|
|
Post by Sauzels on May 8, 2015 7:36:24 GMT
I'm intrigued by your perception of this story element, honestly. If Tom wrote Anthony to be an antagonist, why would that character acting in antagonistic ways result in you losing respect for the author? I've got nothing against you or your opinion, I'm just curious about how you got to it. A lot of readers have reacted to Anthony causing trouble for Annie by being mad at Anthony. You're holding very firm to Anthony's previous actions as being reasonable in context, and now that they're starting to push the line of acceptability for you, it sounds like it's impacting your opinion of the writing itself, not the character. As for Anthony -- he's a completely different person once you got to know him. Tony got really emotional over the fact that he couldn't clearly and rationally define his own emotions. He's logical and methodical, sure, but not necessarily in ways that are obvious or reasonable from an outside perspective. Undoubtedly, his current treatment of Antimony is perfectly logical in his own mind, and he's carried out his actions in a calculated and methodical way. He's been planning something in regard to his daughter since at least "Microsat 5" and this is just the next step. Evil/bad characters are what they are. I won't call shenanigans on Bob Kane for writing Joker. But I don't abide by stringing people along. If Anthony is evil then he bloody well needs to start acting like it. None of this pansy ass shit that can go either way. Like forcing her to quit her job as the Forest Medium. Coyote is like, the worst boss ever. Of all time. He's the Sarge to Annie's Grif. Ysengrin is Simmons. You can't point me at that and tell me it's the work of an abuser. And if he's not evil, then what's all this nonsense about? I lost any respect I ever had for Masashi Kishimoto long ago, but I still read Naruto through to the end because at least Naruto was going someone, if only down down down. Hurray for the Sunk Cost Fallacy! And Kishimoto is a hack. I expect better from Tom. What's the point is what I'm saying. You're the first person I've ever seen actually demand a black-and-white system of good and evil. A story that makes its villains obvious and nothing but evil gets boring. That's probably the best thing about Gunnerkrigg: there are few "true" villains (really only Diego, but he ended plagued with regret, and did what he did because he thought he deserved love). Every character has actual depth to their character, and do things that seem like the right thing to their own eyes. I fail to see how making your readers actually think about the morality involved in the actions of your characters is condemnable. Ambiguous morality—or "pansy-ass shit", as you call it—makes a story seem more "real" (ignoring the talking coyote god and such) and relatable, in a way. The characters become more like people than just the writer's dolls. People in real life who act like big jerks aren't slimy bastards 100% of the time. If you look closer at bad people, sometimes you start to wonder if they're really all that bad. After all, barring the mentally ill, everyone's just trying to do what they think is best. Also, when people ask what you're talking about, being an asshole about it doesn't help your case. |
|
|
|
Post by feraldog on May 8, 2015 7:39:14 GMT
She's provided an education and free room and board, which Anthony paid for. It's hardly a dumping ground. Yeah, Useless Parent enrolled the girl in the local schools and occasionally remembered to send my mom a few bucks because she sometimes remembered that my mom had four of her own to look after. That doesn't mean the girl wasn't dumped, and I don't see much difference for Annie. He only got involved with her again because he had to (and he's all but said as much). Useless Parent only got involved when enough time passed between communications that she was in danger of legal issues, otherwise she could have been in space for all she bothered. The simple fact we weren't related to her or members of an organization of some kind raised eyebrows that I don't think would have budged if we had been. The whole "no contact until my return, then rule like a ham-fisted dictator in the rare event I bother looking at my child" thing is familiar too. To me that marks the difference between sending your child to live elsewhere while maintaining a presence in their life as part of a well-thought-out plan, and doing so because you just don't want to do the work and expect the kid to turn out perfect anyway... as both Anthony and Useless Parent do. Anthony just has nicer, more socially-acceptable dumping grounds than Useless Parent, which I honestly think is the reason some want to excuse his neglect. Of course Anthony goes a lot farther and on a more personal level with Annie than Useless Parent ever did to her kid, and it's implied he only sent her to the Court in the first place because Surma insisted on it before she died. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on May 8, 2015 7:44:18 GMT
