|
|
Post by Per on Mar 16, 2017 8:15:56 GMT
So, there was no open twist or rebuttal before the end of the chapter, but we have some clues. During the aftermath of the Jeanne battle I thought the community was pretty united on how reckless the kids were and how Annie acted in the immediate aftermath, surprised how many people here are upset at Red for putting this all in Annie's face. The reasons I've found aspects of this chapter jarring are not really the same why I found aspects of the two previous chapters jarring. Then, it was the fact that they really seemed to be making things up on the fly, and sort of lucking their way through specific problems that could as easily have stopped them dead, and you more or less had to accept that the reason they were going through with it at that time was that it had become a necessity of narrative pacing. But Red's not challenging Annie for going through with the plan recklessly or ahead of time; she's challenging her for going through with it at all, because hey, this is stupidly dangerous. And it was, and so could everything else be, and the story can only go on because of contractual tolerance to that on the part of everyone involved. Essentially on the face of it Red is breaking character in order to assault the narrative contract this comic made with the reader from its early beginnings and inform Annie she's not the protagonist of the kind of story she thought she was in. And for reasons everyone else is exempt from guilt of not being the character who says they don't think this is such a good idea, but what's Annie's excuse? Annie cannot possibly defend against this charge because if all thematic and narrative conventions are suddenly and arbitrarily removed, then none of her actions and attitudes can possibly make sense; her whole personal history becomes incomprehensible. And that is a very weird and jarring switch for a story to make in order to score a character moment. And I'm not saying that's what the comic is actually doing, but to read some of the comments in this thread and earlier during the chapter, it is, and I can't help but wonder if any of those who now think smug and dangerous Annie's getting her overdue comeuppance also reacted to her behaviour way back in the early chapters with "wow, this is completely senseless and irresponsible, hope someone will call her on that some time in the next sixty chapters", rather than something more like "what a cool girl, talks to strange bull-men in their lairs and doesn't afraid of anything". I know I appreciated the comic's anti-grimdark approach to a lot of weirdness and was never waiting for anyone to measure Annie up to real-world logic and go whoa, you're kinda reckless and privileged and I look down on you for it. Consequently, I must say that I am rather unpleasantly surprised by what some of the longtime members have been posting lately, particularly the ad hominem accusations directed towards the author. This is nothing compared to what people registered to say during the Return of Tony chapters. This is nothing compared to the kind of insane bullcrap that happened when Kat hooked up with Paz because people couldn't handle gay characters. Uh, yeah, or that. With that interpretation, it seems like Red's rant was not really much about Annie at all (which is why it doesn't matter to Red that it was logically inconsistent), and more about telling Ayilu that "this person you see as a competitor means nothing to me and I'll defend you and show my disdain for her to prove that." This seems like a good summary to me. There may be some merit to the "Chinese uniform = unfair criticism" theory, but I rather feel that the comic should make sense even to someone who didn't catch that comparatively obscure reference, whereas these observations fit the actual events depicted very well in hindsight. I think one of the reasons some people are currently dissatisfied with the open ending to the chapter is because anywhere else that would have meant the comic itself signed off on Red's accusations as incontrovertibly accurate and valid, and if Red's just performing a narrative function here, it tells us nothing about her or fairies in general. But if we trust Tom to not turn her into a megaphone and that this really is valid fairy behaviour, then the comic's actually just trusting us to make up our own minds about whether Red's words are uncomfortable truths, a self-serving backstab, or both. At the very least, on a factual level, Red and Blue are effectively telling Annie they were never in her circle of friends who do weird stuff together just because, Lady Tubsalot incident notwithstanding; they were in this one for the pay, and now that they figure the pay wasn't all that (or apparently they never needed it? Not sure what is implied here), they're out. Whatever our takeaway Tom can't very well roll this back. Next chapter: Annie debriefs with Kat, who assures her that she isn't a selfish jerkface. I expect something like that as well. Smitty could also do it. What I'm reminded of is a review of one the Spider-man games where Spidey is fighting either Carnage or Venom or someone, and they give him the "we're so alike line" and Spidey just goes quiet and mutters something to himself like "maybe we are". For my part, with the narrative contract angle, I was reminded of a shoehorned scene towards the end of the Tintin movie where Steven Moffat or some script doctor thinks they need to get in one more character moment before the end, so they inconsequentially shift the movie out of adventure gear and have Tintin throwing a sulky fit so Haddock has to counter with a reprimanding speech, and when that's over with they get on with whatever they would have done anyway, and even if the segment is probably not very long if you time it it's just completely superfluous and at odds with the rest of the movie. Again, I'm not at all sure GC is doing that kind of thing here, but I'll forgive anyone for