relevant expertise and legal knowledge.

This issue is mainly in reference to his actions in Chapter 51, but it has somehow extended to encompass his previous absence as well

The issue is his fitness as a parent and teacher. All his actions regarding his daughter are relevant to the former. Including the two-plus years of abandonment.

Just because he could have handled the situation better does not mean he is abusing her.

Correct.

On the other hand, the fact that his actions meet the legal definition of abuse DOES mean he is abusing her.

[AnUpliftedCuttlefish]

Apr 14, 2015 20:30:01 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

Apr 12, 2015 11:03:18 GMT AnUpliftedCuttlefish said:

On the other hand pretty much every time you talk about why cutting Annie off from the forest is a fair response to her cheating you say the forest is dangerous. Which is not why Anthony said he was doing it.

You know what? You're right. So let's see. I believe the term he used was "silliness", correct? Silliness is defined as engaging in "a ludicrous folly", showing a "lack of good sense or judgment".

Fact #1: As previously established the Forest is incredibly dangerous and working for Coyote is a really really really really really stupid idea.
Fact #2: Annie works there.
Fact #3: Given fact #1, it can therefore be concluded that working as the forest medium is silly.

I've got to ask - why would a man like Anthony not just say "it's dangerous" if he meant "it's dangerous"?*

But anyway - no, the term he used was "nonsense", which was an extension of his point about distraction. So the forest is a distraction, that he views as nonsense - in context it's a thing that'd be foolish to waste time on. The debate here is you're earlier position that banning her from the forest was a just response to Annie's cheating. It would have been, with Anthony's justification, if she was cheating because she was distracted by nonsense.

But we know that isn't the case.

*It is dangerous, but how dangerous? Yeah, it has unique dangers in Coyote & Grin. But the wood also apparently houses a thriving population that don't seem to be living in terror of... anything (other than the Court). Humans turn into animals to go live there - are you saying they're wrong because of the danger? One can't even hold the goons Annie and Grin messed up as uniquely dangerous, since every city has thugs who can rough you up (they're more powerful then a bunch of human thugs, but Annie's more powerful than an average person too... which Anthony doesn't seem to want to encourage).

And we don't know that he wont disappear now. But if he doesn't it could mean A. Rey isn't in any way what he's there for, B. Rey is only a part of what he's there for, C. Rey is completely what he's there for, but there's a reason he's going to stay, D. controlling Ray is about controlling Annie, E...

E: He's not there for Rey and you're continuing to misrepresent his actions in order to further your demonization.

You'll have to point out my demonization. And congratulations, you successfully restated the very first possibility I listed. Doesn't make it look like you don't bother to really read posts at all.

But I note you're not acknowledging any of the other possibilities as potentially correct, despite how questionable Anthony's demand of Rey is. In fact you're implying that wondering if any position other than A is incorrect is automatic demonization. Which I guess means you're not open to the idea you're wrong, hmmmm?

[aline]

Apr 15, 2015 1:51:31 GMT AnUpliftedCuttlefish said:

I've got to ask - why would a man like Anthony not just say "it's dangerous" if he meant "it's dangerous"?*

We know little about Anthony but we do know he doesn't say what he thinks. However, I believe you're right here, and he mainly meant that the forest is a waste of time.
A quote of Jones from that page: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=387
"The Court sees them [the creatures of the forest] as little more than dull minded animals trying to create a nuisance"
And more specifically about Tony: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=367
When Annie says her mum never mentioned her work as a medium:
Jones: "That was your father's influence, I suspect."
Annie: "Yes, he never had patience for matters that didn't fall into a scientific category."

That hints at some degree of contempt for the forest and its creatures from Anthony's part. It also hints that this is a rather normal point of view at the Court, and that it's people like Annie or Surma who are the exception.

[Jelly Jellybean]

Apr 15, 2015 7:54:03 GMT aline said:

Apr 15, 2015 1:51:31 GMT AnUpliftedCuttlefish said:

I've got to ask - why would a man like Anthony not just say "it's dangerous" if he meant "it's dangerous"?*

We know little about Anthony but we do know he doesn't say what he thinks. However, I believe you're right here, and he mainly meant that the forest is a waste of time.
A quote of Jones from that page: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=387
"The Court sees them [the creatures of the forest] as little more than dull minded animals trying to create a nuisance"
And more specifically about Tony: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=367
When Annie says her mum never mentioned her work as a medium:
Jones: "That was your father's influence, I suspect."
Annie: "Yes, he never had patience for matters that didn't fall into a scientific category."

