|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 17, 2017 8:03:25 GMT
At any rate, I do get the idea that she partially went off on Annie to show her devotion towards Ayilu, but I don't know. Seems she could have accomplished the same thing by being more attentive.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowflake on Mar 17, 2017 8:20:59 GMT
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. How I read it: Jeanne didn't uselessly pine away to death. Her soul was pinned to the bank and frozen in time in some way, while her body died and decayed away ("discarded over time", in her words). This is why after the arrow's effect wears off she doesn't remember anything about being a ghost OR pining away to death - from her point of view, she just waited while Loverboy crossed the river, then towed away with him in the boat Annie provided. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Mar 17, 2017 10:16:18 GMT
The point isn't that she's their problem, the point is that if Red's argument is that Annie used the faeries' lack of knowledge about Jeanne to manipulate them into doing her bidding, then her argument is BS because both fairies saw up close and personal just how dangerous Jeanne is. Except they didn't because literally the next page over from the one you linked they watch Jeanne get scared away by a little girl on a flying machine  And their plan to free Jeanne was tragically bereft of flying machines. No offense, but your argument for not liking this chapter has been weak sauce from day one. I don't really care what you think about my opinion, I care about the arguments you might challenge it with, and since you've presented none....*shrug* |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Mar 17, 2017 13:44:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 17, 2017 14:10:21 GMT
So does anyone still want to discuss this? Or have we all moved on?
In the interest of keeping things civil I can try to boil my thoughts down to as succinct a stance as possible so we can focus on what matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by fia on Mar 17, 2017 14:48:57 GMT
Hey guys, I have not opined on this thread for a wide variety of reasons, primary among them that there is enough already going on in the world for us all to fight over a comic we all overall like and enjoy.
I think we should table this discussion (re: is Red nice or not and does Annie deserve a dressing-down and is Tom a good writer), under the assumption that
(a) we like this comic;
(b) we must trust Tom a certain amount, as he has kept us engrossed for over 60 chapters already and probably knows what he's doing;
(c) we acknowledge the ebb and flow of plot and likability of characters is Tom's job and not ours; and
(d) this is a work of fiction.
Reading some of this thread I began to see why Tom doesn't show his face around the forums anymore. We can be way harsh, y'all, and it's super unfair. (Though I want to tip my hat at those of us who brought humor and tried to pull the discussion into a different tone zone). This is his life's work and he spends hours and hours on this. Just like be reasonable plzthx.
† Imagine if Harry Potter had been written chapter by chapter with online forums attached. There would have been mutiny during Book 5, and the beginning of Book 7, and the mutiny would have been unjustified, because Harry being annoying was him being a teenager and Rowling being a pretty good writer who was in control of her narrative. If you are a reader who loves GC but is really unhappy right now, try to chill and trust in the writing, OK? We can't have a good story without some emotionally powerful, sometimes uncomfortable, moments.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Mar 17, 2017 14:53:10 GMT
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. Maybe Tom simply didn 't think of that. As I've mentioned before, he's writing this story on his own, without (as far as we know) any beta-readers to point out such things to him. It's possible that you've simply spotted a hole in the story that Tom didn't notice. I always read Jeanne's statement as her not being able to leave, her body "ensnared by the green light" and locked in place until it died, presumably as a feature of Diego's arrow. Annie manipulating the arrow influenced Jeanne's ghost, so it is reasonable to think the arrow influenced her right from the start. |
|
|
|
Post by OGRuddawg on Mar 17, 2017 15:23:45 GMT
Hey guys, I have not opined on this thread for a wide variety of reasons, primary among them that there is enough already going on in the world for us all to fight over a comic we all overall like and enjoy. I think we should table this discussion (re: is Red nice or not and does Annie deserve a dressing-down and is Tom a good writer), under the assumption that (a) we like this comic; (b) we must trust Tom a certain amount, as he has kept us engrossed for over 60 chapters already and probably knows what he's doing; (c) we acknowledge the ebb and flow of plot and likability of characters is Tom's job and not ours; and (d) this is a work of fiction. Reading some of this thread I began to see why Tom doesn't show his face around the forums anymore. We can be way harsh, y'all, and it's super unfair. (Though I want to tip my hat at those of us who brought humor and tried to pull the discussion into a different tone zone). This is his life's work and he spends hours and hours on this. Just like be reasonable plzthx. † Imagine if Harry Potter had been written chapter by chapter with online forums attached. There would have been mutiny during Book 5, and the beginning of Book 7, and the mutiny would have been unjustified, because Harry being annoying was him being a teenager and Rowling being a pretty good writer who was in control of her narrative. If you are a reader who loves GC but is really unhappy right now, try to chill and trust in the writing, OK? We can't have a good story without some emotionally powerful, sometimes uncomfortable, moments. Okay, I'll admit it. I was probably a little too harsh. With 3 updates a week, these kind of situations definitely get drawn out. Tom has to choose between making a satisfying story for either the daily reader or the one who reads it all in one go. Very rarely can a story as narratively complex as Gunnerkrigg Court maintain both while still staying true to the universe. |