picking up that vibe as they go through the last few pages with Red getting all the cool deliveries. If we're missing something that would put this in a different context, why didn't we see it? At this point I would guess it's what's imaginaryfriend and heranje were on to: this mostly is just Red incidentally being a bitch, the comic not caring to underline that for our benefit, and a side effect of showing some consequences to choices. Bonus page: As Red and Blue walk out into the street, someone who's been hit by a paper plane runs by holding their hands to their face and screaming, "MY EYE! MY EYE!" It's amazing how blase people can get about kids RISKING THEIR LIVES to resolve a rather abstract problem, like this is something they would want their kids to rush off and do every day and twice on Sundays, with just as little planning as Annie and co appear to have done. People get "blasé about kids risking their lives" in a comic that hinges on them flirting with danger on a semi-regular basis. When Annie returns to the fight with Ysengrin's army and bets her life that she can repel an inhuman attacker by projecting enough fire, in order to prove herself to the occasionally homicidal tree wolf, everyone thinks it's the coolest thing ever. If someone sits through 60 minutes of an Indiana Jones movie and then begins to question why anybody does anything when it's clearly risky and stupid, I'm going to wonder about their relationship with narrative conventions. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 16, 2017 8:36:00 GMT
Like if I know someone is desperately trying to pay off their college debts or whatev and I bribe them to do something dangerous and illegal, how the hell is that not exploitative? How is that not inconsiderate and gross and manipulative and just bad, evil behavior? That would be true, but the person in question still has the option to turn you down and needs to be willing to take responsibility for their choices. It is possible for both sides to be right and/or wrong at the same time. Now if you tricked the person into thinking the job was safe and legal, that would definitely put the blame squarely on you or at least more so. Maybe don't live your life so vicariously through a protagonist that you need them to be a perfect snowflake that's always justified in every situation. Annie's been careless, inconsiderate, and irresponsible and has only gotten away with it through luck and other peoples' interventions. I know y'all are used to rationalizing this shit for protagonists because that's what protagonists are for but that doesn't make it right. Shit, like at least Harry Potter actively tried to discourage the other kids from rushing into danger. He wasn't like, "Hey, Neville, if you fight Voldemort for me I'll restore your parents' sanity." Also I apologize if I did so unaware, but I made no insult towards or about you in my comment, so I would think you could extend the same courtesy and refrain from insulting me or anyone who has yet to do so. Especially if you believe your argument has merit and is even factual. Take somebunny's post here (http://gunnerkrigg.proboards.com/post/137012). I don't fully disagree with her, but I still respect what she posted since she let her point do the speaking for her. Red wasn't being mean at all. She didn't say untrue things or jump to conclusions. Kat I might give in that Annie assumed she would be eager to help out, but Red is suggesting that Annie gave no one any choice or warned them of the danger. Exaggeration of even the truth can still be a lie. As for the jumping to conclusions, I'd argue that she did so, unless Annie left out details concerning the level of danger concerning the plan. At any rate, I agree that Annie didn't plan things better and was careless/reckless, but that doesn't always/automatically equal callousness. Sure, though putting one under pressure (by insinuating that she is again callous) can prompt one to choke and not be able to gather their thoughts properly, even if they do have a legit argument to counter with. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 8:45:01 GMT
She confronted Annie about the thing that most hurt her/her one true love, and then Annie kept making fucking excuses instead of apologizing.....She gave Annie lots of opportunity to explain herself. You know, it's amazing how quickly we can forget things in the space of just a few pages- such as when Annie tried to apologize and Red cut her off: gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1801Anyway, I just want to thank you all- I feel much happier about this sequence now. Red is clearly still the same inconsiderate jerk she's always been, but at least she's learned an important lesson about love, loss, and life. Good work Annie! Now I just hope that Annie doesn't waste as many chapters moping as she did the last time someone harshed on her parade. Maybe if she's really on top of things, she'll suggest that both Red and Ayilu get the therapy they so obviously need. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Mar 16, 2017 9:44:27 GMT
Per very well put. And totally agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2017 10:00:55 GMT
Flaubert, an excellent writer who reminds me of my Biology teacher in high school, famously struggled with how one could write the mediocre well. Sometimes it proves difficult to discern between bad writing as a fault of the author and the deliberate highlighting of a character's ethical flaws (which reflect, I think, in aesthetic flaws; see also: totalitarian governments and their apparent love of uniforms -- love, rather than a sense of utility). "It would be easier to count [the lanterns] if they were all functioning" -- that last word's meaning having been monopolized as state property, of course. That bridge over the Annan waters can serve as an example: designed to eradicate any nuance of shade, quenching it by means of a perfectly regular arrangement.