You're the first person I've ever seen actually demand a black-and-white system of good and evil. Considering the reactions to this and the previous chapter (gosh golly ABUSER!!! HE SHOULD BE MURDERED!!!) no one is interested in examining the philosophical implications of Anthony's actions versus his characterization. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. ...what case? I have no case to make relative to him asking what I'm talking about. What part of my post was so unclear, exactly? And that's not being an asshole that's just being flippant. And do try to avoid insulting people if you don't like their responses. P.S. why the hell is o-m-g censored but asshole isn't? |
|
|
|
Post by Sauzels on May 8, 2015 7:59:23 GMT
You're the first person I've ever seen actually demand a black-and-white system of good and evil. Considering the reactions to this and the previous chapter (gosh golly ABUSER!!! HE SHOULD BE MURDERED!!!) no one is interested in examining the philosophical implications of Anthony's actions versus his characterization. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. Nonono. What everyone is thinking is "That there Anthony is a pretty gosh darn bad person and maybe he should stop that." What you are saying is "Well shit, if he's going to be the antagonist here, he should be more evil!" And, wait a second, just a few posts ago you made an argument for Anthony's side. Other people are trying to rationalize his actions, too. So, yes, people are actually willing to discuss the merits of Anthony's actions. ...what case? I have no case to make relative to him asking what I'm talking about. What part of my post was so unclear, exactly? And that's not being an asshole that's just being flippant. And do try to avoid insulting people if you don't like their responses. When you start giving condescending responses to people, you start to lose credibility in general for anything you're trying to say. Some might call flippancy a trait of an asshole. And I don't see how calling someone out is worse than talking several levels down to someone who is confused by you asking for a villain to be MORE villainous and rapid-fire references to... three? different series. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on May 8, 2015 8:12:28 GMT
Other people are trying to rationalize his actions, too. So, yes, people are actually willing to discuss the merits of Anthony's actions. So I guess I just imagined all those times I tried to form a rational argument in Tony's defense while the opposition was basically saying "NO HE'S AN ABUSER AND YOU'RE A TROLL!!!!!" And do you imagine that insulting people will improve your credibility with the people you are insulting? Some might call the moon a big ball of swiss cheese. "He started it" has never ever been a valid justification for insulting someone. You would do well to practice what you preach, meine square. More like two and a half. Two and a quarter tops. Joker barely counts as a series reference. |
|
|
|
Post by Sauzels on May 8, 2015 8:28:48 GMT
Other people are trying to rationalize his actions, too. So, yes, people are actually willing to discuss the merits of Anthony's actions. So I guess I just imagined all those times I tried to form a rational argument in Tony's defense while the opposition was basically saying "NO HE'S AN ABUSER AND YOU'RE A TROLL!!!!!" Okay, there are some people who don't want a discussion. That doesn't really matter when there are still people, such as you, who do. And why are you letting them dictate how you feel about an author. I'm genuinely confused about the connection between other people not liking Anthony and you wanting to get rid of any sort of ambiguity of where a person stands on the good-evil spectrum. And do you imagine that insulting people will improve your credibility with the people you are insulting? I wasn't even calling you an asshole. I was saying you were being an asshole in that single post. A single action doesn't define a person's entire character. Some might call the moon a big ball of swiss cheese. Great. You were still being rude. You would do well to practice what you preach, meine square. More like two and a half. Two and a quarter tops. Joker barely counts as a series reference. I mean it's still referring to a series but okay. I really need to sleep now so I'm not going to respond for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Onomatopoeia on May 8, 2015 8:47:29 GMT
Anthony's action are long drawn out with not even the most miniscule of clues towards his purpose. I dislike being strung along. I wish to see a point in all of this. Ambiguity is all well and good, when properly executed, but this is not properly executed. Coyote is ambiguous. Young was ambiguous. Tony is just a mess. Simplifying his character would go a long way towards making him tolerable.
That Tom is just piling this ridiculousness on week after week is tedious.
