|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Jun 16, 2015 7:32:56 GMT
I don't think Kat getting angry is going to help matters much, and I don't think this is going to be as popcorny as people seem to think it will. Dude this thing has been popcorny since the moment Anthony knocked on the door! * adds some more butter* But yes, this is all totally leading up to a later outcome of Reynard undermining everyone's claim that he's perfectly harmless. It's the classic "outsider jerk who shouldn't know what he's talking about correctly predicts bad outcome because natives have gotten too used to the danger to realize it's there, but also later the outsider will be forced to trust the cause of the bad outcome in order to grow as a person" trope. That I made up. Just now. But is totally a thing anyway, I just don't use that dumb site and refuse to link to it. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Jun 16, 2015 9:40:18 GMT
I believe Anthony's using the name Surma gave him. He's not doing so for mythological reasons, but because he regards Reynardine as serious competition for Surma's affections, and knows that "Reynardine" made a serious play for Surma at one time. Tony also dislikes informal shortened names, so its the full Reynardine instead of Renard or Rey. Just like he has Annie address him as father instead of dad. Donald instead of Donny. Orthogonal Rectal Insertion instead of .... oh, never mind, ignore this last one. Renard isn't a shortened name, though. Renard is his real, complete, unshortened name. Reynardine is a nickname that Surma gave him, and then he in turn called himself that too. He's probably less keen on that now, since he learned that Surma wasn't sincere with him, leading to more people calling him Renard. But we've never seen any hint that either name has a negative connotation in the comic. This is reading way too much into it.
And "serious competition for Surma's affection"? Hell, no. Surma was the one trying to make Renard fall in love with her. She was tricking and manipulating him. And while Anthony was happily married with Surma, he was in a prison cell. That is practically the opposite of serious competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjaraven on Jun 16, 2015 15:57:23 GMT
Donald's gesture in frame three, of pushing his glasses back up his nose while ducking his head--have we seen him do that elsewhere? Does it say anything about his emotional reaction here? It looks as though it is a visual tic that seems to signify when Donny is flustered, so, perhaps he's a bit frustrated with how evasive Tony is being? Perhaps Donny had hoped that by marrying Surma, Tony might open up a bit more? |
|
|
|
Post by hypixion on Jun 16, 2015 16:49:29 GMT
Donald's gesture in frame three, of pushing his glasses back up his nose while ducking his head--have we seen him do that elsewhere? Does it say anything about his emotional reaction here? It looks as though it is a visual tic that seems to signify when Donny is flustered, so, perhaps he's a bit frustrated with how evasive Tony is being? Perhaps Donny had hoped that by marrying Surma, Tony might open up a bit more? or it means he atleast knows what the work is for and it seems like he has the same kind of work which make me think that anthony was gone for a secret job against or for the court. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Jun 16, 2015 17:07:45 GMT
Tony is employing a rhetorical tactic called 'framing', which guides and restricts the narrative (in this case deflecting the emphasis from Annie's parent to Kat's). It is far more subtle and powerful than the usual strawmaning that passes for online debate. You're absolutely right. And it's not just the sentence I pointed out, it's really the whole conversation. He had work and of course he can't talk about work, Donald, you should know that having SUPER BIG SECRETS yourself -- as if specifics about his work were what Donald was asking for. Anthony could've readily said "I cannot discuss the details" and it would've been fine provided there was a "I regret it kept me away for so long and thank you for looking after Antimony in my absence" tacked on there. Any sort of acknowledgement that being gone for years and then showing up out of no-where is a problem, especially and specifically for his daughter. "I cannot be so quick to assume he's harmless" -- no one has said Renard is harmless. They've said that he and Annie have become friends and that he would never hurt her or Kat; statements which have three years worth of evidence to back them up. But he re-frames it, as you said, as if everyone is dumbly and unquestionably trusting that a minor trickster god with a known history of violence wouldn't hurt a fly. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Jun 16, 2015 20:00:39 GMT
