|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Apr 29, 2017 2:21:48 GMT
I won't deign to speak for Mr. Siddell, I'll just say that if I was producing a webcomic with this sort of release schedule, I would be focused on how it reads front-to-back, chapter-to-chapter, book-to-book. The long game is the most important part. It might be confirmation bias or simple arrogance or something that I have it in my head that Tom thinks the same way. I apologize for that bias, I don't have any actual evidence to back up the claim, at least not right in front of me. I don't presume to speak for him either- this is honest criticism. Just like you thought that someone needed to let Annie know when she was...being inconsiderate, I'm letting Tom know what I think of this story (which, in case it wasn't clear, I still believe is very good overall). If this story is intended to be Mr. Siddell's magnum opus, or his legacy if you will, then I can understand the sentiment to want to make sure it reads well from start to finish. But it's being RELEASED as a webcomic, not as a graphic novel and Paetron is funding him every month. So can you understand that some people might feel something of a disconnect? |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 2:23:22 GMT
My thinking is, the way it happened is how it happened, this time. I'm only arguing for what Annie should do going forward. Self-improvement is never an idle goal. Fair enough, but then I stand by my point that this Aesop could have been better delivered- maybe that's what we're about to see from Kat. But doubting yourself into innaction because of harsh and unfair criticism doesn't strike me as being much better than reckless arrogance. i think that's the heart of the problem, criticism was needed, but red's was excessively harsh and needs a moderating voice to balance it out. until that happens, it feels a bit off kilter... sidenote, maybe i'm reading too much into it, but i think muut may have planted the idea in red's head (intentionally or not) in the third and fourth panels here |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Apr 29, 2017 2:26:08 GMT
I said it's one possible interpretation. This could pretty easily be read with Red being the manipulative one, too. The Fair Folk have a long history of tricking humans after all, and Red has absolutely NO PROBLEM with this deal either during or after it. No, and definitely no. For one thing: was Annie being a thoughtless jerk? Absolutely, no question. To then turn around and speculate that it might be Red's fault is just the height of disingenuousness. For another, we know PRECISELY when Red starts to have a problem with this deal. You can pin point it down to a panel. It's the moment Ayilu appears to get run through by Jeanne in the illusion world. This isn't hindsight, this is "Oh my god, what have I let her get herself into?!" And the fact is, Annie not knowing the risks is irrelevant. She took on Ayilu as an outsider to this mission, she is responsible for her wellbeing AND for knowing the risks going in, just the same as an employer is responsible for their employee's safety. She didn't properly explain those risks, ergo she failed Ayilu, and the ONLY reason Annie wasn't forced to help two spirits cross over that day was because of blind luck. Certainly not because Ayilu understood the danger she was being brought into, and certainly NOT under the pretense of a fair deal. Let's dispel that ridiculous notion right now. May as well say Manhattan island was purchased fairly at that rate. |
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on Apr 29, 2017 2:34:19 GMT
That is definitely one of my new favorite panels. I can feel the pain in my bones, man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Apr 29, 2017 2:36:16 GMT
For one thing: was Annie being a thoughtless jerk? Absolutely, no question. The whole reason we are having this discussion is because I (and a whole lot of other people) clearly disagree. Yes- because that's when her cunning plan to trick Annie into giving her friend a name suddenly goes sideways. Bam, alternative interpretation. The faeries have shown in the past that (A) they understand the concept of physical harm being bad, and that (B) people can die. If Red didn't internalize that bad things might happen to her or her friend, I don't see how that's Annie's problem. Especially since Annie is not significantly older or more mature than they are. My understanding of that deal was that one side didn't understand what the other side was asking for. I see much less of that here. My point was NOT that this was entirely Red's doing. Only that you can't state that the interpretation of Annie being a jerkass purely for selfish reasons to be entirely obvious. There are multiple ways to look at this. |
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on Apr 29, 2017 2:41:03 GMT
At this point, I've made my own case to the best of my ability. I'm going to wait at least until the rest of this chapter is up before I revisit the argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 2:42:11 GMT
My feeling is that while they are in their fairy (faerie? I go back and forth sometimes on which looks better on paper) bodies, they have only the sorts of thoughts that fairies are capable of having. For instance, Tom has said outright that fairies (at least regional fairies like Red and Ayilu) are very shallow by their nature, exemplified over and over again by the relationship between Red and Ayilu (up until now). That shallowness and vanity is the main aspect I'm referencing when I talk about Red's "normal fairy ways." i see. i hadn't ascribed as much import to that statement, because i tend to think humans are more shallow than we like to admit |