That hints at some degree of contempt for the forest and its creatures from Anthony's part. It also hints that this is a rather normal point of view at the Court, and that it's people like Annie or Surma who are the exception.

Jones is the one who says "Yes, he never had patience for matters that didn't fall into a scientific category."  The pointer on the speech bubble is on Jones' side of the panel and most of the main characters have uniquely shaded speech bubbles (Annie is pinkish and Jones is brownish).  The shading is so subtle that I often have to use an app to see the pixel color data to be certain.

But I do agree that the Court's attitude is mostly indifference or contempt towards the forest.  But watch out when a good dose of fear gets added to the mix.

[pxc]

Onomatopoeia the reason people call you a troll is because you continually mischaracterize, overgeneralize, misconstrue, and embellish others' arguments using hyperbole, you argue against viewpoints no one is taking, and then pretend to be a victim of others misunderstanding, and then incredibly you criticize those that disagree with you for being unreasonable and unwilling to see your point of view. You are hiding it fairly well but you're behaving like troll. If you actually believe the nonsense you spout and actually want it to be taken seriously, then actually defend it effectively. Don't resort to weak tactics designed to throw people off instead of actually addressing an opposing view in an honest way.

[kelantar]

Apr 14, 2015 6:48:37 GMT Refugee said:

I've been running through Tom's Gunnerkrig Retrospective videos, and in the second one, Tom talks about a recurring theme of characters who seem initially monstrous turning out not to be quite so scary, and Annie turns them into friends.

Kinda thinking that might be what happens here with her Father.

So you're saying he's monstrous here? I agree.

Apr 14, 2015 9:01:31 GMT zimmyzims said:

It has been rare here to expect that Anthony even possibly could be up to anything good or have good reasons to his absence - which is manifest in the recent discussions where the majority of the forum constantly denies that he could have a good reason for his absence, despite the fact that this chapter has revealed nothing about his absence (bar the fact that he lost his hand and got scarred).

Okay, but the thing is that works both ways. You keep saying he might have done something that can justify that can justify his behavior, but then you say we don't know what he did. So yes, he might have been chased by secret agents who were out to kill all fire elementals and he had to maintain a distance from her, but he also could have been out there killing puppies and bunnies trying to figure out how to extract spirits or something. If we don't know, we have to judge from what we see, which is pretty unequivocally Anthony being a bag of douche.

Apr 14, 2015 20:30:01 GMT Onomatopoeia said:

Certainly failure to spend every waking moment with her is not a reason to condemn him.

Neglected in what way? Because he wasn't there during every waking moment of Antimony's life? Poppycock.

Two to three years. She couldn't get in contact with him, much less talk to him or go to him for help. And if you're going to talk about demonization and hyperbole, saying she wasn't there every waking moment when he didn't contact her for over two years is certainly being hyperbolic.

I have a different theory to propose:

I don't believe Anthony's actions consitute abuse.

This is an interesting theory on account of the fact that, you know, they don't.

verb (used with object), abused, abusing.
1.
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse:
to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way:
to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.
5.
Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.

noun
6.
wrong or improper use; misuse:
the abuse of privileges.
7.
harshly or coarsely insulting language:
The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8.
bad or improper treatment; maltreatment:
The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9.
a corrupt or improper practice or custom:
the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10.
rape or sexual assault.
11.
Obsolete, deception.

I think an argument can be made for a fair number of these. You keep saying "it's not abuse" as if you made up the word and no one can disagree with your definition of abuse. That being said, I would like to know what your definition of abuse is. I've been hesitant to use the word abuse because the definition can be nebulous, but there have been a couple of people who have shared their stories about how this sort of behavior reminds them of abusive situations they've been in. Who am I to say that it's not abuse if people who have actually been abused think it is?