Tony is employing a rhetorical tactic called 'framing', which guides and restricts the narrative (in this case deflecting the emphasis from Annie's parent to Kat's). It is far more subtle and powerful than the usual strawmaning that passes for online debate. You're absolutely right. And it's not just the sentence I pointed out, it's really the whole conversation. He had work and of course he can't talk about work, Donald, you should know that having SUPER BIG SECRETS yourself -- as if specifics about his work were what Donald was asking for. Anthony could've readily said "I cannot discuss the details" and it would've been fine provided there was a "I regret it kept me away for so long and thank you for looking after Antimony in my absence" tacked on there. Any sort of acknowledgement that being gone for years and then showing up out of no-where is a problem, especially and specifically for his daughter. "I cannot be so quick to assume he's harmless" -- no one has said Renard is harmless. They've said that he and Annie have become friends and that he would never hurt her or Kat; statements which have three years worth of evidence to back them up. But he re-frames it, as you said, as if everyone is dumbly and unquestionably trusting that a minor trickster god with a known history of violence wouldn't hurt a fly. And the fact that he's doing all this reframing is worrying as hell. It either means he really, really doesn't want to talk about what he's been doing, or he wants to keep everybody around him dancing on his string. Or both. None of those options is exceptionally comforting to me. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Jun 16, 2015 20:31:41 GMT
And the fact that he's doing all this reframing is worrying as hell. It either means he really, really doesn't want to talk about what he's been doing, or he wants to keep everybody around him dancing on his string. Or both. None of those options is exceptionally comforting to me. Or it comes naturally to him because he has learned early to avoid topics he doesn't want to talk about in a non-confrontational way. By the way, Annie herself is *very* good at that game. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Jun 16, 2015 21:16:31 GMT
And the fact that he's doing all this reframing is worrying as hell. It either means he really, really doesn't want to talk about what he's been doing, or he wants to keep everybody around him dancing on his string. Or both. None of those options is exceptionally comforting to me. Or it comes naturally to him because he has learned early to avoid topics he doesn't want to talk about in a non-confrontational way. By the way, Annie herself is *very* good at that game. It isn't exactly non-confrontational, it's passive aggressive. It reads as consciously manipulative to me. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Jun 16, 2015 21:37:39 GMT
Or it comes naturally to him because he has learned early to avoid topics he doesn't want to talk about in a non-confrontational way. By the way, Annie herself is *very* good at that game. It isn't exactly non-confrontational, it's passive aggressive. It reads as consciously manipulative to me. Of course he's manipulating. Non-confrontational is not about being nice and kind, it's about taking the sideways rather than hitting it head on.
Passive agressive, however, is something else again. It's more the sabotage kind behavior, people looking all nice and supportive and then backstabbing and destructive behind the scene. Anthony can't be bothered to look nice or supportive. If he did, he'd have some good lies in store (instead of bad truths like "I had work").
|
|
|
|
Post by dortieroo on Jun 16, 2015 22:59:18 GMT
In regards to his mention of "our work," what if Anthony isn't referring to Donald as part of that "our?"
What if Anthony has had some yet-unseen colleagues working with him wherever he's been on whatever projects have kept him occupied for the last few years, or if he's part of some larger group working towards some mysterious goal? Anthony definitely seems to be the independent sort, but if he's been involved in some big, secretive thing, it's possible he hasn't been working alone. Donny might be vaguely aware of it; aware enough to know that he can't push the issue (yet).
Or maybe I'm reading too much into two words. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll take my tinfoil hat now.
|
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Jun 16, 2015 23:09:55 GMT
It isn't exactly non-confrontational, it's passive aggressive. It reads as consciously manipulative to me. Of course he's manipulating. Non-confrontational is not about being nice and kind, it's about taking the sideways rather than hitting it head on.
Passive agressive, however, is something else again. It's more the sabotage kind behavior, people looking all nice and supportive and then backstabbing and destructive behind the scene. Anthony can't be bothered to look nice or supportive. If he did, he'd have some good lies in store (instead of bad truths like "I had work").