|
|
|
Post by puntosmx on Apr 29, 2017 3:49:02 GMT
Red seemed to me to be absolutely correct about her original point, though, and I think that is what Annie really needs to think about: "So, like, you figured you were getting a good deal, putting her in danger in return for something that has no value [to you as a non-fairy human]." Annie used her well-developed empathy with etheric beings and understanding of the fairy mindset to manipulate Ayilu into doing her bidding. It was downright Slytherin (or Coyote?) of her, even if it was for the Greater Goodâ„¢. I would have pushed Annie out of my life as well, if I were in Red's place. What I mean is, Annie needed that particular kick in the teeth, if she's going to be taking on more quests in the future. Even if she really needs the help, and it would be so easy and so convenient to suggest something like the name trade, she needs to think back to Red and Ayilu and second-guess how she approaches similar situations. The rest of Red's grievances were less catching, to me, as none of the others were manipulated into participating. If the new name was something valuable, expensive or taxing for Annie, it's meaningless. She presented a transaction: Create illusions in a ghost's mind and you'll get a name. Those illusions were a valuable tool for Annie. That name was a valuable acquisition for Blue. Deal was settled, and buyer's remorse is menaingless. Even more because it was Rd's buyers remorse! Red was not even invited, and all she did was butting in and distracting Blue. Hadshe not been there, the illusionist fairy would've been aware Jeanne was going out of control and might have been able to alter the illusion to save herself. But no.... Red was asking for more meaningless background decorations. Her meddling is what allowed Jeanne to "kill" their illusionary projections that allegedly caused so much trauma on her that she had to lash back and blame Annie for everything. No, I'm not saying Annie is blameless. I'm just saying that regret is a shitty excuse to blame Annie for whatever Red perceived "bad deal". And certainly releasing Jeanne's soul was not a life achievement for Annie, unlike what getting a name means for a faerie. I'm afraid I don't see the analogy there. It doesn't capture the intent of the transaction, nor does it say anything about danger to Ayilu and Red's persons. What is valuable to Annie in this transaction is the world-state in which Jeanne moves on to the ether. This is very important to her, and has been for years. What is valuable to Ayilu in this situation is the world-state in which she has a name, which is very important to her, and probably has been her entire life. At first glance, these seem somewhat equivalent, one person's desired world-state achieved in trade for the other's. Very important? Like when she took her mom into the ether? Or like when she took Mort into the ether? I don't see the achievement or success this represents for Annie. Even forgetting the fact that Andrew almost died "doing her work" and that she's now indebted to the psychopomps, the release of a ghost provides little respite to her or anyo of the gang. Yes, they righted an injustice that the founders of the Court imposed upon Jeanne and her lover. It's not a fault of Annie or Kat. It doesn't represent an achievement as meaningful as becoming the forest's medium, devising a bioscaffold interface for robots or mastering teleportation mid-duel. It was a test of their previous achievements and abilities, and they paid for their mistakes and the inadequacy of their B plans. But even if everything had come out perfectly, it would be akin to lifting a burden, rather than accomplishing a goal. Annie needs to expend precisely zero resources in order to give Ayilu the Big Mac. All she has to do is say "Here is your Big Mac," and it instantly, magically appears. The reason she hasn't done this to all of the fairies (who all want Big Macs) is because she fears retribution from the Headmaster or others in the Court for messing with the fairies' education (speculation on my part). Instead of doing this instantly, and then trusting that Ayilu will hold up her end of the bargain, Annie holds the Big Mac hostage in a terrible, dangerous ravine, a place where not even psychopomps dare to tread. For purposes of her own, Annie has dangled the Big Mac over Ayilu's head, just out of reach, knowing that it is irresistible. There is absolutely no way the fairy will refuse this offer, no matter how dangerous it is. This is such a convenient way to get Ayilu's help with her Jeanne problem that Annie doesn't give the implications a second thought. She doesn't really think about how much danger Red and Ayilu will be in because of this deal. And that's the problem. Told this way, it does sound like Annie was commanding everyone from atop her ivory tower, and that everything she had to provide would be done so at the snap of her figers. You forget she went down with everyone, hoping Blue's illusion would trap Jeanne before she murdered them outright. You also forget she was trapped by Diego's green arrow's maze, and that Kat had to save her. You also forget she is indebted to the psychopomps in exchange of Smitty's life. Those are the rists she ran and that is the price she paid. Is she indebted to Blue? No. But servitude to the Psychopomps is hardly "precisely zero resources". My criticism isn't really directed towards Annie, though I see that I have painted her in something of a sinister light (the point being that she doesn't catch herself when she is acting that way), it's my two cents on the argument of whether Red had a good justification for giving Annie the boot. I find it duplicitous to hammer on Annie for three posts and say "I'm just justifying Red's hammering of Annie". Red didn't have anything to do in that confrontation. Red didn't contribute anything. Red distracted Ayilu, the one she "loves so much" and was "so shocked at the thought of loosing her". And on top of that, she behaved like Annie was to blame for the angst caused by something that didn't happen? Red is just a jerk, and behaved like one. No need (or benefit) to justify her words. |
