Kya
New Member
Posts: 19 
|
Post by Kya on Oct 14, 2015 20:39:28 GMT
Ys has no time for subtle encouragement and gentle words, he backhands you in the face and says to get your shit together...and that may be just what was needed.
...this is either going to go really well or REALLY bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Oct 14, 2015 21:38:38 GMT
living/green wood is actually flammable, it merely takes more heat and more time Pretty much every organic material will catch fire when exposed to sufficient heat. However, the amount of heat necessary varies wildly depending on what you're trying to burn, and it does take a LOT more heat to burn living wood than dry wood (which I can attest to, being an amateur pyromaniac). Let's play around with some figures: According to my material science tables, dry wood will spontaneously combust around ~400-900°F (200-480°C) depending on the species and shape of the object. I'd guess that Ysengrin's body would fall quite a bit higher than that range, since he seems to have a relatively low surface-area-to-volume ratio, and there is little reliable data on the burning temperature of green wood (because there are too many variables to do with humidity and moisture levels, etc). Meanwhile, human (and presumably lupine) flesh will ignite when exposed to a continued temperature or ~1400-1700°F (760-925°C). This is the temperature used in most crematoriums. I love engineering textbooks, heh. So many useful figures! However, flesh can also be burned badly by short flashes of much higher temperatures – I've personally given myself some pretty bad burns due to short exposure to glass furnaces working at a temperature around 2500°F (1375°C). This seems to be roughly what Annie did to the moss ogre - note how her fire got more and more white as the ogre got closer to her, suggesting that she was raising the temperature of the air around her into this range. My tables suggest that for organic materials to burn white, the temperature has to be between 1300-1500°C (2375-2730°F). Of course, the rules may be different for magical fire, but it's clear that Annie can make her fire much hotter than her 'default' orange flame. Note that these are the autoignition temperatures – the temperatures allowing spontaneous ignition – and if there is already a fire burning, the temperature for the combustion reaction to continue is much lower. Given that Annie appears to be able to output a temperature in the multiple thousands of degrees Fahrenheit, assuming she could maintain such a temperature, she could easily kill Ysengrin either by igniting his suit or by immolating him directly (unless he's extra-durable, being a demigod and all). I don't think there's any chance this would actually happen in the story, but it's clear that Ysengrin would be in real trouble were Annie to fully let loose her fiery rage (though I suspect Coyote would intervene before that happened). |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Oct 14, 2015 21:53:48 GMT
RE: Flammable and InflammableMy personal understanding of the difference between the two has always been that "flammable" is usually used to refer to things that can be set on fire in general (wood, matchsticks, cloth, hay, etc.) while "inflammable" is usually used to indicate something that can be set on fire and it is very dangerous to do so (gasoline, dry brush, pressurized gas, accelerants, etc.), which is why you most commonly see "inflammable" marked on containers of such substances.
|
|
|
|
Post by guitarminotaur on Oct 14, 2015 21:56:03 GMT
To be perfectly honest, I just feel incredibly sorry for Annie in all this. Her father came in and tore her life in half. Then Ysengrin unilaterally destroys her coping mechanism without any input from her. It also seems like she herself has had very little input at all into her own life. Even her visit to the forest was due to Coyote's intervention, although that at least strikes me as benign. At this rate we'll be lucky if the poor girl doesn't end up in a padded cell. It's been nothing but setback after disaster.
I understand Ysengrins intentions, but I can't agree with the way he did it. Also, quite frankly, we (and Ysengrin) have no idea what will happen when Annie is reunited with the other half of her personality like this. Annie's fire-spirit resembled Jeanne in a rage for Christ's sake.
