|
|
Post by puntosmx on May 1, 2017 2:39:25 GMT
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?) I believe that in 10-20 chapters (in real Gunnerkrigg Style), some...thing will appear on the Court. Like the plant-dogs from the previous generation. That will lead to 5 chapters of containing the rogue plant-dog, repairing the "damage" it caused and investigating on the cause of the outbreak. 10-15 chapters later, we'll have a visit from Coyote, to state a new order of the world, since his influence can reach into the court whenever he wishes. Probably 5-7 chapters later, we'll se something going on with the faeries. Somewhere in there add a chapter of someone dying and the 'pomps forcing Annie to bring him/her to the ether. |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on May 1, 2017 3:24:11 GMT
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?) I believe that in 10-20 chapters (in real Gunnerkrigg Style), some...thing will appear on the Court. Like the plant-dogs from the previous generation. That will lead to 5 chapters of containing the rogue plant-dog, repairing the "damage" it caused and investigating on the cause of the outbreak. 10-15 chapters later, we'll have a visit from Coyote, to state a new order of the world, since his influence can reach into the court whenever he wishes. Probably 5-7 chapters later, we'll se something going on with the faeries. Somewhere in there add a chapter of someone dying and the 'pomps forcing Annie to bring him/her to the ether. i've been thinking about the plant dog too, with all this forest/court divide talk. that happened in the parent's generation, right? jeanne was down at the annan waters then, how'd the plant dog get into the court? (now that i go back and check there appear to have been two plant dogs?) did they just cross the bridge? jump the ravine? do we think jeanne or whatever was in the arrow was powerful enough to stop coyote? she was able to kill psychopomps and the arrow messed with the realm of the dead, but i feel like coyote could just jump the ravine if he really wanted. (he pulled down the moon for crying out loud.) jones made it sound like he had decided, himself, not to meddle with the court (still want to see the fine print on that) but he did seem interested in jeanne's absence so... really, what is his game? maybe he just knows her absence will stir up trouble and he's looking forward to it... edit: also, coyote did knock over a building the last time he visited the court so he doesn't seem to have trouble asserting his influence via random destruction while jeanne is there |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on May 1, 2017 13:27:42 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. Really? How often do you give something that is worth less than what you're getting in exchange? 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.[/quote] Yes, fine, exchanges of equivalent value can and do take place, however IMO they are less common than exchanged in which both parties believe they are getting something worth more than what they are giving up. Recall Red's use of the phrase "if you're going to give this doofus [Ayilu] a name just for helping you...". From an outsider's perspective it certainly doesn't seem like she considers the exchange all that big of an imposition on her friend. Human's get names at birth, which might be why they take them for granted more than fairies do, but I don't really see how that's important. What's important here is RELATIVE value. Annie can do something for Red's friend that no one else can do, and Red's friend can do something for Annie that no one else in her circle can do. So they agree to swap. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 1, 2017 17:40:06 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. Value is subjective - there is no such thing as intrinsic value. guest1, you are assuming that DeepBlueDiver was referring to objective value. Which cannot be the case, and it does not make sense to assume it is the case - in an exchange, there are TWO people giving something and getting something, and Diver is saying that EACH of them is giving up something of lesser value than what they gain. If either of them were not expecting to gain in some way from the transaction, there would not be a transaction (except at the point of a gun). Even if both agreed that the items exchanged are of precisely equal value, e.g. two absolutely-identical items, there is some cost simply in negotiating and executing the exchange, and since neither party benefits at all then that cost is a pure loss. Note however that there may be ancillary gains that aren't obvious to an outsider, enabling an exchange that seems uneven - an exchange of favors, preservation of friendly neighbors, passing on assets to children... |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 1, 2017 18:10:32 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? Yep. How many of them, and how trusted were they? |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on May 1, 2017 21:28:33 GMT