|
|
|
Post by twilightfire on Apr 29, 2017 4:18:32 GMT
I won't deign to speak for Mr. Siddell, I'll just say that if I was producing a webcomic with this sort of release schedule, I would be focused on how it reads front-to-back, chapter-to-chapter, book-to-book. The long game is the most important part. It might be confirmation bias or simple arrogance or something that I have it in my head that Tom thinks the same way. I apologize for that bias, I don't have any actual evidence to back up the claim, at least not right in front of me. I don't presume to speak for him either- this is honest criticism. Just like you thought that someone needed to let Annie know when she was...being inconsiderate, I'm letting Tom know what I think of this story (which, in case it wasn't clear, I still believe is very good overall). If this story is intended to be Mr. Siddell's magnum opus, or his legacy if you will, then I can understand the sentiment to want to make sure it reads well from start to finish. But it's being RELEASED as a webcomic, not as a graphic novel and Paetron is funding him every month. So can you understand that some people might feel something of a disconnect? It may just be me, but I like the way Red has gone from being a 2d fairy character to a 3d teenager worried about her friend. From the start of the scene, it wasn't very humorous, and it set up the interaction between Annie and Red as something serious. Other than Red being silly about Ayliu's name, it wasn't shocking when Red expressed concern over Annie being a rogue agent, who is not good at predicting how other people will react to her. This was a nice culmination between Red and Annie, so when Annie develops and (hopefully) addresses her problem of assuming equality/acting reckless, then the two of them can continue being friends. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 4:36:15 GMT
My criticism isn't really directed towards Annie, though I see that I have painted her in something of a sinister light (the point being that she doesn't catch herself when she is acting that way), it's my two cents on the argument of whether Red had a good justification for giving Annie the boot. I find it duplicitous to hammer on Annie for three posts and say "I'm just justifying Red's hammering of Annie". Red didn't have anything to do in that confrontation. Red didn't contribute anything. Red distracted Ayilu, the one she "loves so much" and was "so shocked at the thought of loosing her". And on top of that, she behaved like Annie was to blame for the angst caused by something that didn't happen? Red is just a jerk, and behaved like one. No need (or benefit) to justify her words. while red's presence wasn't necessary or helpful, i don't think she is to blame for the situation going sideways either. red wasn't actually being distracting when ayilu lost control of the illusion due to annie interacting with the arrow and robot's presence pulling jeanne out of it. she was talking to ayilu when jeanne struck, but even if red and ayilu had been watching the fight, would it have helped them dodge a being that's able to kill psychopomps? the whole mess was no one's and everyone's fault, and red blaming annie for everything was a jerk move (as fairies do), but griffthejack already admitted to being a bit unfair towards annie in their comments so at this point your criticism, like red's, feels unnecessarily harsh... |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 29, 2017 4:58:55 GMT
May as well say Manhattan island was purchased fairly at that rate. My understanding of that deal was that one side didn't understand what the other side was asking for. I see much less of that here. My understanding is that the sellers were actually poachers who had no claim to the land at all, and would probably have been killed if they'd been caught by the tribes that lived on the island. |
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on Apr 29, 2017 5:02:29 GMT
-shrug- Obviously puntosmx was willing to put in a good amount of time to refute several of my points at once, I can't blame them for seeming harsh. I'll examine their post and see if I have anything to say in rebuttal...
All I can see is that we disagree on a few key assumptions, so I don't really have a lengthy rebuttal. I do think that saving Jeanne had become a very big deal for Annie from at least the time of "Coward Heart", and it's had 30 chapters to build since then. My point about there being no cost to Annie is in reference to the fact that with a single sentence spoken aloud, "Your name is Blue," Annie's part of the bargain is fulfilled. No matter the provisions of the bargain, there is no cost inherent to doing this, and in fact Annie could go to Foley house and name every single one of the children there if she felt like doing so, without so much as breaking a sweat.