Any such stand-off in which both participants bring up good arguments, but at least one of them focuses on exaggerating the other's flaws, since they aim not to learn from each other (this includes realizing anew the abyss of individuation, the "Dionysian truth" in more youthful words) or to reconcile, but rather to prove their own superiority, I will find unpleasant to read. (Long ago I waxed on in clumsy and too many words about how the destruction of friendships is not "tragically beautiful" or "beautiful in the literary sense"; although indeed, the beautiful and the violent are related in that they both exert power, with the former electing or chancing to spare you, whereas the latter will use it to dominate you; thus tragedy is spellbinding because one witnesses a transformation of beauty into violence -- I have this bewildering notion that Sophocles compressed this entire thought in the first line of the Antigone, in all its visceral insistence -- Hölderlin got it right: "common-sisterly, O Ismene's head"). It can never avoid the tinge of soap opera and "dialogue-driven" whodunnits and all-too-human mistakes I've made myself.
By contrast, Gunnerkrigg Court, as I remember it, rewards exploration and reticence, for readers and characters alike -- the world is dangerous but also infused with humidity, fragility, the precision of birdsong and scientists' fingers, carvings on a little beacon, that cloud-cuckoo Thespian of a chickcharney... Some of what I'd call the greatest chapters in this comic (e.g. Faraway Morning, Microsat 5, Divine) blend both conflict and intimacy in dialogue with this sense of individual exploration (tender and alerting), where you can follow the author jumping into any part of his creation (I don't think I know a well-executed book in which the "main character" isn't something of a trick of perspective; in fact, sometimes they are even aware of this themselves, at least dimly). Donald's smiling quip at Annie -- "Well, sorry, but you're your own person" -- would mean nothing much if they had not spent the night deciphering a message, pilfering surgical blades and launching a supply rocket, or if his amazing wife's computer couldn't make a pipe (cheeky Magritte allusion?) appear from thin air. It's a trifle when taken by itself, yet it ties the position together.
It is not jarring that Annie must face consequences for her actions -- this is nothing new, in fact; Eglamore has berated her for her carelessness in the Forest many chapters ago; even the very first chapter has Annie release Shadow Two back into Gillitie, of which Renard disapproves later ("Child, you have no idea what you started!"); the Donlans and especially Eglamore were worried about her decision to keep Renard around her (which proved right in the end); Jones at the end of Fire Spike has been mentioned; etc.
This is also not an issue of "old vs. new Gunnerkrigg", at least not for me. Chapters 54 and 56 are very good. I found 57 much more baffling than this one, but it also had strong points (and fell apart somewhere around the middle).
All that aside, I find it wildly inconsistent that Red would want Annie to name her lover out of sheer laziness manifesting as entitled cowardice (comparable to not studying for exams) when she was already intent on exiling her from their lives afterwards.
Quicksilver remains disappointing in my eyes (and a strange outlier in what is perhaps my favourite "period" of Gunnerkrigg), all the more because it should have been a great chapter and it jarred with the usual nature of the comic, wherein conflicts are not easily resolved, or even evaluated in clear favour of one side. (Even Diego was, at the very least, enthusiastically devoted to his creations, including his idea of Jeanne, but broke down into inhuman cruelty when faced with life not of his design. The seed of cruelty may never sprout as long as the dice roll kindly; perhaps that's why Smitty is so utterly likable?) -- I love Hetty's design, as I love how Tom tacitly showed that she had reworked her original mint-condition outfit, and up to her inexplicable bloodlust the chapter was well-narrated; then it collapsed and Renard's passage of ethics at the end did not remedy it, although his meeting Eglamore was a high note of surprise again. Any merit to Hetty's position that Renard was "enslaving" himself to a girl who had, in fact, exploited others with little respect for them on occasion (copying Kat's homework without asking, clumsily enacting her bizarre scheme of revenge on Jack, or promising Ayilu a name because it required next to no commitment) was undermined by her complete and banal madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by xtinas on Mar 16, 2017 10:41:17 GMT
"Blue" "<blue>" "Ay" "Bluayilu"
Her name is Ayilu, it's five letters, it's right there.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowflake on Mar 16, 2017 12:17:40 GMT
Like if I know someone is desperately trying to pay off their college debts or whatev and I bribe them to do something dangerous and illegal, how the hell is that not exploitative? How is that not inconsiderate and gross and manipulative and just bad, evil behavior? What if that someone isn't in debt, but just desperately wants to retire early? Is offering someone a reward for a dangerous job always evil, or is there a point at which they are comfortable enough for what they agree to do in order to gain more to be their own responsibility? I agree with you that engaging mercenaries was a step into morally grey territory, but this "exploitative and evil" rhetoric is way exaggerated for talking about something Ayilu may have wanted very much, but didn't actually need. |
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Mar 16, 2017 12:21:07 GMT