except diego created the robots in jeanne's time? Yep. How many of them, and how trusted were they? well, it seems like quite a few. and apparently diego had enough time and resources to make some frivolous ones. how many do you think it would take to watch the ravine? as for how trusted they were, it's hard to say, but the court allowed the robots to create more robots on their own and in the current time seem to leave the robots mostly to their own devices. i'd imagine the robots were as trusted as diego, since he created them to do whatever he wanted them to, and the court trusted diego enough to go through with his sketchy jealousy fueled plan to kill jeanne and her lover so... *shrug* |
|
|
|
Post by tc on May 4, 2017 11:12:50 GMT
...the fairies are practically children, despite their teenage bodies. With respect, I'd dispute that strongly - they're not children; they're *Fae*. A while back (when discussing Coyote) there was a bit of musing as to the extent human morality could be significantly rooted in the inherent frailty of our mortal bodies and finite lifespan (thus necessitating a certain amount of mutual co-operation to progress). The Fae don't have those restrictions (heck, Red and Ayilu could have been in existence for centuries) and as such do not develop similar moral distinctions. Put another way, the inherent shortcomings of the human condition necessitate a fairly rapid degree of self-awareness, learning and understanding in a way that immortal etheric beings do not**. Did she? I'd argue that's a rather subjective take on things. I'm not saying that wasn't the case, but I'd also argue an alternative interpretation; namely that Annie's awareness of Fae (or recently incarnated former Fae) understanding and morality meant she knew that what motivated the human participants (i.e. that what was done to Jeanne was a monstrous wrong that needed to be put right) would have no meaning to Ayilu, and as such it would only be fair to offer something in exchange that would mean something. I'd also argue that Red is ascribing selfish motivations precisely because she is a recently-incarnated Fae and is still inclined to approach things with that mindset. As such, while her fear and consequent anger may be justified, her analysis of Annie's motivations is likely wide of the mark, and cutting Annie off unilaterally is absolutely not justifiable from an audience POV. When I first argued about this several weeks ago, this kind of thing was actually the basis of my main complaint- that Red's verbal beatdown was bad writing. Up until this point Red has been treated as a comedic character- we don't take her very seriously. If we're all of a sudden supposed to take her seriously then then it's a jarring shift in tone at best. Again, I'd respectfully disagree there too. Case in point, my missus works for a cancer charity and by far the most successful campaigns they've recently had centred on a comedian talking seriously about the disease and the need to raise money to fight it. I'm no psychologist, but as a layman it makes complete sense to me that when someone we normally associate with levity and fun gets serious, the impact of what they're saying is greatly heightened as a result. well, it seems like quite a few. and apparently diego had enough time and resources to make some frivolous ones. how many do you think it would take to watch the ravine? Even Diego's robots couldn't act on an etheric level, which is a massively important aspect. [** - Apropos of nothing, this is dealt with beautifully in the late Sir Terry Pratchett's "Lords And Ladies"...] |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on May 4, 2017 13:30:41 GMT
Again, I'd respectfully disagree there too. Case in point, my missus works for a cancer charity and by far the most successful campaigns they've recently had centred on a comedian talking seriously about the disease and the need to raise money to fight it. I'm no psychologist, but as a layman it makes complete sense to me that when someone we normally associate with levity and fun gets serious, the impact of what they're saying is greatly heightened as a result. I don't necessarily believe the exact same things I did when this event first came up- several people have presented alternative explanations that make it more understandable depending on how you want to read the situation. I still think it comes across as rather jarring and any subtleties in the message seems to get lost in the knee-jerk response, and I can't really see what the end-game of this all is, but it's also possible that that was what Tom wanted, in which case rather than being bad writing he's accomplished exactly what he set out to do. |
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on May 4, 2017 17:06:56 GMT
tc , I think we do in fact agree! This strikes me as something of a semantic argument that I didn't give enough context to. By saying "practically children", I was alluding to the differences in psychology that you are discussing: now they are no long immortal, but very mortal, and rather unaware of their own mortality. Hence, children. (EDIT: At least, until that panel there was little awareness) As for the second point, my continued posts hopefully make it clear that my idea of the problem was Annie's lack of awareness, not any intentional malice on her part. Again, poorly phrased, and my apologies for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on May 4, 2017 19:58:10 GMT
perhaps "childlike"?
(this is definitely just semantics now)
|
|