And we don't know that he wont disappear now. But if he doesn't it could mean A. Rey isn't in any way what he's there for, B. Rey is only a part of what he's there for, C. Rey is completely what he's there for, but there's a reason he's going to stay, D. controlling Ray is about controlling Annie, E...

E: He's not there for Rey and you're continuing to misrepresent his actions in order to further your demonization.

That's exactly what A said and you're continuing to misrepresent forum members' actions
in order to further your demonization.

On the other hand pretty much every time you talk about why cutting Annie off from the forest is a fair response to her cheating you say the forest is dangerous. Which is not why Anthony said he was doing it. You know what? You're right. So let's see. I believe the term he used was "silliness", correct? Silliness is defined as engaging in "a ludicrous folly", showing a "lack of good sense or judgment".


Fact #1: As previously established the Forest is incredibly dangerous and working for Coyote is a really really really really really stupid idea.
Fact #2: Annie works there.
Fact #3: Given fact #1, it can therefore be concluded that working as the forest medium is silly.

This is actually interesting, because I get very confused about Anthony's motivations sometimes. He says Annie shouldn't go into the forest and stop wearing the "ridiculous" makeup, but Surma was wearing her makeup at what looks like around Annie's age and she apparently frequented the forest as well. I wonder how Anthony ended up with Surma in the first place if he has so much disdain for her habits.

[Refugee]

Apr 15, 2015 18:47:26 GMT kelantar said:

Apr 14, 2015 6:48:37 GMT Refugee said:

I've been running through Tom's Gunnerkrig Retrospective videos, and in the second one, Tom talks about a recurring theme of characters who seem initially monstrous turning out not to be quite so scary, and Annie turns them into friends.

Kinda thinking that might be what happens here with her Father.

So you're saying he's monstrous here? I agree.

"Seem...monstrous" is the phrase I used.

Apr 14, 2015 9:01:31 GMT zimmyzims said:

It has been rare here to expect that Anthony even possibly could be up to anything good or have good reasons to his absence - which is manifest in the recent discussions where the majority of the forum constantly denies that he could have a good reason for his absence, despite the fact that this chapter has revealed nothing about his absence (bar the fact that he lost his hand and got scarred).

Okay, but the thing is that works both ways. You keep saying he might have done something that can justify that can justify his behavior, but then you say we don't know what he did.

Speaking for myself here, when I say "we don't know", I mean people are making huge assumptions about Anthony's actions.

People are assuming, for instance, that he caused Annie's coma back in "Divine", that he is responsible for the "bones", and that he had bad intent.

They are assuming that his current actions are personal attacks on Annie motivated by spite. That he wants to assert complete control over every aspect of her life, to kill her initiative, to make her totally dependent on him.

And worst of all, they are assuming that Annie is meek and submissive because she is falling back into the pattern established in her childhood.

[Daedalus]

SPOILER: Click to show

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

...People are making huge assumptions about Anthony's actions...

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

he is responsible for the "bones"

This is virtually certain. There is no reasonable evidence to argue otherwise.

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

he caused Annie's coma back in "Divine"

There is no reasonable evidence for any other cause, and once Zimmy meddles with the bones, the coma stops. Pretty clear, though I suppose you could make an unfounded argument.

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

he had bad intent.

That's been in debate for a long time, of course. We all know each others' positions. Any debate over this 'assumption' should rest in its well-deserved grave. This is the only place where I agree with your label of "assumption".

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

They are assuming that his current actions are personal attacks on Annie motivated by spite. That he wants to assert complete control over every aspect of her life, to kill her initiative, to make her totally dependent on him.

That's quite a straw man you've constructed there, sir. He could want to control her completely without the motivation being personal spite, for example.  <--- my position

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

And worst of all, they are assuming that Annie is meek and submissive because she is falling back into the pattern established in her childhood.

With the regression to hospital-era clothing and hairstyle shown recently, it's a very strong parallel established by Tom. Although other possibilities exist (like the idea that her father's punishments have somehow unfathomably led to an epiphany and not, you know, a total mental knock out*), there is no other reasonable assumption to make. Tom's making this one pretty crystal clear, honestly.