Now if that were me I would have started with, "You exploited and put the person I love most in the world in danger, fuck off and never talk to me again you sack of shit." And that would have been completely justified! Red would have been totally justified just leading off with "Fuck off, Annie." Annie may have been the ringleader, but Red was a willing and eager participant in the scheme as well. Because of this, she's lost the moral high ground, because she's just as guilty of the thing's she's berating Annie for. It gets under people's skin to see a massive hypocrite call someone else out for sins they are equally guilty of, be portrayed as justified in the story, and walk away smugly and triumphantly with their own behavior completely ignored. Even if the hypocrite is right, the bad feelings this leaves with the readers can overshadow that point. If a character who wasn't a callous, selfish sociopath had called Annie out for manipulating Ayilu into putting herself in danger, I have a feeling most people wouldn't be as annoyed. After all, plenty of people, including myself, thought what Annie did was manipulative. And unlike Red, we thought so before Ayilu almost got a sword to the face. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Mar 16, 2017 15:03:19 GMT
First of all, in page...no, wait. First of all, hello everyone! After years of reading I finally registered an account.Second of all, Red was fully aware of the danger Jeanne posed, as evidenced by page 1702. Ayilu is sitting directly beside her when Red makes her statement, so she must have been aware as well. Third of all, yeah, well, Red has always been a selfish, self-righteous jerk. The relationship between her and Ayilu seems bordering on abusive (granted we do not know what is considered a "normal, healthy" relationship between fairies, and furthermore we do not know how having a human body might influence this). Red has never apologized for anything (neither thanked for anything, like, being shown how to make her hair stick up again). She is partly responsible for the danger her beloved was in, as well. But she decides it is all Annie's fault. Putting all the blame on someone else has been a thoroughly tested coping mechanism throughout history. I do not see anything particularly out of character for Red. Let's hope for Annie she will learn something from this. (1. Think about possible consequences of your actions. & 2. Don't associate with inccorigible jerks.) This I find most interesting. In the beginning of the chapter, Red is still extremely nervous and even asks Annie to do the naming. We don't know whether at this point she had already planned to cut all ties with Annie. Taking puntosmx theory and elaborating on it, I think after having named someone (as well as having a name and a job at the Court herself), Red now for the first time feels as Annie's equal. (Or even better - who knows what she got told at her job where she needs that ominous uniform? I am curious to find out more!) So now she has realized she has the same power that Annie has, she ditches her. Concerning Ayilu, well, I do not know enough about relationships or psychology to analyze, but the way she idolizes Red, who has repeatedly verbally abused her (might be standard fairy behaviour, but still, they are not living in the forest anymore), ridiculed her in front of others, and (presumably) exploited her, and regularly pretends to die to get Red's attention, and not even questions having been given a name - as we by now know, an extremely important act - which Red incredibly obviously made up lest she would have to admit having said "I love you"... that is what disturbs me most about this chapter, like all abusive relationships I witness in Real Life disturb me. One last, separate thought I had, why do you think did Annie not tell Jones? I do not know the page right now, but I remember Jones telling Annie: "When you feel you have uncovered the whole story [about this ghost business], come to me." Annie would not have needed to tell her her exact plan with timetable and all, but surely Jones would not have refused some advice. And we can assume that an immortal being who has wandered the earth since the beginning would have some advice. (Also, imagine if Jones had actually gone down with them! Jeanne would have hacked and stabbed away without being able to hurt Jones, while the others would have recovered the arrow, aided by Smitty's luck. Problem solved!) |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 15:29:33 GMT
First of all, in page...no, wait. First of all, hello everyone! After years of reading I finally registered an account.Welcome to the show. Part of the reason that I find it hard to believe that Annie totally mis-represented the danger is because while she tries to be deceptive, she's proven to be really really bad at it. The court apparently knew about her copying Kat's homework for a while, as @korba pointed out, her attempt at "revenge" on Jack was pretty much DOA, and she has the socially-awkward habit of blurting out whatever's on her mind. Annie is a lot of things, but a cunning chessmaster doesn't seem to be one of them. I find it far more likely she told Red and red's friend that it would be dangerous, but they didn't take her seriously. It probably played out something like this- Annie: ...so we could really use your help, but it's going to be dangerous and I'll understand if you don't want to- Red: Pfft, we're going to kick that stinky ghost's butt! Annie: I wish you'd take this more seriously, Jeanne has killed several people already. Red: Whatever, they were probably all dumb losers. Lets got a move on already, fatso. *later*Red: gosh golly- we could have DIED! Annie: ....Yes, I told you that. Red: But, like, you didn't CONVINCE me of that! Annie: Ok, how is you not believing me my fault? etc etc etc. Like I said before- if this is how it played out then Annie is directly responsible for Red showing her first growth in maturity all story long. Bitter medicine maybe, but useful and valuable in the long run. Yeah, that's definitely part of the jarring shift in tone. In the space of about 5 pages and less than 5 in-world minutes we go from Red begging Annie to help her out because she's to nervous, to admitting her own personal life-changing revelations, to berating Annie for taking risks that seem entirely in line with the other stories up to this point, to cutting of all further interaction whatsoever. Frankly, I'd almost think that this is because Tom is tired of writing these characters (Red and Ayilu) and needed a way to get them out of the story once their usefulness to the plot was done. But if that were true, this would seem like a really clumsy way of handling it, and not in line with the quality of his work and writing we've come to expect. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Mar 16, 2017 15:53:14 GMT