|
|
|
Post by crater on Mar 17, 2017 15:59:05 GMT
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. Maybe Tom simply didn 't think of that. As I've mentioned before, he's writing this story on his own, without (as far as we know) any beta-readers to point out such things to him. It's possible that you've simply spotted a hole in the story that Tom didn't notice. I reread the flashbacks in "Skywatcher and the Angel" and Sir Young did state clearly that their goal was "to fortify the Annan Waters and protect the Court". He didn't say from what, but the obvious candidate would be the forest-folk. If it was anybody else, that person or group has yet to be mentioned in "Gunnerkrigg Court", while the Court's problems with the inhabitants of Gilltie Wood have been one of the major threads throughout. with the way Jones talks about peoples powers it seems like she gets her jollies off preparing tactical strike forces or something. dont think shed be able to resist "consulting" the team |
|
|
|
Post by Sauzels on Mar 17, 2017 16:15:32 GMT
I just wanted to say about the discussion that it's kind of odd that no one mention how much Parley pushed for the plan (also of note: in the page before my second link Annie is the one to tell Smitty that it's good to stand up for yourself now and then). Also I thought it was pretty funny how the biggest defender of Red followed a pattern very similar to Red's rant here: flying in with a sudden and unexpected attack on character, acting superior while brushing of their own mistakes, and using hypocrisies to push their point (accusing everyone of projecting onto their favorite character while calling Red an objective best that he would never back down from) |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 17, 2017 16:22:01 GMT
Maybe Tom simply didn 't think of that. As I've mentioned before, he's writing this story on his own, without (as far as we know) any beta-readers to point out such things to him. It's possible that you've simply spotted a hole in the story that Tom didn't notice. I reread the flashbacks in "Skywatcher and the Angel" and Sir Young did state clearly that their goal was "to fortify the Annan Waters and protect the Court". He didn't say from what, but the obvious candidate would be the forest-folk. If it was anybody else, that person or group has yet to be mentioned in "Gunnerkrigg Court", while the Court's problems with the inhabitants of Gilltie Wood have been one of the major threads throughout. I wouldn't call it a hole, precisely- there are still a lot of unanswered questions about Jeanne which was really my main point. And I made that comment about "powerful magic" because it could have been just that. Even if Jeanne was only supposed to defend against the forest folk, that might still be a concern though. Not all of them are friendly, such as Ysengrin's former comrades in arms, and I recall someone mentioning that Coyote's shadow-men weren't exactly on good terms with humans either. And even for the forest-creatures that ARE friendly, they may be so strange or have such a different sense of what's appropriate that they could cause harm unintentionally. Now, I'm not saying the court was justified in using a human sacrifice to wall off the forest, and from what we've seen it seemed like that was a fair amount of racism going on, but if something has the potential to be dangerous, then some sort of precaution should be taken. I almost feel like a charge of recklessness could be better supported if you claimed Annie & Co had no idea what the long-term repercussions would be rather than basing it on the fact that they decided to confront Jeanne directly. |
|
|
|
Post by stevencloser on Mar 17, 2017 17:10:48 GMT
My stance on the whole thing is "But you peer-pressured them" isn't a good argument when it comes to acutely deadly situations where they know it is an acutely deadly situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Mar 17, 2017 18:12:16 GMT
My stance on the whole thing is "But you peer-pressured them" isn't a good argument when it comes to acutely deadly situations where they know it is an acutely deadly situation. Haha...Well, if all your friends jumped into a ravine, would you just jump in too? </mom-voice> |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Mar 17, 2017 19:48:48 GMT
My stance on the whole thing is "But you peer-pressured them" isn't a good argument when it comes to acutely deadly situations where they know it is an acutely deadly situation. Haha...Well, if all your friends jumped into a ravine, would you just jump in too? </mom-voice> I'll take the xkcd position of: if all my perfectly reasonable, educated, mature-thinking friends all jumped into a ravine, what the hell is going on behind us that made it seem like a good idea? =P |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Mar 17, 2017 20:48:46 GMT