*as Tom's comment indicated

Notice the emphasis on the word "reasonable". I could argue anything I want on the platform that it hasn't been 'conclusively disproven', but that moves into the realm of conspiracy theory. All of the 'assumptions' you highlight (with, of course, the exception of Anthony's morality) are the most likely conclusions by far, and thus the most reasonable readings of the text until more evidence becomes available.


Please respond in a spoiler if you choose to answer, since I doubt any other genteel forum-goers would want to watch this argument continue.

[itrogash]

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

Okay, but the thing is that works both ways. You keep saying he might have done something that can justify that can justify his behavior, but then you say we don't know what he did.

Speaking for myself here, when I say "we don't know", I mean people are making huge assumptions about Anthony's actions.

People are assuming, for instance, that he caused Annie's coma back in "Divine", that he is responsible for the "bones", and that he had bad intent.

See, I've never argued about Tony's intention. All I'm saying is that i don't care what his intentions are. Good intent is not some kind of magical coat that justifies your every action. Roskolnikov was not right to kill two people because he had good intentions. Walter White was not right to hire neo-Nazis and kill dozens of people because he had "good intentions" . Revealing that Tony had some good intentions in conducting a dangerous procedure on Annie, which could permanently change her body and soul, without her consent or even explaining what he was going to do, will not suddenly make it okay. Some things are just wrong.

[Refugee]

Apr 16, 2015 6:58:06 GMT itrogash said:

Apr 15, 2015 19:08:16 GMT Refugee said:

Speaking for myself here, when I say "we don't know", I mean people are making huge assumptions about Anthony's actions.

People are assuming, for instance, that he caused Annie's coma back in "Divine", that he is responsible for the "bones", and that he had bad intent.

See, I've never argued about Tony's intention. All I'm saying is that i don't care what his intentions are. ...Revealing that Tony had some good intentions in conducting a dangerous procedure on Annie, which could permanently change her body and soul, without her consent or even explaining what he was going to do, will not suddenly make it okay. Some things are just wrong.

If that's what Anthony did, then you are correct, and he is a worse threat to Antimony than any she has yet faced.

But we don't know that. We do not know the source and purpose of the bones, or what Anthony was trying to do with them or to them. We don't know that he's the one that put her in a coma.

We don't know he didn't either.

There are two cases I can think of that justifies a dangerous procedure conducted without knowledge or consent. One is in a life-threatening emergency where the patient is unable to give consent. The other is in self defense. But we don't know if either of those obtains.

And intent is not irrelevant; I will think very much worse of Anthony if he was doing these things to enslave his daughter rather than to save her. And I will think worse of him if he is "saving" her by taking away the source of her etheric power, by changing who she is, than if he was working to allow her to keep her elemental nature without it killing her.

But I don't know what he was doing with the bones, or why, or if he was doing anything.

All I know is that he has taken actions which are mostly reasonable for a parent or teacher to take when a student is caught in a long running pattern of cheating. And I very strongly suspect that Zimmy attacked him via the bones.

[Refugee]

[Oops, wrong thread.]
[Oops, no it wasn't.]

Apr 10, 2015 16:10:04 GMT carasanathema said:

I actually would love thoughts on my post further back on this thread wondering if Anthony actually sees Antimony as a real person, with the right to the spirit that she took from Surma, or as a "thing" that reminds him of his failure and loss, and became a target instead of a daughter. I'm not saying it as clearly here as before.

Clearly enough, I think. I'm afraid you may be right.

For all my defense of Anthony in the legal sense, I must say that he does not strike me as being a strong man, emotionally speaking. He's brittle. (NOTE to material engineering types: Yes, I know that strength and brittleness can coexist. Piss off. Thank you.)

He's one of those who puts women on pedestals so he can worship them.* He can't imagine being worthy to approach one to so much as ask her out on a date.

He probably worshiped his own daughter to some extent, but as Surma declined, he came to resent Annie more and more for breaking his idol.

But this pure speculation. It does little to inform me as to what he's actually done.

---

* I wonder if that's why Surma married him. In his retrospective of Chap. 22, Tom points out that Surma was very concerned with her appearance, more so than Annie, whose pride takes a different form. James has his own strength, despite having a pedestal or two of his own, and might not have worshiped Surma enough.