Annie: ...so we could really use your help, but it's going to be dangerous and I'll understand if you don't want to- Red: Pfft, we're going to kick that stinky ghost's butt! Annie: I wish you'd take this more seriously, Jeanne has killed several people already. Red: Whatever, they were probably all dumb losers. Lets got a move on already, fatso. Frankly, if that is how it played out, Annie should have responded with "You know what, forget it, I'll make up some other plan which doesn't involve you." Also, if Tom wanted to write them out of the story, he would not have given Red a new uniform for us to wonder and speculate about, revealing the Court symbol on the cap only on the last page.  And we still do not know what Ayilu's multiple "destructions" of her name meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 16:06:08 GMT
Frankly, if that is how it played out, Annie should have responded with "You know what, forget it, I'll make up some other plan which doesn't involve you." Except Annie has acted recklessly and with a lack of foresight- which could include involving a wild card in her plans like Red. There are legitimate criticisms you can make here, it's the method of delivery that has people upset. In particular, one thing that I haven't seen anyone talk about yet is WHY JEANNE WAS DOWN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Or another way of asking it would be why did the court need to kill her and her lover? The court wanted a murderous river guardian apparently, but then they later built a bridge over the river anyhow. Was Jeanne just supposed to keep the forest creatures out? Or was it something else? Have Annie & Co just torn down a wall made of bones to give the bodies a proper burial, without first checking to see if it was holding back an an invading army? Maybe- could be. To be clear, I don't believe this is what's happening, I think there is something else going on here. But as another poster said, if the outrage you engender in your audience obscures the point or foreshadowing you were trying to make, what was the point all along? Edit: Unless Tom is intentionally trying to confuse and befuddle use, to hide his true intentions. Can you picture it- Tom sitting somewhere, petting a white cat while he reads the forums and croons to himself, "Yes, yesssss! That's it, walk right into my cunning trap you fools."  If, as several people have theorized, the court is pushing Red to act this way then they have chosen an equally bad mouthpiece, give how easy it would be for this to backfire. Either that or they've gotten so desperate they feel like they don't have any choice- see my first comment for a possible reason as to why. |
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Mar 16, 2017 16:14:07 GMT
Also, if Tom wanted to write them out of the story, he would not have given Red a new uniform for us to wonder and speculate about, revealing the Court symbol on the cap only on the last page. And we still do not know what Ayilu's multiple "destructions" of her name meant. The destructions just demonstrate why she wants a name: the name is 'irrevocably hers'. It cannot be taken from her, nomatter how many times it is burned down. |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Mar 16, 2017 17:18:37 GMT
I think it was clumsy, despite actually agreeing in principle with most of Red's objections and with the idea of Annie's actions having clear and immediate consequences. Red's limited expression for one, was sufficiently out-of-character for me to post about it. The change in her speech and demeanour may be related to the trauma, but are clearly confusing to the audience. I will continue to disagree with people suggesting the fairies are 'ungrateful' or redirecting focus from annie's value judgements. Yet, I do not like how Annie chooses to make weaksauce replies instead of apologising. If the fairies really are unaware of Annie's motivations (they aren't purely altruistic - will be good to hear some goss from them psychopomps as to exactly how/why) then clarity about this might help, but I think it's kinda obvious that they value their lives more highly than Annie (on the surface, at the very least) values the lives of her closest friends and companions. Even so, would she say 'screw you' so politely? If she knows she's affected by her feelings for her friends, would she not qualify her statement (ie; 'needing time to think' vs 'never talk ever again')? I like that she's speaking up. I just don't like the execution. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Mar 16, 2017 17:24:58 GMT
Woah. Lots of discussion going on this thread. Too much for me to go back and read it all, so I'm just going to leave my two cents here.
As someone utterly blind to any sort of social cue, I don't know why this is so controversial, maybe something about people taking it as a personal attack? But judging purely on what was explicitly stated, I'd say Red's criticism is pretty pertinent.
Parley was clearly on-board from the start, but she didn't provide the initiative to bring on Kat and Ailyu, Annie did. And she did so by taking advantage of both.
In the former case Annie basically just dumped a hard and dirty job on her friend assuming she'd get it done, so of course Kat would feel obligated to comply due to their friendship. In the later case, the incentive was something that Ailyu wasn't supposed to have and which Annie had no right to grant... Since it's "just a name", it may not sound so harmful at first, but IMO it's basically on the same level as selling porno mags to middle schoolers.