Sure, this could pull Annie out of a slump. It could also lead to her in a padded cell after setting half of the forest on fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Oct 15, 2015 0:39:11 GMT
To be perfectly honest, I just feel incredibly sorry for Annie in all this. Her father came in and tore her life in half. Then Ysengrin unilaterally destroys her coping mechanism without any input from her. It also seems like she herself has had very little input at all into her own life. Even her visit to the forest was due to Coyote's intervention, although that at least strikes me as benign. At this rate we'll be lucky if the poor girl doesn't end up in a padded cell. It's been nothing but setback after disaster. I understand Ysengrins intentions, but I can't agree with the way he did it. Also, quite frankly, we (and Ysengrin) have no idea what will happen when Annie is reunited with the other half of her personality like this. Annie's fire-spirit resembled Jeanne in a rage for Christ's sake. Sure, this could pull Annie out of a slump. It could also lead to her in a padded cell after setting half of the forest on fire. Annie is already living in a white room with an undisclosed amount of padding. From Ysengrin's perspective, this weak Annie may already be dead to him. So destroying her blinker stone and seeing what happens may be better than other alternatives like letting her live in this sorry state or euthanizing her. I wonder if Smitty's presence is influencing the situation so what Ysengin says and does is just what Annie needs to fix herself. Help her get all the colors on her Rubik's Cube aligned properly again. And then wang it at her father! |
|
|
|
Post by mudmaniac on Oct 15, 2015 2:27:54 GMT
So now I'm thinking Disney's "Frozen" except with FIRE.
LET IT GO! LET IT GO!
I'LL SET FIRE TO THE WIND AND SKY!
LET IT GO! LET IT GO!
THAT OLD WOLF IS GONNA FRY!
|
|
|
|
Post by stclair on Oct 15, 2015 4:14:56 GMT
Childhood's end.
The mask, broken.
Now all will see her in her radiant glory.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 15, 2015 6:29:05 GMT
So he did actually pay attention to Annie's ramblings. And possibly also to the way Eglamore and Renard act. Heh. And Smitty knows when sh*t gets real and shields the kid. Compare to 3 pages ago.  - Shh! We have to stand back for now. - Uh oh... Now we really have to stand back. This is why I love Ysengrin. Ysengrin is a better mentor than anyone really admits. I wonder how many pups (both his own and not) he did raise already... I wonder if Coyote knew Ys would do this sort of thing to get full Annie back... Coyote at least knew that 'Grin and Annie used to get along and that he's decisive and prefers no-nonsense solutions. If Coyote thought to do this himself, the problem was how to wrap it, which still points to 'Grin (he's good at this sort of things). I honestly don't even know if it's the right choice, but for Coyote's sake, at least he's doing something. While everyone else in the story (perhaps minus Donald, and I suppose Rey but we haven't really seen him in several chapters) had been content to let Annie's new status quo abide, Ysengrin has -in no short order-recognized what is wrong with her, called her on her bullshit excuses, forced her to confront her anger, reminded her of her own abilities and growth achieved independently of her father, expressed the respect and admiration that said father never has and offered to be an outlet for all her rage. About the Donlans... They'd probably be doing more with Antimony if she'd let them. My current hypothesis is that Donald is treating Antimony like Anthony would like to be treated with regard to the whole minimalist-help sort of thing. More like Donald simply doesn't have a slightest idea of what to do other than wince until he's exasperated about it. He did recognize that it should be treated on Annie's side, but that's it. |
|
|
|
Post by arf on Oct 15, 2015 7:28:37 GMT
Childhood's end. The mask, broken. Now all will see her in her radiant glory. The Creator, and the Destroyer. KreATor and ANNIEhilator. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 15, 2015 8:42:34 GMT
About the Donlans... They'd probably be doing more with Antimony if she'd let them. My current hypothesis is that Donald is treating Antimony like Anthony would like to be treated with regard to the whole minimalist-help sort of thing. More like Donald simply doesn't have a slightest idea of what to do other than wince until he's exasperated about it. He did recognize that it should be treated on Annie's side, but that's it. But she has been acting like her father, hasn't she? If she was clinging more, she would have been coddled more methinks. |
|
madragoran
Full Member
"If he trully does hurt you, I will rend the flesh from his bones on your word"
Posts: 232
|
Post by madragoran on Oct 15, 2015 9:34:17 GMT