I apologize for seeming duplicitous, I assure you it was not my intent. All of my posts should be consistent with the others, even with that hiccup, which hopefully speaks in my favor. I had a specific argument to make about Annie's lack of self-awareness, and it got made. My forum-fu might not be perfect, but I haven't argued with people on the internet in years, so I'm quite rusty. Again, apologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 5:17:58 GMT
My forum-fu might not be perfect, but I haven't argued with people on the internet in years, so I'm quite rusty. yeah, forum-fu is hard. communication is hard, especially with people whose communication style is unfamiliar to you (and vice versa), and especially through text where it's so easy to misread or misunderstand something. and then add a comic that explores some very deep philosophical quandries... (often about communication actually...) ((and then the edit button's there just begging me to second guess myself)) |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Apr 29, 2017 13:12:32 GMT
My understanding of that deal was that one side didn't understand what the other side was asking for. I see much less of that here. My understanding is that the sellers were actually poachers who had no claim to the land at all, and would probably have been killed if they'd been caught by the tribes that lived on the island. Seems like it's not a good comparison either way then. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Apr 29, 2017 16:37:43 GMT
My point about there being no cost to Annie is in reference to the fact that with a single sentence spoken aloud, "Your name is Blue," Annie's part of the bargain is fulfilled. No matter the provisions of the bargain, there is no cost inherent to doing this, and in fact Annie could go to Foley house and name every single one of the children there if she felt like doing so, without so much as breaking a sweat. But she is clearly not supposed to do that, and the faries presumably knew and understood that (in spite of all of them clamouring for a name after Red got hers). The whole thing about the deal is complicated by two things: first, we don't really know to what extent this was a deadly serious deal for the fairies, and not something they might have done at least partially for friendship or doing a good deed; and second, that it was Red who did the naming. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Apr 29, 2017 17:12:58 GMT
I think Annie and Kat are both being a little premature. Their words suggest that both of them think the matter is over and done with, as though neither of them have considered consequences or repercussions. If I was them I'd constantly be peeing my pants wondering if the Court knew or not, or whether they'd ever find out, or what would happen now that a ghost who was called the "guard" isn't there to guard anything anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on Apr 29, 2017 17:30:50 GMT
It's true that I only have speculation on the actual consequences to Annie for messing with the Foley students' education like that. Those consequences may have been part of the reason why Red did the naming, in fact.
As for doing a good deed for a friend... I mean, I can't discount it out of hand, but we have lots of precedent for these two fairies being less than friendly. Even if I think she was justified for her anger at Annie, Red is still a big ol' honking jerkface. My running hypothesis remains that this was all about the deal, all about the name.
|
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 18:27:09 GMT
I think Annie and Kat are both being a little premature. Their words suggest that both of them think the matter is over and done with, as though neither of them have considered consequences or repercussions. If I was them I'd constantly be peeing my pants wondering if the Court knew or not, or whether they'd ever find out, or what would happen now that a ghost who was called the "guard" isn't there to guard anything anymore. i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for. all they see is the injustice of jeanne's situation that needs righted, and that was reinforced by the afterlife guides and realm of the dead who both told them that jeanne's situation needed to be 'fixed', so to speak. i mean if the people in charge of keeping the world spinning and the cycle of life working say something's wrong, that has some weight. and they probably aren't old enough to appreciate reasons why the court would do such a terrible thing in the first place. "for the greater good" is a hard sell for kids... who refers to her as the guard? that is what we all generally assume she's doing, but which characters have actually referred to it? maybe i'm just not remembering, but i don't think annie, kat, parley or smitty have, because they see the wronged individual first and foremost, not the utilitarian function |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Apr 29, 2017 22:40:17 GMT
i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for- who refers to her as the guard? She does herself: the sentinel of these waters |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 29, 2017 23:11:50 GMT