Reading some of this thread I began to see why Tom doesn't show his face around the forums anymore. Having "Psychology 101" and "Creative writing for Dummy's" thrown in your face is bad enough the first time, but after a while either you develop thick skin (a bit like like Dave Willis I guess), or you simply stop discussing your work. There were forums, and there were usenet groups, and even though it wasn't published chapter by chapter, people succeeded in ranting for years over every detail and plot twist. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 17, 2017 21:19:48 GMT
Reading some of this thread I began to see why Tom doesn't show his face around the forums anymore. Having "Psychology 101" and "Creative writing for Dummy's" thrown in your face is bad enough the first time, but after a while either you develop thick skin (a bit like like Dave Willis I guess), or you simply stop discussing your work. I vaguely recall some post from a while back where Tom described some event where he had gotten in a tiff with someone and said something he later regretted, and for that reason he wasn't going to post any more. Personally I don't think that's a good reaction. You don't have to cater to your readers, nor do you have to fight with them (like some webcomic artists I could name) but poking your head in occasionally to confirm or clarify certain things is a nice balance. I think Rich Burlew does a decent job of that, for example. |
|
clover
Junior Member
Posts: 79 
|
Post by clover on Mar 17, 2017 23:11:53 GMT
If I were in Tom's shoes I would intentionally never communicate by forum post and would likely also never read my own community's posts. I used to spend too much time on forums and got plenty of experience being a community moderator, learned all the reliable habits and peculiarities of online communities, and spun it into a successful career in corporate community management.
The short copy is that online communities are weird, and you have to deal with strange and very fixative personalities and bizarre combativeness, and this can be very draining and a creatively enervating distraction from the vitality of one's work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Mar 17, 2017 23:29:17 GMT
No, it just means that Lightfoot is not the only meanie-bo-beanie with a dumb stupid face and whose face needs to shut up forever. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 17, 2017 23:57:16 GMT
3. She is impetuous enough to act repeatedly in a way which we know involves ignorance or disregard of the danger of her actions. And that's what she's being criticized for. Except in this case she did NOT act impetuously, was quite aware of the danger of her actions, and was involved in crafting a plan that included means of dealing with quite a lot of contingencies. (Not all contingencies, of course. No plan EVER covers ALL contingencies. And since we didn't run the planning and preparation through a microscope, we don't know exactly how much of the contingency planning she was aware of. Was Kat's tool to look at the ethereum something that Annie suggested, something Kat or someone else suggested and then the group discussed, or something Kat did entirely on her own?) Could the group have had an even better plan? Probably. Perhaps if they'd waited until they were all in their thirties, they might have come up with a plan that covered twice as many contingencies... they still wouldn't cover all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 18, 2017 0:00:02 GMT
My stance on the whole thing is "But you peer-pressured them" isn't a good argument when it comes to acutely deadly situations where they know it is an acutely deadly situation. Haha...Well, if all your friends jumped into a ravine, would you just jump in too? </mom-voice> Even when I was a kid, quite a lot of my friends were pretty smart. If they all jumped into a ravine, I'd wonder why - but I'd seriously suspect that there was a really good reason, i.e. the alternative would be worse. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 18, 2017 0:32:19 GMT
3. She is impetuous enough to act repeatedly in a way which we know involves ignorance or disregard of the danger of her actions. And that's what she's being criticized for. Except in this case she did NOT act impetuously, was quite aware of the danger of her actions, and was involved in crafting a plan that included means of dealing with quite a lot of contingencies. (Not all contingencies, of course. No plan EVER covers ALL contingencies. And since we didn't run the planning and preparation through a microscope, we don't know exactly how much of the contingency planning she was aware of. Was Kat's tool to look at the ethereum something that Annie suggested, something Kat or someone else suggested and then the group discussed, or something Kat did entirely on her own?) Could the group have had an even better plan? Probably. Perhaps if they'd waited until they were all in their thirties, they might have come up with a plan that covered twice as many contingencies... they still wouldn't cover all of them. I get the impression that much of what Annie's being criticized for is not seeking help from the grown-ups, and there's some justice in that; a lot of the trouble she's gotten into could have been avoided if she'd gone to Anya, Eglamore, Jones, or someone like that, instead of trying to fix it herself. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 18, 2017 0:39:09 GMT
On the forest-folk's feud with the Court (which led to Jeanne being turned into a ghost in the first place): I think we should remember that, from their point of view, the Court's experiments are extremely dangerous (and I think they've good reason to be concerned). I suspect most of us, if our next-door neighbors were engaged in wild science experiments, would feel uneasy.