living/green wood is actually flammable, it merely takes more heat and more time Pretty much every organic material will catch fire when exposed to sufficient heat. However, the amount of heat necessary varies wildly depending on what you're trying to burn, and it does take a LOT more heat to burn living wood than dry wood (which I can attest to, being an amateur pyromaniac). Let's play around with some figures: According to my material science tables, dry wood will spontaneously combust around ~400-900°F (200-480°C) depending on the species and shape of the object. I'd guess that Ysengrin's body would fall quite a bit higher than that range, since he seems to have a relatively low surface-area-to-volume ratio, and there is little reliable data on the burning temperature of green wood (because there are too many variables to do with humidity and moisture levels, etc). Meanwhile, human (and presumably lupine) flesh will ignite when exposed to a continued temperature or ~1400-1700°F (760-925°C). This is the temperature used in most crematoriums. I love engineering textbooks, heh. So many useful figures! However, flesh can also be burned badly by short flashes of much higher temperatures – I've personally given myself some pretty bad burns due to short exposure to glass furnaces working at a temperature around 2500°F (1375°C). This seems to be roughly what Annie did to the moss ogre - note how her fire got more and more white as the ogre got closer to her, suggesting that she was raising the temperature of the air around her into this range. My tables suggest that for organic materials to burn white, the temperature has to be between 1300-1500°C (2375-2730°F). Of course, the rules may be different for magical fire, but it's clear that Annie can make her fire much hotter than her 'default' orange flame. Note that these are the autoignition temperatures – the temperatures allowing spontaneous ignition – and if there is already a fire burning, the temperature for the combustion reaction to continue is much lower. Given that Annie appears to be able to output a temperature in the multiple thousands of degrees Fahrenheit, assuming she could maintain such a temperature, she could easily kill Ysengrin either by igniting his suit or by immolating him directly (unless he's extra-durable, being a demigod and all). I don't think there's any chance this would actually happen in the story, but it's clear that Ysengrin would be in real trouble were Annie to fully let loose her fiery rage (though I suspect Coyote would intervene before that happened). Respect bro!  |
|
|
|
Post by agasa on Oct 15, 2015 11:59:13 GMT
She's not free of anything yet though. Once her anger/fire returns, she has to figure out how to exist with it. There is still a lot for her to do. We're not close to the end yet. I agree that there's a lot she needs to acomplish still, which is why I don't understand why we had to be subjected to the past few chapters. Why not just start with her acting in accordance with her character? Instead she magically gives her self a more passive persona. I thought that maybe it was necessary for her to act like that, but I can't see how if she isn't even the one who returns herself to normal. I think the point is that - while she does it using a magical mean - people do that every day. Sad people, cornered people, in bad situations, also cut and maim their personas, mostly unconsciously, as a defense, especially in adolescence but not only then. They become emotionless because negative emotions sometimes are too hard to deal with. Ysengrin is talking to Annie and the fire elemental giving her life and personality, but the message is to us all. This is why fantasy is so powerful a medium; it can freely speak in colorful, vibrant metaphor. Sometimes you alone don't have the power to come out of the grey tunnel you end up holed in when you cut out your emotions - everything feels "fine" - in the sense it doesn't hurt anymore; it also doesn't feel particularly good or pleasurable, everything ends up feeling like a static grey dullness. It's certainly better than feeling horrible pain, but it offers no escape, like a grey cocoon, dulling everything, keeping you safe, but trapping you in, lulling you in sleep. That's where outside help comes in; Ysengrin can see the etherium - which is a particularly brilliant metaphor for the unconscious - and saw the cut that Annie did to herself, rebuilt the history of that cut - the mean by which the cut came into being, a blinker stone - which is the work of every good psychologist - and crushed it. Which isn't what a good psychologist would do (they would slowly coax Annie into undoing the damage herself, at her own pace), but eh, he had a physical way to access her subconscious and undo the damage in an instant - I would be pretty tempted to try myself - and he's a giant feral very impulsive tree-wolf. I had no expectations. |
|
|
|
Post by cu on Oct 15, 2015 19:07:09 GMT
And that's why, thanks to that meddlesome wolf, we now call this place the Gillite Barrens:  |
|
elebenty
Junior Member
Better than bubble wrap.
Posts: 83
|
Post by elebenty on Oct 15, 2015 19:52:01 GMT
I noticed a nuance in what Ys said. He didn't state that it was Tony's fault he couldn't see what an incredible creature Annie is, he said it was Tony's loss.