Passive aggressive is not directly saying there's something wrong with you, but still saying something's wrong with you. Anthony's 'are you so trusting of him around your own daughter' implies that they're careless with Kat's safety without actually saying point blank 'You are careless with your daughter's safety'. In that case it isn't how he's saying it but what he's saying that makes that confrontational. The less direct approach just gives him plausible deniability (no, that isn't what I meant) and gives him yet another way to turn things back around on the Donlans. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Jun 17, 2015 6:46:28 GMT
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that they would have acted differently about the entire Renard thing if Annie were their daughter (and he is damn right about that). He is putting them in his shoes. But then they insist that it's fine, and he retreats under an "I've got to think about it". That is defensive more than agressive frankly, he's the one being grilled here.
And I don't interpret Anthony the way you do. I think he's not even remotely concerned with plausible deniability. He hasn't bothered denying anything so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jun 17, 2015 18:13:17 GMT
Just considered this: is "our work" an inclusive "our" or an exclusive "our"?
In other words, are Tony and Donny collaborating on something, or is it a more general "Do NOT talk about GKC's research" thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 17, 2015 20:31:25 GMT
"Well, look at you, your daughter's a robot but you don't see me blurting that out at the dinner table!"
"Ahem... Then, about Renard."
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jun 17, 2015 21:24:23 GMT
But yes, this is all totally leading up to a later outcome of Reynard undermining everyone's claim that he's perfectly harmless. It's the classic "outsider jerk who shouldn't know what he's talking about correctly predicts bad outcome because natives have gotten too used to the danger to realize it's there, but also later the outsider will be forced to trust the cause of the bad outcome in order to grow as a person" trope. That I made up. Just now. But is totally a thing anyway, I just don't use that dumb site and refuse to link to it. Unless something really strange happens, or Tom defies ten years of characterization, the only person Rey could reasonably be dangerous to is a person hurting Annie. Oh, hey Tony. Didn't see you there. *Tony gives robot stare* |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Jun 18, 2015 6:56:07 GMT
But yes, this is all totally leading up to a later outcome of Reynard undermining everyone's claim that he's perfectly harmless. It's the classic "outsider jerk who shouldn't know what he's talking about correctly predicts bad outcome because natives have gotten too used to the danger to realize it's there, but also later the outsider will be forced to trust the cause of the bad outcome in order to grow as a person" trope. That I made up. Just now. But is totally a thing anyway, I just don't use that dumb site and refuse to link to it. Unless something really strange happens, or Tom defies ten years of characterization, the only person Rey could reasonably be dangerous to is a person hurting Annie. Oh, hey Tony. Didn't see you there. *Tony gives robot stare* Who specifically gets hurt in order to fulfill the outsider's prediction is irrelevant to the unfolding of said outcome  |
|
|
|
Post by scottjm on Jun 19, 2015 4:42:51 GMT
Unless something really strange happens, or Tom defies ten years of characterization, the only person Rey could reasonably be dangerous to is a person hurting Annie. Oh, hey Tony. Didn't see you there. *Tony gives robot stare* Who specifically gets hurt in order to fulfill the outsider's prediction is irrelevant to the unfolding of said outcome The problem with the analogy is that they (Annie, The Donlan's probably Mr. Eglamore as well) likely have not forgot about the danger Renard poses, but are also aware that he is a rational sentient being, and know enough of his personality by know to know Renard would not intentionally harm anyone he considers a friend (which they know includes Annie and Kat) unless provoked/threatened. If Renard was a gun nut white supremacist in a black neighborhood, who has been kept from shooting the place up because of some outside factor and no one considered a threat, just thinking he was crazy but harmless old man Renard, that would be forgetting about the danger. Renard feels guilt, Eglamore at least knows this, and does not desire to harm anybody. The analogy is the same as saying I forgot that that Andy Griffith style police officer was dangerous and he broke my arm for putting a gun to his head. The danger with Renard only comes in when he is provoked/mistreated. This is more likely to be a case of "you created a danger where the was none, because you were to arrogant to