i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for- who refers to her as the guard? She does herself: the sentinel of these waters does anyone else? i seem to remember someone saying something about her guarding the waters but i can't remember who. jeanne's reference didn't make it sound like an important job she was doing for the court though, it sounds more like a personal vigil over her dead lover to me edit: so aside from jeanne herself, the only other reference i could find (skimming through the jeanne tag) is young saying their plan would " fortify the annan waters" but not specifically how lowering jeanne down and shooting her lover with a green glowing arrow accomplishes that. certainly, creating a homicidal rage ghost who kills anything near the water could have been the plan, or it could have been a side effect. i still feel like someone did say she was guarding the waters but i've yet to find it edit edit: also, when i say we don't know what she was put down there for, i mean no one's mentioned anything from the forest specifically threatening the court. coyoto is ominous and dangerous, but he's also allowed to visit the court and i'm not sure jeanne could keep him out anyway. if she is a guard, which seems the likely explanation, what is she guarding from? |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Apr 30, 2017 0:27:24 GMT
does anyone else? i seem to remember someone saying something about her guarding the waters but i can't remember who. jeanne's reference didn't make it sound like an important job she was doing for the court though, it sounds more like a personal vigil over her dead lover to me edit: so aside from jeanne herself, the only other reference i could find (skimming through the jeanne tag) is young saying their plan would " fortify the annan waters" but not specifically how lowering jeanne down and shooting her lover with a green glowing arrow accomplishes that. certainly, creating a homicidal rage ghost who kills anything near the water could have been the plan, or it could have been a side effect. i still feel like someone did say she was guarding the waters but i've yet to find it edit edit: also, when i say we don't know what she was put down there for, i mean no one's mentioned anything from the forest specifically threatening the court. coyoto is ominous and dangerous, but he's also allowed to visit the court and i'm not sure jeanne could keep him out anyway. if she is a guard, which seems the likely explanation, what is she guarding from? The forest-folk in general, most likely, many of whom have been shown to be hostile to the Court. Maybe Tom hasn't been explicit enough about it, but then, he might have thought that we were bright enough to work it out from the clues. Of course, many of the readers weren't able to recognize Eglamore in Chapter Seventeen, were confused by the flashbacks in Chapter Eighteen, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 30, 2017 2:04:07 GMT
does anyone else? i seem to remember someone saying something about her guarding the waters but i can't remember who. jeanne's reference didn't make it sound like an important job she was doing for the court though, it sounds more like a personal vigil over her dead lover to me edit: so aside from jeanne herself, the only other reference i could find (skimming through the jeanne tag) is young saying their plan would " fortify the annan waters" but not specifically how lowering jeanne down and shooting her lover with a green glowing arrow accomplishes that. certainly, creating a homicidal rage ghost who kills anything near the water could have been the plan, or it could have been a side effect. i still feel like someone did say she was guarding the waters but i've yet to find it edit edit: also, when i say we don't know what she was put down there for, i mean no one's mentioned anything from the forest specifically threatening the court. coyoto is ominous and dangerous, but he's also allowed to visit the court and i'm not sure jeanne could keep him out anyway. if she is a guard, which seems the likely explanation, what is she guarding from? The forest-folk in general, most likely, many of whom have been shown to be hostile to the Court. Maybe Tom hasn't been explicit enough about it, but then, he might have thought that we were bright enough to work it out from the clues. Of course, many of the readers weren't able to recognize Eglamore in Chapter Seventeen, were confused by the flashbacks in Chapter Eighteen, etc. i'd say most of the inhabitants of the forest are wary of the court rather than hostile to it, the same way the court inhabitants are wary of the forest. certainly, plenty of forest creatures seem willing to come live at the court on their own initiative. jeanne didn't seem to see the forest dwellers all as a threat, so why did the court leaders? is it just a matter of the court leaders being xenophobic speciesists? but the court started with the humans and forest creatures living together. it was in jeanne's time that coyote divided them. what exactly was the "squabble" coyote ended with the ravine? and why did the court feel they needed more than a giant ravine to keep the forest dwellers out? unless there's a more specific threat than "the world is dangerous so we must wall ourselves away from everything" then the court is just a bunch of scared jerks and jeanne shouldn't have to pay for that. so what exactly was the court scared of that might justify such a morally reprehensible plan that they had to erase it from history? |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Apr 30, 2017 3:31:50 GMT
i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for. Yes! Thank you! I've mentioned this before too, and the general consensus (on the forum) seemed to be that she was just there to keep the forest creatures out of the court, but I feel there's a lot of detail that hasn't been explored yet. Given the complexity and depth of characterization we seen around other aspects of the story, IMO that seems like way to simple of an explanation to just leave it at that. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Apr 30, 2017 5:38:44 GMT
In military terms, defending the Court from attack across the Annan Waters - and up the side of the ravine - would be extremely easy.
The thing is, in Jeanne's time it would have taken a significant amount of manpower simply to watch for such an attack.
Now, assign a few robots.