And then, of course, there was the issue with Andrew. I don't think that the issue here is how effective Annie's way was more likely to save Andrew's life or not, the question is whether Annie had the right to insist on doing it her way in the first place. On one hand, she was in command of the operation which gives her executive authority, but on the other hand one could say things were already FUBAR by that point. I am personally undecided here.
Anyways, the point is that Anne absolutely has been being selfish with her approach to this task. Does that make her a terrible person? Maybe. I'd argue that everyone is a terrible person. Unfortunately, it seems like very few people can accept that sort of criticism gracefully. It's kind of sad, but that's the Human Condition for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Mar 16, 2017 17:51:36 GMT
I blame Diego.
|
|
jocobo
Junior Member
Posts: 78 
|
Post by jocobo on Mar 16, 2017 17:51:58 GMT
One thing I find endlessly interesting about this whole debate is that it seems that people are willing to ascribe to Annie a level of self-awareness and responsibility that no one else is being forced to live up to.
What of Red and Ayilu's responsibility to protect themselves and avoid dangerous situations? Of their responsibility to say no. Where is the criticism of Ayilu for recklessly endangering herself for in order to get a shortcut to anme? A reward she wasn't supposed to have yet anyway? Or Red coming along at all when it seems rather obvious she A)invited herself and B)Was of absolutely no use?
We haven't seen the conversation yet, but nothing said or shown implies the fairies were coerced. They Were asked, they agreed, their decisions and the consequences of those decisions are their own.
But let's say Annie does bear responsibility for asking in the first place: the guides asked Annie. In fact they manipulated her to even get her interested in the case of Jean to begin with. Wouldn't that mean the real responsibility lies with everyone who encouraged Annie to pursue this?
It seems as though some people want Annie to have absolute agency and be 100% responsible for her choices but insist that those around her do not have the same agency. I wonder why.
I am also curious as to what people think Annie should have done instead since the RIDICULOUS standard she's being accused of failing only leaves one option in my mind: do nothing at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 18:11:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 16, 2017 18:18:58 GMT
One last, separate thought I had, why do you think did Annie not tell Jones? I do not know the page right now, but I remember Jones telling Annie: "When you feel you have uncovered the whole story [about this ghost business], come to me." Annie would not have needed to tell her her exact plan with timetable and all, but surely Jones would not have refused some advice. And we can assume that an immortal being who has wandered the earth since the beginning would have some advice. I agree that it would have made good sense to approach Jones. She had so many of the right qualities for a confidant: 1. Eons of experience. 2. While living in the Court, she's independent of it (and even its higher-echelon members would hesitate to move against her for helping free Jeanne, while I suspect they'd have given the Donlans or Eglamore the sack without hesitation if they'd taken part in it). 3. A steady, trustworthy nature. But Annie never does go to Jones for help - and the most likely reason for that would be her failings (distrusting the adults and wanting to do things herself and be in control). Red overlooked that as one of the things she could have confronted Annie on (though I doubt Red knows enough about Jones to have recognized how useful her help and advice could have been). |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 16, 2017 18:24:29 GMT
In particular, one thing that I haven't seen anyone talk about yet is WHY JEANNE WAS DOWN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Or another way of asking it would be why did the court need to kill her and her lover? The court wanted a murderous river guardian apparently, but then they later built a bridge over the river anyhow. Was Jeanne just supposed to keep the forest creatures out? Or was it something else? Have Annie & Co just torn down a wall made of bones to give the bodies a proper burial, without first checking to see if it was holding back an an invading army? Maybe- could be. I hope that Tom doesn't take that route; the sudden introduction of a hitherto unhinted-at third faction this far into the story would be sloppy writing. Not to mention that the flashbacks to the Founders' time made it clear that the problems they were having *were* with the forest-folk. (As for the bridge - it might be a plothole that Tom never realized. Or the lamps lining the bridge and other safeguards could have ensured that the forest-folk couldn't use *it* as an invading route - and any invading force, not just the forest-folk, could have used the bridge in any case. Not to mention that we don't know when the bridge was built; it could well have been raised after the Founders' time, with nobody left in the Court administration who knew about Jeanne, and by which time the nature of the Court's frictions with Gilltie Wood could have changed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 18:27:59 GMT