Annie's cocoon (thanks, Agasa) kept the real Annie under wraps. Only Annie has the power to allow Tony to see who she truly is. (Well, I guess Ys removed one way she could hide herself. There are others, but hopefully she isn't that indulgent.)
|
|
|
|
Post by deuswyvern on Oct 15, 2015 19:55:12 GMT
I agree that there's a lot she needs to acomplish still, which is why I don't understand why we had to be subjected to the past few chapters. Why not just start with her acting in accordance with her character? Instead she magically gives her self a more passive persona. I thought that maybe it was necessary for her to act like that, but I can't see how if she isn't even the one who returns herself to normal. I think the point is that - while she does it using a magical mean - people do that every day. Sad people, cornered people, in bad situations, also cut and maim their personas, mostly unconsciously, as a defense, especially in adolescence but not only then. They become emotionless because negative emotions sometimes are too hard to deal with. Ysengrin is talking to Annie and the fire elemental giving her life and personality, but the message is to us all. This is why fantasy is so powerful a medium; it can freely speak in colorful, vibrant metaphor. Sometimes you alone don't have the power to come out of the grey tunnel you end up holed in when you cut out your emotions - everything feels "fine" - in the sense it doesn't hurt anymore; it also doesn't feel particularly good or pleasurable, everything ends up feeling like a static grey dullness. It's certainly better than feeling horrible pain, but it offers no escape, like a grey cocoon, dulling everything, keeping you safe, but trapping you in, lulling you in sleep. That's where outside help comes in; Ysengrin can see the etherium - which is a particularly brilliant metaphor for the unconscious - and saw the cut that Annie did to herself, rebuilt the history of that cut - the mean by which the cut came into being, a blinker stone - which is the work of every good psychologist - and crushed it. Which isn't what a good psychologist would do (they would slowly coax Annie into undoing the damage herself, at her own pace), but eh, he had a physical way to access her subconscious and undo the damage in an instant - I would be pretty tempted to try myself - and he's a giant feral very impulsive tree-wolf. I had no expectations. My problem is that Annie has been turned into a different type of person so the author can make a statement about how that type of person might respond to abuse. It seems that if he wanted to make such statement, he should us a character to which the situation naturally applies. I'm not really sure what type of statement is being made either, certainly abuse victims can need the support of others to help themselves, but they are ultimately the ones who are responsible for moving themselves forward. Should they succeed it was due to their own inner strength that this happened. Here someone just moves Annie while she does nothing. I think the way Ysengrin does this is a problem as well. Annie is horrified that he broke the blinker stone, but she gave it to him without question. This means that he violated her trust in doing so. Is the takeaway supposed to be that it helps people when you throw them out of their comfort zone without their consent? Because I don't know why he couldn't just demand that she give it up. I guess the message is that she's too flawed and broken to ever be able to help herself. I guess my disappointment in this arc is that I had thought that it was going to be about someone overcoming their own issues, but in fact it was just about what its like to know someone who has issues. Annie's only action was to magically lobotomize herself, which feels a bit emotionally manipulative at this point. Overall the message seems a bit belittling to people in Annie's position. In terms of the story's narrative the problem is that Annie is the protagonist, and she should conquer her own issues. It also feels like a very anti-climatic conclusion to something that had been built up that much, the entire chapter feels like it was designed to get the author out of the corner he had written himself into. Maybe I am being hasty and Ysengrin's efforts will prove harmful or ineffectual, but that just means that this arc is being tediously and unnecessarily extended. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Oct 15, 2015 20:26:00 GMT
It's a bit unfair to say "I don't like this message and besides I can't even tell what it is". Lots of people in the forum and comments have certainly made this out to be about abuse in various ways, but there's nothing saying it's not mostly projection and Tom is just doing characters having characteristics and doing actions with no specific agenda. Personally I don't care much for canned character arcs or "look, here's a defining character moment, look!!", which is one of the reasons I like GC. (And all its other qualities help me stomach the occasional hint of such a moment.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on Oct 15, 2015 20:32:00 GMT