|
|
|
|
Post by somebunny on Apr 30, 2017 20:28:27 GMT
The faeries have shown in the past that (A) they understand the concept of physical harm being bad, and that (B) people can die. If Red didn't internalize that bad things might happen to her or her friend, I don't see how that's Annie's problem. Especially since Annie is not significantly older or more mature than they are. The problem here is that we just don't know what Annie told Ayilu and Red. It's possible that she assured them they'd be completely safe, and that she mislead them (either intentionally or unintentionally, since Annie is impulsive enough to not quite think the risks through). I think that's unlikely. It's possible that Annie was very blunt that they could all be slaughtered, and Red+Ayilu didn't care. I think that's also unlikely, especially since maybe Annie would've reconsidered the plan if she had the risks completely in mind like that. I think an inbetween situation is most likely: Annie told them that Ayilu would be able to hold Jeanne in place (which wasn't true even though Annie might've thought it was), and that if anything went wrong, Parley would be able to protect them (which also wasn't true even though Annie might've thought it was). Annie wasn't malicious, but she is at fault for misinforming the fairies of how dire the situation was. Considering all her doubts, I don't know how people except the fairies to be so well-informed of the plan and its possible outcomes when even Annie didn't seem to be. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Apr 30, 2017 21:02:01 GMT
In military terms, defending the Court from attack across the Annan Waters - and up the side of the ravine - would be extremely easy. The thing is, in Jeanne's time it would have taken a significant amount of manpower simply to watch for such an attack. Now, assign a few robots. except diego created the robots in jeanne's time? The faeries have shown in the past that (A) they understand the concept of physical harm being bad, and that (B) people can die. If Red didn't internalize that bad things might happen to her or her friend, I don't see how that's Annie's problem. Especially since Annie is not significantly older or more mature than they are. The problem here is that we just don't know what Annie told Ayilu and Red. It's possible that she assured them they'd be completely safe, and that she mislead them (either intentionally or unintentionally, since Annie is impulsive enough to not quite think the risks through). I think that's unlikely. It's possible that Annie was very blunt that they could all be slaughtered, and Red+Ayilu didn't care. I think that's also unlikely, especially since maybe Annie would've reconsidered the plan if she had the risks completely in mind like that. I think an inbetween situation is most likely: Annie told them that Ayilu would be able to hold Jeanne in place (which wasn't true even though Annie might've thought it was), and that if anything went wrong, Parley would be able to protect them (which also wasn't true even though Annie might've thought it was). Annie wasn't malicious, but she is at fault for misinforming the fairies of how dire the situation was. Considering all her doubts, I don't know how people except the fairies to be so well-informed of the plan and its possible outcomes when even Annie didn't seem to be. really it boils down to "a bunch of kids didn't think this plan through well enough" i've read some articles on brain development that say teens weigh risk vs reward scenarios differently than adults. even if they understand the risk, they're more likely to think it's worth it for the potential reward. of course, sometimes you think something and then when you're confronted with the reality of it you abruptly realize you were wrong. so red and ayilu may or may not have understood how dangerous it was, and that may or may not have made a difference in their decision making |
|
|
|
Post by puntosmx on Apr 30, 2017 23:42:27 GMT
the whole mess was no one's and everyone's fault, and red blaming annie for everything was a jerk move (as fairies do), but griffthejack already admitted to being a bit unfair towards annie in their comments so at this point your criticism, like red's, feels unnecessarily harsh... Oh, sorry. I tend to overexplain my points and have been coming out as harsh or overbearing lately. That was not my intention. I'll need to work on my delivery, so that it doesn't feel harsh or aggressive. -shrug- Obviously puntosmx was willing to put in a good amount of time to refute several of my points at once, I can't blame them for seeming harsh. I'll examine their post and see if I have anything to say in rebuttal... All I can see is that we disagree on a few key assumptions, so I don't really have a lengthy rebuttal. I do think that saving Jeanne had become a very big deal for Annie from at least the time of "Coward Heart", and it's had 30 chapters to build since then. My point about there being no cost to Annie is in reference to the fact that with a single sentence spoken aloud, "Your name is Blue," Annie's part of the bargain is fulfilled. No matter the provisions of the bargain, there is no cost inherent to doing this, and in fact Annie could go to Foley house and name every single one of the children there if she felt like doing so, without so much as breaking a sweat. I apologize for seeming duplicitous, I assure you it was not my intent. All of my posts should be consistent with the others, even with that hiccup, which hopefully speaks in my favor. I had a specific argument to make about Annie's lack of self-awareness, and it got made. My forum-fu might not be perfect, but I haven't argued with people on the internet in years, so I'm quite rusty. Again, apologies. Yes, I see your stance. Regarding on the importance of Jeanne being taken to the ether.... [three rewritings later] I'll concede the point. The task of releasing Jeanne was indeed a task that the girls had set themselves upon for emotional reasons. Maybe the first problem was none of them stood to gain, and none of them realized they were taking a great risk to accomplish the goals of others. It's true that I only have speculation on the actual consequences to Annie for messing with the Foley students' education like that. Those consequences