Unfortunately, the forest-folk's response is to respond with threats of aggression rather than to reason with the Court (and it didn't help that Coyote was tampering with the sanity of the guy who, until recently, was forest medium). Though I suspect that, even if they were to offer the Court a calm and well-thought-out statement about the perils of those experiments with the ether, the Court administration would ignore it rather than give up their dreams of ultimate knowledge. (Not to mention they'd consider it humiliating to listen to the request of a bunch of talking animals and other such beings.)
|
|
clover
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by clover on Mar 18, 2017 1:41:15 GMT
3. She is impetuous enough to act repeatedly in a way which we know involves ignorance or disregard of the danger of her actions. And that's what she's being criticized for. Except in this case she did NOT act impetuously, was quite aware of the danger of her actions, and was involved in crafting a plan that included means of dealing with quite a lot of contingencies. I would submit that Annie is acting impetuously in this case! Not in the sense that she did something with poor planning (this event was actually quite well planned), but because Annie and her entire group had committed to freeing Jeanne WITHOUT an adequate understanding of what, exactly, they were doing. We, too, as readers, do not actually know what the consequences of this action will be. Which is what makes this exciting! Annie and the Ghostbuster Crew did not find out what the device really does or why it was 'installed.' They had not uncovered the early Court's aims. After watching the records of Diego's creations, they should have immediately been concerned about working out and getting evidence for why the court engaged in this terrible act in the first place. They absolutely should not have removed the device until after they had managed to figure out what would happen if they did so. They have had more than enough evidence that this was an important thing to need to know. Especially considering that Annie entered into this course of action after having discovered that the psychopomps were deliberately manipulating her into doing so. I am personally convinced that the consequences this act will almost certainly represent one of if not the most significant crisis point of the entire Gunnerkrigg Court story. We just have yet to discover how significantly Antimony got super, super played, and to what ends. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 18, 2017 2:19:38 GMT
Annie and the Ghostbuster Crew did not find out what the device really does or why it was 'installed.' They had not uncovered the early Court's aims. After watching the records of Diego's creations, they should have immediately been concerned about working out and getting evidence for why the court engaged in this terrible act in the first place. They absolutely should not have removed the device until after they had managed to figure out what would happen if they did so. They have had more than enough evidence that this was an important thing to need to know. Especially considering that Annie entered into this course of action after having discovered that the psychopomps were deliberately manipulating her into doing so. I've said this before, but I think it's worth pointing out that the motive the document most focused on was the vengeful fury of a rejected suitor, something which definitely couldn't be excused or justified. The "defense" motivation was given less attention in Diego's recording (and even with the Founders aware of it, at least one of them refused to take part in it, rightly calling it "abhorrent" - and he was presumably as aware of the dangers the Founders were concerned about as everyone else; for that matter, I suspect that part of the reason why the Founders hushed the whole thing up was a "deep down" realization that what they'd done was wrong - and the recording ended with Diego clearly aware, on his deathbed, that what he'd done was wicked and wrong - though taking the coward's way out by blaming it on Sir Young). And regardless of whatever "reasons of state" could be used to excuse the act, it was still a double murder, and an unnatural imprisonment of two people beyond the grave. I think we're asking a lot of young people to ask them to excuse the Founders' act or condone it because of "necessity, the tyrant's plea", as Milton put it. If we're going to be talking about "they should have researched the Founders' motives more", I'd add that I should like to know if the Founders even considered other ways of solving their problems with the forest than creating a vengeful ghost - or if they rejected all those possibilities with a tone of "negotiate with animals, treating them as our equals? Never!" |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 18, 2017 3:13:49 GMT
And how do you research the Founders' motives for doing something there's no official record of them doing to a person there's no official record of ever existing?