think about what you were doing" on the part of Anthony and the Court. To me this entire situation feels like the court wanted complete (master-slave level) control of Renard, and brought in Annie's father to break her to the point she would relinquish control without a fight. They tried before when they made Smitty the medium, and it just made Annie mad. The court has to be up to something otherwise nothing makes sense as if they cards about Annie's education, or value Anthony and know he "cares" then they have no reason to let her cheating slide since the proper response once detected is to confront Annie and try to help her learn pass without needing to cheat, of course seeing that Annie should have been going to the guidance counselors from day 1 due to losing her mother and needing to make sure she adapted from a homeschooling environment (under someone they probably know is weak in several subjects) to their curriculum. Though one thing I find interesting is that Anthony does not say Annie's corrected marks were actually bad enough that she needed to be held back, just that he is disappointed in her, and that Anthony was cheating in nearly every other (besides the 2 he said her work was fine in) which would mean she is being forced to re-take at least 1 class she did not cheat in, and would likely have already passed on her own. Which makes me think his standards are much higher then Annie's and probably the courts. What we see of his teaching supports this since he is changing the syllabus to considerably increase the difficulty, which is not something an quality teacher ever does, since it is a good way to lose/drive away students, and cause problems elsewhere if your course starts to take to much of their time, because it is to hard. I have 2 stories I am aware of in my family where the teacher threw out the syllabus and replaced it with something else. One was a high school math teacher who through out the syllabus for the schools only Calculus course and replaced it with the intro calculus syllabus from the local university, because the syllabus was garbage. But he was not making it up, was a good teacher (He held tutoring session at the university, and I heard many students claim they got more from him in a 3 hour lecture then from their Proff in the entire semester) and the syllabus was meant for people with worse math backgrounds then the students in the class since only the better math students took Calc at that school, His tests might have been a bit hard, but the material was no to difficult and pretty much everyone was going to take a course with the same or similar syllabus the next year. The other story I heard of was a Math Proff who got stuck teaching a 2nd level course, and did not want to be teaching it, so he replaced the material with that of a Graduate level math course. From what I heard it was like 60+% fail rate and only 1 person got a A in the class (who went on to get a PHD in math) Which sounds more like what we see at the end of the lecture. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Jun 19, 2015 5:46:52 GMT
Unless something really strange happens, or Tom defies ten years of characterization, the only person Rey could reasonably be dangerous to is a person hurting Annie. Oh, hey Tony. Didn't see you there. *Tony gives robot stare* Who specifically gets hurt in order to fulfill the outsider's prediction is irrelevant to the unfolding of said outcome But it clearly isn't irrelevant, because his reason depends on the idea "Rey might hurt my daughter", clearly stated by his phrasing and his follow-up comment to Donny. He did *not* claim he was going to confiscate Rey so that nobody around Annie got hurt, which would be very different (and also fallacious, but for different reasons). Furthermore, nobody would have be hurt at all (in this hypothetical) had Tony not interfered or harmed Annie. It's rather circular to call a character "correct" when they're only correct by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in my humble opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Jun 20, 2015 5:45:58 GMT
Who specifically gets hurt in order to fulfill the outsider's prediction is irrelevant to the unfolding of said outcome But it clearly isn't irrelevant, because his reason depends on the idea "Rey might hurt my daughter", clearly stated by his phrasing and his follow-up comment to Donny. He did *not* claim he was going to confiscate Rey so that nobody around Annie got hurt, which would be very different (and also fallacious, but for different reasons). Furthermore, nobody would have be hurt at all (in this hypothetical) had Tony not interfered or harmed Annie. It's rather circular to call a character "correct" when they're only correct by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, in my humble opinion. It's irrelevant to the trope. We're creating a general rule here, it has to apply under all circumstances. Not just this specific one. |
|