Ysengrin is definitely the "learn to swim by throwing you in the deep end" type. Though I gotta give him credit on insight here. He is so tough love. We should get him to write a parenting book The trick with tough love is knowing when it is going to work instead of backfire. |
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on Oct 15, 2015 20:32:54 GMT
I know Ysengrin has been a bit unstable in the past, and I know he's done some horrible things, but it's been fascinating watching the changes Annie's invoked on him and I can't explain how much respect I have for what he's just said and done. I honestly don't even know if it's the right choice, but for Coyote's sake, at least he's doing something. While everyone else in the story (perhaps minus Donald, and I suppose Rey but we haven't really seen him in several chapters) had been content to let Annie's new status quo abide, Ysengrin has -in no short order-recognized what is wrong with her, called her on her bullshit excuses, forced her to confront her anger, reminded her of her own abilities and growth achieved independently of her father, expressed the respect and admiration that said father never has and offered to be an outlet for all her rage. What if this were all part of Coyote's grand plan? Yeah, I know. It's crazy. Coyote doesn't have plans. But still. |
|
|
|
Post by deuswyvern on Oct 15, 2015 22:02:07 GMT
It's a bit unfair to say "I don't like this message and besides I can't even tell what it is". Lots of people in the forum and comments have certainly made this out to be about abuse in various ways, but there's nothing saying it's not mostly projection and Tom is just doing characters having characteristics and doing actions with no specific agenda. Personally I don't care much for canned character arcs or "look, here's a defining character moment, look!!", which is one of the reasons I like GC. (And all its other qualities help me stomach the occasional hint of such a moment.) I can't tell what message Tom intended to send, only he knows that. I only know how it comes across based on my own personal experiances. Tom is writing about a character who has experienced abuse. That should be self evident. Do you really think that he wasn't expecting people to relate to Annie's issues? Real people have similar issues so he is making a statement whether he wants to or not. He introduced an element that altered Annie's personality. Surely he had some kind message in mind and was not doing things at random? Not liking how the arc is going doesn't mean that I want something simplified and obvious. I don't know why your are suggesting otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by darththulhu on Oct 15, 2015 22:04:37 GMT
What if this were all part of Coyote's grand plan? Yeah, I know. It's crazy. Coyote doesn't have plans. But still. Coyote just DOES things. If they work, "he was so smart" and "he was so insightful". If they fail catastropically, "he laughs at his mistake". Regardless, he has the attention span of a gnat and Zero sense of responsibility for consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Oct 15, 2015 22:21:46 GMT
Annie is horrified that he broke the blinker stone, but she gave it to him without question. This means that he violated her trust in doing so. A guy she trusts despite the fact he tried to kill her twice. Despite the fact he led her into a fight that might have killed her. A guy she respects despite the fact she recognizes some of his ideas are tired clichés. In the end she seems to trust his judgement, based on her love for him, and his love for her. Love makes you act... You mean people who are half fire-elemental, who guided their own mothers into the ether, and who have a dad who is crazy enough to cut off his arm to grab his wife back from the dead? I'm not being sarcastic, but please don't forget that  Yeah, that's what I expected and hoped for, even though it is a bit of a modern storytelling cliché . We've all been poisoned by the f..... little engine that could. But look at it this way, we already had Coyote's interference, now Ysengrin. How many stories have not one but two deus ex machina in one chapter! |
|
|
|
Post by deuswyvern on Oct 15, 2015 22:45:07 GMT