"In that single post" is not acceptable as an allaying modifier.
Then I can only say that I'm sorry you feel that way.
I have not recently insulted anyone to the best of my recollection, so I can say with some certainty that I am practicing what I'm preaching. That was easy. What's next?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on May 8, 2015 10:05:17 GMT
He abandoned her for years - this, for me, is the worst of all. To abandon your child when her mother has died and leave her alone to fend for herself, in a strange place? That's terrible, but understandable under the circumstances. She was also the reason why Surma died. He would be terribly conflicted. On the other hand, what were the consequences of this? She lived among her parents' friends and had everything provided for her.Just guessing here: Your home has never been the dumping grounds for a useless parent like this guy. I've had worse. My parents were people. They did some downright awful things, but they also survived admirably in the kinds of harsh conditions most of you couldn't imagine. For instance, my father has tried to ship me off to another country without my knowledge or agreement. He actually succeeded in doing so with my sister, I was just too stubborn. I'm intimately familiar with precisely the kinds of decisions that Tony is making. I don't think most of you can understand my position of detachment from immediate reaction to emotions. Unlike Onomatopoeia, I'm not taking the opposite stand just to be contrary, ruffle feathers and get a rise from people. I am trying to gain understanding. It is possible to understand and still not forgive. Like my parents, Anthony is also only human. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on May 8, 2015 10:41:41 GMT
People sling the word "abuse" all too easily. What Tony is doing borders on abuse, it's cold, and it feels terrible. But try to look outside the emotional bubble created by the recent chapter. Tony's actions are those of a good parent. Kat's parents don't allow her to go to the Forest, either. Nor would they have allowed her to have Reynardine. Nor would they be all too pleased with cheating. Tony's rap sheet is too long, too much, too soon. We are all still reeling in shock from the emotional impact of the change. But there needs to be some perspective, too. So...his rap sheet is too long...and what he does borders on abuse, is cold...but nothing he did was abuse because all of it wasn't abuse, and indeed all his actions were those of a good parent because one thing he did - not letting her go to the forest - was also done by someone else and would likely be done by most parents? And the emotional abuse/shaming in the classroom in front of her friends and everything else he did was just fine, because maybe there was some underlying reason for it in his mind, and maybe it will all lead to a somewhat better outcome in the long run, assuming it doesn't completely destroy her, lead her to running away and getting into even worse problems, or the like even though experience and research show those are more often than what you speculate the result of such parental mistreatment. (Incidentally, you forgot the operating-on-a-competent-teenager-without-informing-her-or-getting-her-consent, which is indeed physical abuse - no ifs and or buts - under the law anywhere in the English speaking world. You also are completely speculating that they would not have let Kat keep Reynardine in the same circumstances; after all, they did discuss the question in regard to Annie and realize that the alternatives to her keeping him were very problematic, if any.) And no, I'm not looking at it this way because I'm just emotionally invested in this character. First of all, I've never been an Antimony fan (yes, heresy I know!) as such, though I have nothing against her either, but more of a Kat and Paz fan. And, if you look back at what I have written before, you will see that, a) I parsed things carefully according to the common legal standards, including noting where some of his actions are indeed not abuse, or not intrinsically, because despite what you claim I do not just go around "slinging" the word abuse randomly; b) I have not gone over the edge like many who (unfortunately, I would say, though remembering this is after all just a comic and thus imaginary!) call for him to be physically hurt. I am seeing it this way because I believe that children's needs come first, and adults mistreating children is never justified; children need adult supervision, protection and direction, but these need to be done in an appropriate way, not used as excuses for violence or mental abuse; and it is up to the adult to take acknowledge responsibility for himself and his past, get over his issues or problems or history, and act appropriately. I see it this way not because I think Annie should be able to keep running around in the forest and cheating and such, but because Anthony's approach to stopping these things - assuming that is indeed what he really cares about - is by way of over-the-top, unnecessary, inappropriate, and in itself very likely damaging actions that meet both the legal and moral definitions of abuse. Anyway, going back to the key item in what you wrote(*): The unequivocal, full-stop, absolute statement, " Tony's actions are those of a good parent." As you note, you will believe what you want, as also will the relatively small group of others who desperately want to justify Anthony across the board and no matter what, regardless of how much that requires ignoring what we already know and wildly speculating about potential later revelations. But no, no his "actions" are not those of a good parent; and I really doubt you are going to convince most of the people here that they are or that