I hope that Tom doesn't take that route; the sudden introduction of a hitherto unhinted-at third faction this far into the story would be sloppy writing. Not to mention that the flashbacks to the Founders' time made it clear that the problems they were having *were* with the forest-folk. (As for the bridge - it might be a plothole that Tom never realized. Or the lamps lining the bridge and other safeguards could have ensured that the forest-folk couldn't use *it* as an invading route - and any invading force, not just the forest-folk, could have used the bridge in any case. Not to mention that we don't know when the bridge was built; it could well have been raised after the Founders' time, with nobody left in the Court administration who knew about Jeanne.) I don't think it would be something that blatant- I was just using that as an example. AFAIK, they never really resolved the "whys" of this issue. The Court acted like a bunch of jerks (insert harsher terms on your own, I didn't want to trip the profanity filter) but we don't know what their motivation was, assuming it was something more complex than just "because we're evil". |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 16, 2017 18:30:03 GMT
I am also curious as to what people think Annie should have done instead since the RIDICULOUS standard she's being accused of failing only leaves one option in my mind: do nothing at all. The impression I get is they think that Annie should have gone to the grown-ups for help (most of whom might have been difficult because freeing Jeanne would go against Court policy, but as I mentioned elswhere, there's Jones, who would have been a great option). Given that a lot of the problems Annie ran into in the comic could have been solved by doing just that, without as much trouble, they've got a point. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 18:33:09 GMT
One thing I find endlessly interesting about this whole debate is that it seems that people are willing to ascribe to Annie a level of self-awareness and responsibility that no one else is being forced to live up to. I brought it up a couple of times. Admittedly, Red might not know Parley or Smitty very well (or at all) and sees Annie as being the ringleader. That doesn't make her right though, it just means she's under-informed because of her ignorance rather than targeting only Annie out of malice. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 16, 2017 18:34:27 GMT
I don't think it would be something that blatant- I was just using that as an example. AFAIK, they never really resolved the "whys" of this issue. The Court acted like a bunch of jerks (insert harsher terms on your own, I didn't want to trip the profanity filter) but we don't know what their motivation was, assuming it was something more complex than just "because we're evil". I thought it was obvious from the story that they were using Jeanne's ghost to keep the forest-folk out. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 18:39:36 GMT
I thought it was obvious from the story that they were using Jeanne's ghost to keep the forest-folk out. Could be, I guess. It seemed to me that there should be more to it than that though. If Jeanne hated the court for what they did, why did she fall so easily into their plans? Yes there was powerful magic involved, but she didn't really strike me as the kind of person who would sit around mourning her lover's death until she wasted way. The course of action I'd expect would be more like, Jeanne dives into the river, swims 20 miles downstream to where the cliffs are less rugged, claws her way to the top barehanded with her sword clinched in her teeth, sprints the entire distance back to the court, and proceeds to wreck bloody havoc upon anyone and everyone within arm's reach. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 16, 2017 18:42:07 GMT
She confronted Annie about the thing that most hurt her/her one true love, and then Annie kept making fucking excuses instead of apologizing.....She gave Annie lots of opportunity to explain herself. You know, it's amazing how quickly we can forget things in the space of just a few pages- such as when Annie tried to apologize and Red cut her off: gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1801Oh my God, the reading comprehension. That isn't Annie apologizing for her behavior. If you hadn't ironically forgotten what happened in the preceding page she was just telling Red she was sorry she was having nightmares. It's an "I'm sorry your dog died" not, "I'm sorry I killed your dog." The moment Red brings up Annie's responsibility, she immediately switches to excuse making, and indeed begins all of her statements through the rest of the chapter with, "But." Beyond pointing out this simple and really obvious falsehood I don't have the energy or wherewithall or concern to address the rest of the excuse making that's gone on in this thread in between this and my last post. It's a Sisyphian task anyway, and at this point I'm mostly just repeating myself. I guess I will briefly address some of the major forms: "But Annie's still basically a good person, she's not Hitler!": Okay, that's fine. She still fucked up here and was shitty towards other people in some specific instances and sometimes that has consequences. "Oh, so Red and Blueilu don't have autonomy now?": Sure, but the responsibility for having been manipulated by someone acting callously and recklessly is not the same as being the person manipulating someone callously and recklessly. And they are exercising their autonomy right now by excluding Annie from their lives, a reasonable decision that has the fanbase flipping out and, I shit you know, speculating that they're now villains. "Red and Ayilu were fully aware of the danger because they were there when Annie first encountered Jeanne.": This one is actually laughable. This is a sequence in which they ask Annie to smash them with a rock and shortly before they are gleefully eaten by Ysengrim. The next time we encounter Red she reacts with shock to the concept of being able to cut her hair and has to be physically restrained from seeing what happens cutting off her fingers. Literally the entire point of where Red is explaining her trauma is that the realness of mortality is something new to fairies, that they have difficulty understanding. And just like the relative importance of Naming, Annie has every reason to know this from her personal experience.