Annie is horrified that he broke the blinker stone, but she gave it to him without question. This means that he violated her trust in doing so. A guy she trusts despite the fact he tried to kill her twice. A guy she respects despite the fact she recognizes some of his ideas are tired clichés. Despite the fact he led her into a fight that might have killed her. In the end she seems to trust his judgement, based on her love for him. Love makes you act... Ok so she should have known better than to trust him, I suppose it isn't an unreasonable position. I was talking of course about people who isolate themselves due to anxiety. I think most communities would be improved without condescending little messages like yours however. The idea that a work of fiction is intended as a commentary on a real situation is not really that radical. People do tend to solve their own psychological issues if they ever do solve them. Tom can certainly try new things, but I'm not seeing much value in this approach at the moment. Despite being a god, Coyote's action are not a deus ex machina. It makes sense for his character, and his powers were already established, they even mentioned that he was unhappy with the situation. Ysengrin's actions are in character, and his solution makes sense based on what we know of her situation. My issue is why the scenario was even required, it seems like it just existed to manufacture drama. |
|
|
|
Post by darththulhu on Oct 15, 2015 22:55:23 GMT
It's a bit unfair to say "I don't like this message and besides I can't even tell what it is". Not that that has ever stopped anyone from making the bad faith argument. One of the histrionic-capslock IT'S-ABUSE shriekers popped back up on the comments thread today, and others may soon rear their heads again. Lots of people in the forum and comments have certainly made this out to be about abuse in various ways, but there's nothing saying it's not mostly projection and Tom is just doing characters having characteristics and doing actions with no specific agenda. Welcome to the world of useless, undignified, content-free emoting, aka "the Internet". Fantasy characters having extremely-magical and unusually-dramatic teen angst are "obviously" stand-ins for each and every single reader who ever had an unhappy emotion or an unpleasant experience as a teenager. I can't tell what message Tom intended to send, only he knows that. I only know how it comes across based on my own personal experiances. Tom is writing about a character who has experienced abuse. That should be self evident. Speak for yourself, or cite something convincing. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim to demonstrate themself to be correct, not on everyone else to prove them wrong. Extreme claims, moreover, require equally extreme evidence. Thus far, this thread (and the vast majority of other threads making such claims) has presented precisely Zero pieces of evidence to support the claim "Antimony is an abuse victim". As the useless wasteland of Internet emoting over in the comments this year has made clear, one does not get to airily assume one's conclusion and vent about it as Truth if one expects one's arguments to be persuasive to anyone not already in agreement. No one else is presuming the telepathic ability to declare what that artist was or was not expecting. The only claim of "obvious" expectation on this thread is, at present, unsupported. But "expecting" people to "obviously" relate to every extreme detail of a teen fire elemental's adventurers in an alternate-reality boarding school that makes Hogwarts look dull is, quite arguably, not a well-grounded expectation. Really? Real people are fire elementals? Real people are responsible for the withering death of their mother just for growing older? Real people have fathers who go on years-long spirit-quests to summon forth their deceased spouse? Real people hang out with and befriend multiple lupine quasi-divinities? Real people magically sever all of their negative emotions when confronted with a shock they weren't prepared for? Real people have all of their negative emotions come flooding back at high tide without warning when some of their lupine quasi-divinities get meddlesome? Color me extremely dubious. Real people, of course, do sometimes get callously shipped off to an all-expenses-already-paid boarding school for years. Some of those kiddos dosometimes cheat on most of their schoolwork for more than a year. And some of those real kiddos do insubordinately blow off legitimately-given detentions for an entire year. We usually call these kiddos at those boarding schools juvenile delinquents. Getting held back a year, grounded, separated from bad influences, and cut off from their friends is not only an entirely common outcome for such delinquents, it is honestly nowhere near the harshest possible routine outcome for such delinquents. "Not doing things at random" is not remotely synonymous "was obviously making an artistic statement about Abuse". I agree that the artist was quite clearly not doing things at random. I strongly disagree that the artist was clearly doing vast numbers of specific things that many people have accused the artist of doing, all year long, without convincing evidence. If one has a hypothesis about what the artist might be doing, one is free to share and discuss it. But if one only has an evidence-free assertion of what the artist "self-evidently" Must be doing, one can reasonably expect one's assertion to be dismissed. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Oct 15, 2015 23:03:24 GMT
Is gunnerkrigg.com down?