they should not dislike him. Just like the fact that you can find one or two not-intrinsically-unreasonable things (or imagine one or two not-intrinsically-unreasonable causes) behind Anthony's behaviour does not make everything he does even potentially right, and just because some people take anger at Anthony very far one way likewise does not make you correct in going completely the other direction by saying that everyone has to understand and feel for him, and from there indeed view everything he does as correct. (*)In previous posts you presented yourself as feeling for both Antimony and Anthony and not blaming either of them. The problem is that this was an untenable position in terms of this story, because the power relationships are not equal and the behaviours are not equivalent. And certainly when the surface was scratched it turned out to be untenable for you. Why? Because you have now completely supported the view that Anthony's actions are intrinsically correct across the board, no matter how he chooses to put them into effect, and whatever emotions and motivations he has are totally valid and worthy of respect and consideration. On the other hand, while we may feel for Antimony's pain, she was essentially in the wrong about everything and is the one that will need to change, meanwhile putting up with whatever comes her way from Anthony no matter how much and how intentionally he hurts her emotionally. Well, one more for the banned list; the question of whether we should "dislike" characters is not a problem, but I have no interest in ongoing discussions with people who believe that any kind of cruelty by a parent is justified, and "not abuse," as long as there might be some reason for some kind of parental action around something. Indeed, I see that one of the previous people I blocked for general nastiness and parent-always-right-no-matter-what, consider/speculate/imagine-the-poor-parent's-feelings/difficulties/problems-and-forgive-them-anything-and-just-hope/expect/demand-the-child-to-be-the-effective-grownup-and-overcome-it-all absolutism has already liked your post. No surprise, I guess. I don't know if you'll check for my response (probably, curiosity is a beast; I would). You can't even read my post clearly because of your emotional commitment. I will admit that a flat-out statement of "Tony is a good father" isn't true, it's not even what I believe in. I thought about changing it right after posting, but it wasn't said in a vacuum. It was said in a specific context - from that perspective of purely logical statement. Which is just one of the many possible perspectives, and the truth is all of them together, even the ones that clash. But you've misread a lot of what I wrote. Understanding is not the same as liking, forgiving, or justifying. Understanding means having to trace someone's motivations, which you cannot do without empathy. It's a dirty process, you get a lot of their mud on yourself. It doesn't mean that once you come out, you'll justify their actions. But you will understand why. (It's also impossible to truly dismantle them if you don't do this.) I try to explore many possible perspectives, and I don't think I'm infallible, I'm made of clay like everyone else. I'll say things wrong in the process. But I will never approach a situation from just one narrow perspective. Life has taught me from a very early age that my little position of pain is not the world's center. Annie has cracks. But how deep do Anthony's personality cracks go? I want to know. |
|
|
|
Post by geoduck on May 8, 2015 10:49:45 GMT
It is possible to understand and still not forgive. Like my parents, Anthony is also only human. What's really depressing is.. we can't actually 100% confirm that second fact. We've heard testimony from a reliable source that the young Anthony who grew up in the Court was human (repressed and troubled, but human). The guy currently tearing Annie's life down to its foundations? Even at this point, he could still be some sort of trick or imposter. He probably isn't, but... |
|
|
|
Post by keef on May 8, 2015 11:33:28 GMT
It is possible to understand and still not forgive. Like my parents, Anthony is also only human. What's really depressing is.. we can't actually 100% confirm that second fact. We've heard testimony from a reliable source that the young Anthony who grew up in the Court was human (repressed and troubled, but human). The guy currently tearing Annie's life down to its foundations? Even at this point, he could still be some sort of trick or imposter. He probably isn't, but... Of course he could be an imposter, but I don't think it fits to well in the story. Maybe you could write some wild speculation about it? |
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 8, 2015 12:53:46 GMT
People sling the word "abuse" all too easily. What Tony is doing borders on abuse, it's cold, and it feels terrible. But try to look outside the emotional bubble created by the recent chapter. I think it would be easier on the discussion to stop attempting to define the word "abuse". There are simply too many ways to define the concept, with high cultural influence and a lot of individual emotional baggage involved. It's impossible to come to an agreement to what is abuse and what isn't if you have more than three people in the room. |
|
|
|
Post by pxc on May 8, 2015 15:54:07 GMT
While I've had my issues with some of what Onomatopoeia has said in past threads, I think (s)he makes a fair point here. It's well established by now that Anthony's actions are antagonistic and detrimental to Annie. Whether you think of him as pure evil, or well-meaning-but-misguided father, or somewhere between, those two extremes are both encompassed within the truth that this isn't what is best for Annie.