Maybe the gang tried... and got nothing.
Maybe the secretly-preserved recorder-bot is the only surviving contemporaneous record of the incident - with everything else the robots know, learned later from Diego (not exactly an impartial source).
|
|
clover
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by clover on Mar 18, 2017 3:18:32 GMT
It seems very sufficiently explained from what we know so far that the act was profoundly foul.
Alas, this is immaterial to the question of what utilitarian quandary that the murder 'solved,' in the eyes of the court.
We are stuck in the same situation with or without an understanding of the evil of the act itself: we don't know what will happen as a consequence of Antimony undoing whatever it was that trapped Jeanne and her suitor there.
To be clear about where my analysis is coming from: I don't expect these children to have any understanding of what they have done, nor am I expecting them to condone the court's (probably most definitely) evil act. I perfectly understand that they did what they thought was right, and that it is good for them to have freed Jeanne.
I simply also understand that they have no idea what they have been manipulated into setting in motion.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Mar 18, 2017 12:50:18 GMT
Alas, this is immaterial to the question of what utilitarian quandary that the murder 'solved,' in the eyes of the court. I simply also understand that they have no idea what they have been manipulated into setting in motion. I don't think that the Guides had corrupt reasons for getting Annie to free Jeanne (like, say, hoping that it would clear the way for Gilltie launching an attack on the Court); they were confronted with a situation that they recognized as unnatural (a ghost tethered to the world in such a way that it was unable to move on, and even killing those Guides who (apparently) were trying to help her. That was clearly enough something that was wrong and could not be allowed to continue. Were the methods they used to get Annie to help Jeanne manipulative? Maybe, though given their "non-intervention" rules, they didn't have much leeway. But I don't think they had ulterior motives. I hope the comic won't lean too much in the direction of this approach, at least; I know that there's been a repeated theme of Annie unleashing troubles that she didn't realize she was unleashing at the time, but Tom would have to walk a very careful line to keep it from feeling as if it's justifying what the Court did and defending its cold, amoral outlook. |
|
|
|
Post by Mitth'raw'nuruodo on Mar 18, 2017 17:18:07 GMT
I'm just going to quote this, from last page's thread, because it was somewhat overlooked, despite being a powerful source of context: The Chinese Red Guards. They had a reputation for publicly humiliating their victims by means of (far fetched) criticism. Must be a coincidence. Thank you, arkadi and keef! Of course she is a Red Guard. She is literally, Red guarding her lover, she is a Red guard. |
|
|
|
Post by mashivan on Mar 18, 2017 20:19:34 GMT
If Red is gonna suddenly be all serious and reflective, I don't think it is too much to ask that she also be reasonable about it.
Actually, I think it is too much to ask. She just mentioned signs of severe anxiety a few pages ago. She talks with apparent emotionlessness, but what she's going through are serious trauma symptoms and no one in this situation would have the ability to be completely rational.
Severe emotional trauma on Red's part is my main takeaway. I've been in Antinomy's shoes, on the receiving end of it, and it pretty much looks like this chapter. |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Mar 19, 2017 1:23:07 GMT
Severe emotional trauma on Red's part is my main takeaway. I've been in Antinomy's shoes, on the receiving end of it, and it pretty much looks like this chapter. I wonder if the court actually has any therapists for stuff like this- or how quote etheric sciences unquote might deal with something like physiological damage. |
|