may have been part of the reason why Red did the naming, in fact. As for doing a good deed for a friend... I mean, I can't discount it out of hand, but we have lots of precedent for these two fairies being less than friendly. Even if I think she was justified for her anger at Annie, Red is still a big ol' honking jerkface. My running hypothesis remains that this was all about the deal, all about the name. Actually, I find Red naming Blue even worse. The Court seems to use the students at Foley as a giant computational device to make complex calculations that they don't understand nor pay attention to. Once they have a name, they become "adults" and get a job, which means they are no longer in the workforce. One less procesing thread in their machinery. Getting a careles student name a whole class would impair heavilty those calculations. Now, the assumption that faeries would get a name from a human after many years of droning away kept the status quo in place. But what happens when a named faery can name as many unnamed faeries as she wants? How can you stop such a random jerk from going into the foley dorms and name every student? That is a greater problem. Specially when the faery that wields that naming power is jerkf-- Red. i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for. all they see is the injustice of jeanne's situation that needs righted, and that was reinforced by the afterlife guides and realm of the dead who both told them that jeanne's situation needed to be 'fixed', so to speak. i mean if the people in charge of keeping the world spinning and the cycle of life working say something's wrong, that has some weight. and they probably aren't old enough to appreciate reasons why the court would do such a terrible thing in the first place. "for the greater good" is a hard sell for kids... who refers to her as the guard? that is what we all generally assume she's doing, but which characters have actually referred to it? maybe i'm just not remembering, but i don't think annie, kat, parley or smitty have, because they see the wronged individual first and foremost, not the utilitarian function Indeed, we don't know for certain. But we can hypothesize. From the information we have, the forest and the court were split by Coyote. Initially, the waters presented a natural obstacle, but not for everyone. So, the Court needed a way to stop those beings and the influence the forest was trying to gain on the trees on the Court's side. so, an opportunity presented itself in Jeanne and her lover. By creating a guardian ghost full of anger, they created a physical barrier. Then, nothing could cross ... a bridge was built on their terms. On top of creating a very physical and deadly barrier, the Court also sent a message: Anyone who wants to fraternize with the denizens in the forest will be punished. Did they strike this from the records? Certainly. But that doesn't mean they forgot about it. Not the founders. [Disgression on retelling of Romeo and Juliet] What happens when Jeanne leaves the shore? The Annan Waters are not impassable anymore. The denizens of the Forest can cross the waters once more, and the bridge is no longer a chokepoint. Furthermore, we don't know if the arrow from Diego, that was designed to trap any etheric being that touched it, was part of a larger ritual of power to create a mystical barrier. The process certainly has a lot of imagery of power. But reducing it to Jeanne being lost, any angry spirit that hates the Court may just cross over the waters and cause ruckus. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on May 1, 2017 0:09:33 GMT
Apr 28, 2017 12:55:04 GMT -6 Deepbluediver said: "What is being given away is ALWAYS worth less than what is being gained- a transaction would not take place otherwise (except at the point of a gun)." No. What you have just said in this statement has no basis in reality whatsoever. It would be more accurate to say that when items are exchanged they are of equivalent value, because the fact that they are being exchanged for each others means the participants in the transaction are willing to give up what they have to obtain the other. Though you describe the process of subjective value quite well in your supporting argument, this doesn't change the fact that your argument doesn't support your claim. [...] In the case of Blue's name, she agreed to participate given the knowledge she had beforehand. The services exchanged were of equivalent value - the question of this then, is how much did she know about what she was getting into, and if she had a full intellectual knowledge of the danger she was putting herself into to get her name, whether or not the danger had actually sunk in. what if the statement reads "What is being given away is ALWAYS worth less [to the person giving it up] than what is being gained- a transaction would not take place otherwise"? because that is how i understand subjective value to work. i don't trade something i value equally, because i want the thing i'm giving up less than i want the thing i'm getting, hence i inherently value it less? a trade happens when it's mutually benificial, not when the value is "equal", because as we've established, value is subjective. to use your example; say i acquired a black lotus card, inherited it somehow. i don't play magic and have no idea what kind of collectable value it has, but i put it in a yard sale with a sign that says "make offer". someone comes along and offers me $100 for it. i'm ecstatic that i can trade this piece of cardboard for $100 and they're ecstatic to get a $16k collectors card for $100. was that equal value? we're both happy with the trade because we value what we gave up less than what we received. |
|
|
|
Post by puntosmx on May 1, 2017 1:02:59 GMT