The slow delivery of a 3x/week webcomic means that pages like the last two shift from establishment to forced wallowing. I'd argue that shift happened a while ago, but still. Can we please get on with the story instead of being beaten over the head with how terrible Anthony is making Annie's life?
As I've stated a few times, I do think this will be a lot more compelling once it's done. But in the meantime, in the chosen release form of 3 pages per week, tedious is the most positive way I can describe it.
Also, after a semi-lengthy post, I'm not sure how someone would positively respond to "What are you talking about". "Could you explain this more" or "what did you mean by this sentence" might've been more effective and less goading.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on May 8, 2015 16:46:39 GMT
The next scene will probably be Carver dissecting Reynardine alive.... Well, yeah, she needs to get her picks back before turning him over to... Oh, you meant Carver père dissecting Renard. Nah, all he'd find would be a bunch of stuffing and some picks, which would probably end up jamming under his fingernails. vivisection, dude. You seem to forget who we're talking about. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on May 8, 2015 17:27:39 GMT
Since you’ve made some responses that addressed other questions I had, I’m mashing a bunch of your comments in this one spot. Hopefully it isn’t confusing. Also, I realize I can get really pedantic and wordy, I swear I’m just trying to make sure I convey myself clearly. Evil/bad characters are what they are. I won't call shenanigans on Bob Kane for writing Joker. But I don't abide by stringing people along. If Anthony is evil then he bloody well needs to start acting like it. None of this pansy ass shit that can go either way. Like forcing her to quit her job as the Forest Medium. Coyote is like, the worst boss ever. Of all time. He's the Sarge to Annie's Grif. Ysengrin is Simmons. You can't point me at that and tell me it's the work of an abuser. I wouldn’t point at that one decision and say it’s the sole act proving that Anthony is abusive, no. There isn’t any single one decision on his part that I would pull out as the primary sign of an abusive person – not even the Giant White Isolation Ward bedroom. Individually, his actions were unpleasant or abrasive or hurtful, but as single isolated incidents, not a solid indicator of his overall treatment of Annie. Viewing all these acts together forms a more negative picture. You don’t agree, which is fine. But your wording suggests that you’re conflating two issues. No, him revoking Annie’s access to the Forest isn’t inherently abusive – And yes, it could be the act of an abuser. Abusers can be very kind to the person they’re abusing and frequently make decisions and choices based on what they think is in that person’s best interest. Which leads me too… To me, it’s very clear that he’s got deeper goals and motivations and all of his actions are serving that end purpose. We just haven’t seen them yet. Myself, I don’t mind waiting for the reveal. I do not think any of his actions were performed for the sole sake of being evil or that he’s willfully being hurtful. He’s never struck me as an evil character. Of course, Surma wasn’t an evil character when she tricked Renard into thinking she loved him, and that fiasco ended with one dead man and one dead dragon. And then years later, the reveal of it flipped out her daughter so hard, she ran away to the dubious support of an amoral trickster god and threatened the safety of the entire Court in the process. Well –meant, well-reasoned actions can have nasty consequences is what I’m saying. Considering the reactions to this and the previous chapter (gosh golly ABUSER!!! HE SHOULD BE MURDERED!!!) no one is interested in examining the philosophical implications of Anthony's actions versus his characterization. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. (…) I read through a lot of your comments regarding that discussion and just in general… you are both confrontational and dismissive in the way you present yourself, so a lot of your comments read, on the surface, like you’re trying to provoke a reaction and will say whatever promises to upsets people the most. Also, this is regarding a SUPER sensitive subject. Like, a lot of posters both here and on the main page are clearly drawing on and relating to personal experiences, so they’re going to be especially non-receptive to comments that sound like “JEEZ, you’re all so crazy and violent and unreasonable”. It really wasn’t fair you got called a troll, regardless. And yeah, there are plenty of people calling for Anthony’s blood, but there are also people willing to discuss the details. You kinda gotta pick your battles with internet discussions – the likelihood of convincing someone to change their mind is nil, so all you can hope for is to understand where they’re coming from. Tom doesn’t like L33Tspeak. Anthony's action are long drawn out with not even the most miniscule of clues towards his purpose. I dislike being strung along. I wish to see a point in all of this. Ambiguity is all well and good, when properly executed, but this is not properly executed. Coyote is ambiguous. Young was ambiguous. Tony is just a mess. Simplifying his character would go a long way towards making him tolerable. Ok, I think I’m going have to settle for parting ways on this one, because I love everything about the way the last couple chapters have been presented and I’m super, super intrigued by Tony’s character. Like I’ve mentioned before, we’ve had signs that he’s planning something big for a while. Now he’s here and his first actions have been to completely isolate his daughter and it’s turned her and her world upside down. This is awesome. I hope to god he isn’t simplified. I want to follow along in Annie and Kat’s footsteps as they uncover each idea, rationale, plot, and plan behind his actions. I want to see Annie discover who her father really is, whatever that means, and then have to come to terms with it. How will she feel if he’s working directly for the Court? Or if he’s trying to help her by removing her fire elemental? Or if he genuinely just means well and this is the best way he can think of to protect her? Or if he just can’t come to terms with the fact she led to his wife’s death? Will Annie reach a point where she decides it’s her job to decide what’s best for her? Will she be able to have a good relationship with her dad or will she have to cut ties with him for the sake of herself? I’m SO excited. From your comments, it seems you view Tony’s actions as completely irrational and serving no purpose at this point except to infuriate readers with what a Bad No Good JerkFace he "maybe" is. I see a puzzle and every new page is an extra piece. I'm totally up for waiting to see the final picture. Of course, with my luck, Monday’s page will be Anthony calmly reading aloud his entire Grand Master Scheme, which he has neatly typed out in a 10 pt. font, double-spaced document that he’ll be handing to a convenient robot in a hoodie to file for him. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 8, 2015 18:23:39 GMT
Can we please get on with the story instead of being beaten over the head with how terrible Anthony is making Annie's life? I feel that way too. I'm eager to see some development on all that, and it's not coming. On the other side, Tom has said several times that this is an important part of the story, that he's waited for a long time to get there, etc. I'm not going to judge the pace until I've seen more. Storywise, down times don't mean useless times. You can't sacrifice everything to the episode format. Sometimes you have to take your time. Details might get to be important later on.