|
|
|
|
Post by darththulhu on Oct 15, 2015 23:13:36 GMT
I was talking of course about people who isolate themselves due to anxiety. No. No "of course". You didn't say what you were talking about, and absolutely no one ever gets to "of course" assume unstated "Truths" into a discussion if they expect to be taken as seriously engaged in good faith. There are plenty of other people "of course" assuming no end of other "Truths" about what the artist "must" be doing, without citing any evidence or argument. Don't be like them. The only bad faith condescension in this thread is not coming from keef. Agreed. What is entirely radical, instead, is presuming to telepathically know the author's intent of which real situation(s) the author intends to be commenting on, without any convincing evidence. Strongly disagreed. These events are upending the entire structure of the narrative, and ensure that Antimony's remaining years of schooling unfold in an entirely different framework. What this chapter (and recent ones) "seems like" to you is a far cry from what this chapter (and recent ones) "Must Necessarily Be" to others, including most especially the artist. |
|
|
|
Post by darththulhu on Oct 15, 2015 23:20:23 GMT
He is so tough love. We should get him to write a parenting book The trick with tough love is knowing when it is going to work instead of backfire. In this, Ysengrin continues to be the mirror-twin Dad-Bro 4EVA of Anthony Carver. "Give me your wolf toy" becomes "give me your blinker stone". "You are disappointing" becomes "you are weak". It's all well-intentioned tough love with the worst possible executions, each according to his style, each earning fully-deserved fury. The only hope for either of them is that Antimony still loves both of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Oct 15, 2015 23:23:56 GMT
Real people have similar issues so he is making a statement whether he wants to or not. If it's not intended then it's not a statement by my definition. Different people have different sets of filters, conceptions and expectations. If an artist can be held accountable based on one of those sets, then, since they hardly could or should be readily ranked in terms of the power they wield over him, he should be held accountable based on all of them; but that is clearly utterly absurd. Up for me currently. |
|
|
|
Post by deuswyvern on Oct 16, 2015 1:53:12 GMT
Real people have similar issues so he is making a statement whether he wants to or not. If it's not intended then it's not a statement by my definition. Different people have different sets of filters, conceptions and expectations. If an artist can be held accountable based on one of those sets, then, since they hardly could or should be readily ranked in terms of the power they wield over him, he should be held accountable based on all of them; but that is clearly utterly absurd I don't think that I ever said Tom had to be held accountable for anything. I don't like his recent work on this comic, and I'm giving my views on why that is. I do feel that there is an intended message in his work, so I speculate on what that might be, how it is delivered, and whether it is worth telling. Whether a story is good or bad is subjective, but I don't think that prohibits us from forming opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 16, 2015 17:09:03 GMT
Well, if the thread is already overrun anyway... www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.gunnerkrigg.com - or just edit a bookmark to check the current site: javascript:void(open('http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/'+location.host,%20'_top',%20''));Real people have similar issues so he is making a statement whether he wants to or not. If it's not intended then it's not a statement by my definition. Different people have different sets of filters, conceptions and expectations. If an artist can be held accountable based on one of those sets, then, since they hardly could or should be readily ranked in terms of the power they wield over him, he should be held accountable based on all of them; but that is clearly utterly absurd. Thus your assumption must be incorrect. So it is about Cyric, the One, the All! General Line Of Party. Which is obvious, because it always is. There's no point to explain anything to commissars (internet- or not). They interpret everything in terms of propaganda precisely because they are unable to see anything else. It's like trying to teach eusocial insects what "painting" is: the success is not likely enough to make it as much as "an interesting experiment", and even if you somehow miraculously achieve this goal, this probably won't improve the situation.  |
|
|
|
Post by deuswyvern on Oct 16, 2015 17:51:39 GMT
If it's not intended then it's not a statement by my definition. Different people have different sets of filters, conceptions and expectations. If an artist can be held accountable based on one of those sets, then, since they hardly could or should be readily ranked in terms of the power they wield over him, he should be held accountable based on all of them; but that is clearly utterly absurd. Thus your assumption must be incorrect. So it is about Cyric, the One, the All! General Line Of Party. Which is obvious, because it always is. There's no point to explain anything to commissars (internet- or not). They interpret everything in terms of propaganda precisely because they are unable to see anything else. It's like trying to teach eusocial insects what "painting" is: the success is not likely enough to make it as much as "an interesting experiment", and even if you somehow miraculously achieve this goal, this probably won't improve the situation. Whatever my faults, I have steered clear of directly attacking someone's character. I guess you're of different scruples however, so there's not much that I can there. I think your statement is a bit hypocritical as well. You're asserting that I'm incapable of accepting anything that doesn't fit within my own preconceived views because I don't share yours? |
|