It would be more accurate to say that when items are exchanged they are of equivalent value, because the fact that they are being exchanged for each others means the participants in the transaction are willing to give up what they have to obtain the other. Though you describe the process of subjective value quite well in your supporting argument, this doesn't change the fact that your argument doesn't support your claim. It's not always the case that one trades things of equivalent value. Most of the times, we expect the items we receive to be either more valuable than what we are giving out, or allow us to acquire something of more value. This isn't readily observable in modern society because we use a standardizing element (money) to settle transactions. But you can notice it on pawn shops (where they pay less than the "value" of the item to those pawning stuff) and when people barter some items for others. Just tune in to History Channel and watch mechanics pay $500 for a compressor to upgrade a car and earn $20K. Value is subjective - there is no such thing as intrinsic value. You used a baseball card as an example. I will use a similar real world example the Black Lotus, a card from earlier sets of the game Magic the Gathering. There is a wide differences in prices on the card, mostly based on condition. Let's call the price for a fairly average condition Black Lotus $16K. Is it worth this much? Yes - by virtue of the fact that people are spending that much to obtain it, it means that $15,999 is worth less than our average quality Black Lotus valued at $16K. I disagree. That Black Lotus has an intrinsic value: The value of the cardboard, the inks and the seals used to prevent degradation. It also has a market value, which is the money people pay to get one. It is easy to forget the intrinsic value of popcorn (5 cents for the seeds and the heat to make them pop) instead of the market value of it at the cinema (which at least here in Mexico is outrageous at 3-5 USD equivalent). Names matter very much to fairies, you see. Certainly, names would be a very expensive commodity among fae-kind. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on May 1, 2017 1:21:06 GMT
the whole mess was no one's and everyone's fault, and red blaming annie for everything was a jerk move (as fairies do), but griffthejack already admitted to being a bit unfair towards annie in their comments so at this point your criticism, like red's, feels unnecessarily harsh... Oh, sorry. I tend to overexplain my points and have been coming out as harsh or overbearing lately. That was not my intention. I'll need to work on my delivery, so that it doesn't feel harsh or aggressive. i also have that problem online. i try to keep my replies concise to avoid sounding like i'm ranting... sometimes i'm even successful Now, the assumption that faeries would get a name from a human after many years of droning away kept the status quo in place. But what happens when a named faery can name as many unnamed faeries as she wants? How can you stop such a random jerk from going into the foley dorms and name every student? That is a greater problem. Specially when the faery that wields that naming power is jerkf-- Red. that bothered me too! if red named ayilu, why couldn't she have just done that in the first place? wasn't the whole point that they needed annie to do the naming? i think that's because they (and we) don't know what exactly jeanne was put down there for. all they see is the injustice of jeanne's situation that needs righted, and that was reinforced by the afterlife guides and realm of the dead who both told them that jeanne's situation needed to be 'fixed', so to speak. i mean if the people in charge of keeping the world spinning and the cycle of life working say something's wrong, that has some weight. and they probably aren't old enough to appreciate reasons why the court would do such a terrible thing in the first place. "for the greater good" is a hard sell for kids... who refers to her as the guard? that is what we all generally assume she's doing, but which characters have actually referred to it? maybe i'm just not remembering, but i don't think annie, kat, parley or smitty have, because they see the wronged individual first and foremost, not the utilitarian function Indeed, we don't know for certain. But we can hypothesize. From the information we have, the forest and the court were split by Coyote. Initially, the waters presented a natural obstacle, but not for everyone. So, the Court needed a way to stop those beings and the influence the forest was trying to gain on the trees on the Court's side. so, an opportunity presented itself in Jeanne and her lover. By creating a guardian ghost full of anger, they created a physical barrier. Then, nothing could cross ... a bridge was built on their terms. On top of creating a very physical and deadly barrier, the Court also sent a message: Anyone who wants to fraternize with the denizens in the forest will be punished. Did they strike this from the records? Certainly. But that doesn't mean they forgot about it. Not the founders. [Disgression on retelling of Romeo and Juliet] What happens when Jeanne leaves the shore? The Annan Waters are not impassable anymore. The denizens of the Forest can cross the waters once more, and the bridge is no longer a chokepoint. Furthermore, we don't know if the arrow from Diego, that was designed to trap any etheric being that touched it, was part of a larger ritual of power to create a mystical barrier. The process certainly has a lot of imagery of power. But reducing it to Jeanne being lost, any angry spirit that hates the Court may just cross over the waters and cause ruckus. ok, i'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but my point is, everyone glosses over why the court needed to keep the forest creatures out badly enough to kill two innocent people and bind their souls into purgatory. is it because there are creatures in the forest who hate the court enough to attack it? surely the court can defend against a few rogue monsters. that's what eglamore's for. is there a danger of the forest waging war on the court? if so, what kind of unifying leadership or cause would motivate it? do they have a reason to wage war? the court and forest seem to be on grudgingly stable terms. they allow envoys to visit and allow citizens to immigrate between them... certainly they don't seem to like each other, but without knowing what the impetus was for the initial split we don't know what's driving the dislike or how deep it goes... the court founders obviously thought something bad would happen if jeanne wasn't there. i suspect i disagree, but we're missing a lot of information. so what do people think will happen now that jeanne is not there? (this is a serious question, what do you think?) |
|