So I tell myself all that. But still every time I load a new page, I cringe and think, come on, are we getting to the action yet? -_-
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 8, 2015 23:41:52 GMT
You're the first person I've ever seen actually demand a black-and-white system of good and evil. Considering the reactions to this and the previous chapter (gosh golly ABUSER!!! HE SHOULD BE MURDERED!!!) no one is interested in examining the philosophical implications of Anthony's actions versus his characterization. I'm just saying what everyone is thinking. You better turn in your mind-reader's license. You're failing at even discerning what everyone have said, let alone what everyone is thinking. Because the guy who configures the censoring finds netspeak/textspeak more annoying than mild profanity. People sling the word "abuse" all too easily. What Tony is doing borders on abuse, it's cold, and it feels terrible. But try to look outside the emotional bubble created by the recent chapter. I think it would be easier on the discussion to stop attempting to define the word "abuse". There are simply too many ways to define the concept, with high cultural influence and a lot of individual emotional baggage involved. It's impossible to come to an agreement to what is abuse and what isn't if you have more than three people in the room. People who are aware of the legal definitions of abuse have certified that Anthony's behavior legally qualifies as abuse. "There are too many definitions of abuse for anyone to really say it's abuse" doesn't seem like much of an argument against that. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on May 9, 2015 2:35:15 GMT
So it is. Some highlights: Well, this one's certainly proved to be true  So we're probably entitled to at least one more flashback chapter. So we'll presumably get more explanations for his recent actions (though, as I've said before, I don't think they'll be sufficient. So Surma never got the "When a fire elemental loves a human very much..." talk from Coyote? Or there's more to Annie's condition that we don't know yet because Coyote didn't reveal the whole truth... This suggests that Surma never knew she was a fire elemental, or at least never knew the consequences as Coyote outlined them to Annie, or never revealed them to Anthony (unlikely). I wonder if Surma and Tony had a specific purpose in their marriage. This question's answer, I'm guessing, is "it's complicated".Will we see kung fu in Gunnerkrigg Court? |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on May 9, 2015 5:12:30 GMT
So it is. Some highlights: And here is another good one: Q: How much longer till Anthony Carver makes an appearance? A: I'll let you know as soon as he's in the comic. Tom is no liar. And therein lies the danger?  |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on May 9, 2015 8:09:44 GMT
Tom is no liar. And therein lies the danger? Considering how snarky and cryptic Tom is in some of his answers, it's still my headcanon that Coyote is the representation of Tom in the comic. Wildspec: CoyoteReborn is actually Tom wanting to show off Coyote's persona further. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on May 9, 2015 11:01:58 GMT
I think it would be easier on the discussion to stop attempting to define the word "abuse". There are simply too many ways to define the concept, with high cultural influence and a lot of individual emotional baggage involved. It's impossible to come to an agreement to what is abuse and what isn't if you have more than three people in the room. People who are aware of the legal definitions of abuse have certified that Anthony's behavior legally qualifies as abuse. "There are too many definitions of abuse for anyone to really say it's abuse" doesn't seem like much of an argument against that. What's legally defined in one country, might not be so in another. These things are often in very heated dispute. Legality as a defining principle of the matter is flimsy, it merely reflects on the current mores of a society. Abortions are legal in some places, illegal in others. Abuse is definitely something that isn't easy to define. A rite of passage in one country is horrendous abuse in another. To me, male baby circumcision is definitely abuse that makes me recoil in horror. But in many countries, including the USA, it's considered a routine procedure. If you define abuse as "this hurts me and I don't like it" then many things that are good for you could be considered abuse. Being grounded, having to take bitter medicine, having to study a lot to pass exams. Some definitions of abuse are too focused on protecting a child's delicate feelings and too little on actually raising the child. In the past, entire generations of children were screwed over because sociologists, psychologists or even medical science were wrong about something. Did you know that until the late 1980s, surgeons in the Western world operated on babies without anesthesia because it was widely accepted that babies don't feel pain? Anthony's actions are horrible from our perspective because we have closely followed Annie's progress as a character. Ten years we've been with Annie, and now there's this huge intrusion in her life. But it's also her father. I think she will make peace with him as time goes. I think they will learn to reconnect. In the process, he will have to atone for leaving her alone for so many years. He will have to make peace with the fact that Surma is gone. That his daughter is a wonderful being, a fire elemental with so much intensity and power. That maybe this isn't such a bad thing, and maybe it's what attracted him to Surma in the first place. Okay I think I went a little overboard. These ARE little two-dimensional comic book characters. Tom, why must you make them feel so alive?!  |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 9, 2015 11:45:08 GMT