"It's bad writing.": Something upsetting you doesn't make it bad writing. Something ruining your expectations for how a thing would go doesn't make it bad writing. Tom, please ignore the whining, this chapter was jaw-dropping in its magnificent perfection. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 16, 2017 18:46:27 GMT
Oh, also:
"Annie didn't get anything from this!": What? Of course she did. She was just recovering, as others have pointed out, from the trauma/abuse of her father's return. Her father who, again, unlike Red, had no right at all to complain about any of Annie's bad behavior, because as the parent that abandoned her and left her a de facto orphan for years, that behavior was all his fault and responsibility. This exercise was really clearly an attempt for her to re-assert herself and feel in control. Which was the point. She wanted to feel in control. She could have sought the help of Coyote or Jones who could much more easily have dealt with this problem with little to no personal risk, but she didn't, because she had to feel like the big hero. And to do that she knowingly led her friends into danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Mar 16, 2017 18:49:27 GMT
It's been pointed out that Annie gives lame excuses instead of good rebuttals to Red's accusations. I think somebody also pointed out the reason why: Annie is insecure and has had all of these doubts herself ("I put everyone in danger, getting Ayilu's participation was manipulative," etc.). Now someone else is voicing the very things she's been secretly feeling rotten about. That puts her on the defensive externally ("No, no, that's not true!") while internally she's thinking "Oh no, she's right, I'm a terrible person." In short, my summary of this chapter:  So now we need Linus Kat to come along and give our protagonist a more balanced perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on Mar 16, 2017 19:25:13 GMT
It's been pointed out that Annie gives lame excuses instead of good rebuttals to Red's accusations. I think somebody also pointed out the reason why: Annie is insecure and has had all of these doubts herself ("I put everyone in danger, getting Ayilu's participation was manipulative," etc.). Now someone else is voicing the very things she's been secretly feeling rotten about. That puts her on the defensive externally ("No, no, that's not true!") while internally she's thinking "Oh no, she's right, I'm a terrible person." In short, my summary of this chapter: So now we need Linus Kat to come along and give our protagonist a more balanced perspective. Sure, but a more balanced perspective isn't, "Well, those things you did weren't really bad, because of <excuses>, which is what most of the people flipping out itt want; a negation of Red's arguments. Red's arguments can't be negated (which is why Annie could only provide lame excuses) because they're right. They can only be contextualize and synthesized. A balanced perspective is recognizing things that have caused her to act this way (long-term isolation growing up that meant she never really learned to work with her peers, and recent trauma in the form of Tony's return that caused her to feel powerless and thus have a need to re-assert herself,) and learning, moving forward, to solve problems through consensus building and with full consideration towards and respect of others', rather than through unilateral actions and a disregard for rules/risks whenever she thinks she's right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 16, 2017 19:26:01 GMT
That isn't Annie apologizing for her behavior. If you hadn't ironically forgotten what happened in the preceding page she was just telling Red she was sorry she was having nightmares. It's an "I'm sorry your dog died" not, "I'm sorry I killed your dog." Are you sure? Despite your claims that Red gave Annie plenty of opportunities to defend herself, here she cuts her off before we see whatever it is she's actually trying to say. Again, no, you're missing the point. Maybe some people are flipping about because they like Annie, but most of us are expressing disappointments for entirely different reasons- that this "what the hell, hero?" moment is being delivered by the worst possible person, and in a very poorly framed way. A lot of this seems to boil down to you believing Red and Ayilu being totally uninformed about any kind of danger. In effect you are claiming they are like children who don't have any sense of perspective of danger or death. That seems silly- given that Ayilu pretends to die on a regular basis as a way to draw attention and Red realizes that Jeanne attacking Annie was a bad thing ("Hey! Stop that!"). And now they (or at least Red is) are clearly traumatized because Annie didn't protect them. Except that Annie is barely older or more experienced- it's like you're saying "Annie needed to have her head smacked around for not taking this risk seriously" and in the same breath saying "Red and Ayilu are totally blameless because we can't have expected them take the risk seriously". At worst, IMO, Annie helped Red learn a valuable life lesson. Maybe it could have been done differently, but again it would seem like that holds Annie to a dramatically higher standard than anyone else. Again, missing the point. I said it was bad writing IF getting your audience so riled up causes them to miss some other point your trying to make, or if you are trying to deliver a lesson but do it badly. I fully expected there to be repercussions from this, I didn't expect Annie to be handed the idiot-ball so she couldn't defend herself. I'm pretty sure Tom will continue to do whatever he wants- he's a big, successful webcomic artist and doesn't need you to defend him. But if you're going to publish a webcomic and then pace it like a longform novel, you have to expect some level of pushback from people who don't have your (the authors) insight into where this is going. |
|
This is nothing compared to the kind of insane bullcrap that happened when Kat hooked up with Paz because people couldn't handle gay characters.
With that interpretation, it seems like Red's rant was not really much about Annie at all (which is why it doesn't matter to Red that it was logically inconsistent), and more about telling Ayilu that "this person you see as a competitor means nothing to me and I'll defend you and show my disdain for her to prove that."
Next chapter: Annie debriefs with Kat, who assures her that she isn't a selfish jerkface.
What I'm reminded of is a review of one the Spider-man games where Spidey is fighting either Carnage or Venom or someone, and they give him the "we're so alike line" and Spidey just goes quiet and mutters something to himself like "maybe we are".
And we still do not know what Ayilu's multiple "destructions" of her name meant.