So Surma never got the "When a fire elemental loves a human very much..." talk from Coyote? Or there's more to Annie's condition that we don't know yet because Coyote didn't reveal the whole truth... I believe Surma was part of the "we all knew what would happen", that she would die if she had a child. I interpret Tom's answer to mean that Anthony and Surma didn't understand the particulars of her condition. This suggests that Surma never knew she was a fire elemental, or at least never knew the consequences as Coyote outlined them to Annie, or never revealed them to Anthony (unlikely). I interpreted Tom's answer to mean that Surma and Annie are not human-fire elemental hybrids because of their genetics. And by saying that Anthony thought Surma's genetics were not involved, Tom is confirming that Anthony investigated Surma's genetics. ____ I have and continue to hold the opinion that Surma's condition was not an illness. It was/is the human-fire elemental hybrid process of reproduction. Therefore Anthony's attempts to understand and treat it as an illness were doomed to failure. I very recently developed the opinion that Anthony is trying to understand and treat Annie's condition as a parasitic infection. I think that is also doomed to failure and I fear Anthony will kill Annie in the process. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 9, 2015 12:35:52 GMT
People who are aware of the legal definitions of abuse have certified that Anthony's behavior legally qualifies as abuse. "There are too many definitions of abuse for anyone to really say it's abuse" doesn't seem like much of an argument against that. There are many countries out there, and each one of them has a different legal definition of abuse, which in each one of them changes over time (For example spanking became illegal in France a couple of years ago. From one day to the next it went from normal education practice to punishable abuse. Most people in France still do not consider it abuse and many still spank their kids in the privacy of their homes. Tell a turc about spanking young kids and you'll get horrified looks). I'm not trying to say that you can't call this or that abuse, I just say that arguing about that in this forum until everyone agrees is kinda pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 9, 2015 19:10:58 GMT
I just took another look at this page... I don't know if it's significant given the distance, but the door to Annie's room doesn't appear to have any sort of handle, knob, or locking mechanism on the inside. (It also, as shown on the previous page, swings out... and doesn't appear to have a latching mechanism either.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on May 9, 2015 19:56:35 GMT
I just took another look at this page... I don't know if it's significant given the distance, but the door to Annie's room doesn't appear to have any sort of handle, knob, or locking mechanism on the inside. (It also, as shown on the previous page, swings out... and doesn't appear to have a latching mechanism either.) I've noticed it has no handle or latch, which means she's not locked in. I regard that as a good sign. On the other hand, it swings out. All other things being equal, doors open towards the protected space, because the door can be easily blocked from that side. Your entrance door likely opens inwards, so do bathroom and bedroom doors. Prison cell doors open outwards; the world must be protected from the occupant, not the other way round. However, such doors typically have windows, which is not the case here. Another exception, which is what I expect applies here, is utility spaces, such as closets, mechanical rooms, and refrigerators. Since they typically are not occupied, and may be full of stuff that would block an inward-opening door, they only need open outwards. Which is the case here, I can't say. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on May 10, 2015 1:13:18 GMT
I just took another look at this page... I don't know if it's significant given the distance, but the door to Annie's room doesn't appear to have any sort of handle, knob, or locking mechanism on the inside. (It also, as shown on the previous page, swings out... and doesn't appear to have a latching mechanism either.) Personally I just assumed that the locks were magnetic and mounted in the door and wall. Seems like something GKC would do. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 10, 2015 1:54:31 GMT
Well, if it has no locking mechanism on the inside, it means Annie has no reliable privacy or personal security. She can't stop anyone from walking in on her any time.
If it has no locking mechanism on the outside, that applies even when she's not there, so she has no security for her belongings either.
Or if it has a locking mechanism under someone else's control, then she has no privacy or security but CAN be TRAPPED in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 10, 2015 12:56:52 GMT
I am going to be contrary and bet that Tom didn't draw the door and its handle/knob/lock in more detail because he didn't think it was important.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 10, 2015 20:45:39 GMT
That's certainly a possibility, particularly considering that we got only a very-long-distance shot of the inside of the door.
|
|
