yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 26, 2017 5:32:28 GMT
"Tony has no personality"
...
Did we read different updates or something? Tony is quiet, patient, curious, bad at communicating, humorous, respectful, conscientious, and finds Surma fascinating. Just because he doesn't show much emotion in group settings does not mean he lacks a personality. It just means you have to go to where he is comfortable to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Oct 26, 2017 6:33:09 GMT
Does it always have to be a scintillating personality spark? Funnier and more relaxed sounds just fine to me.
(*Timber remains an unabashed fan of young outdoor Tony)
Except there seems to be literally nothing else to him. She might as well have fallen in love with a mannequin. Others have already said most of what I was going to say, but I've already typed it up, so: Tony is smart and scientifically minded. He's interested in her powers--not just in a cursory polite way, but enough to be experimenting and thinking about it steadily over the course of their trip. He's a bit of a mystery himself: why is he so closed off in a group but opens up with her? (I hear that extroverts often enjoy drawing people out of their shells.) As people have pointed out in previous threads, he doesn't coddle her but brings her in as an active participant in his work--and compliments her afterward. Unlike James, it seems, he's willing and able to take her with him on his trips. AND, he tells her her makeup looks sexy. Also, let's turn it around. Why was she ever attracted to James? He's got muscles, and he punched a guy who insulted her once. Sounds like a pretty shallow relationship to me. (I'm playing devil's advocate--I'm sure there was more to their relationship than that one incident plus physical attraction. But we haven't been shown much, so we really don't know what they did or didn't have going for them.) And finally, thanks to snipertom for linking the page where Surma summarizes her main requirement of a beau: "He doesn't hafta do anything. Just be here." Tony is very good at spending time with her. James isn't. (None of this excuses the way Surma handled things, by the way. Bringing New Boyfriend along when breaking up with Old Boyfriend is... insensitive, to say the least.) |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 26, 2017 6:48:06 GMT
Also I find this concept of she had to tell him immediately right then before he could set a bag down to be unreasonable. I find it further unreasonable she had to invite Tony to do it. She couldn't have asked to talk to him in private as soon as he got home? Or told Donny and Anja what happened and that when Eglamore arrived she wanted to speak with him alone so she could break it to him? You're assuming that Surma chose the timing and manner. Perhaps she intended to handle things the way you suggest, but James showed up earlier than expected, met Donald and Anja, and then walked around a corner and saw Surma and Tony... "Hon, I have to talk to him alone. Let me... he's right behind me, isn't he?" |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Oct 26, 2017 8:13:59 GMT
This thread is already 3 pages long after 14 hrs of the update, with a lot of posts being walls of text. Do someone knoes which has been the longest thread yet? Only counting page updates (and not general threads like the fanart, Speculation, etc ones), I had assumed it would be the PazKat updates when they first started dating: here and here. (And indeed, a seperate, non-page thread here about Kat being gay is higher than almost all other threads outside the fanart ones) However doing a forum search for threads with over 200 replies, the threads around Tony's return and immediate cruelty to Annie had a similar amount of posts: removing makeup, not giving her books, demoted, giving up Renard, and cutting her hair. However the thread with the most replies (maybe because it also turned into a poll) was in the LoveBoat saga, at the first apperence of Jenny, and a huge debate as to whether she was actually Zimmy or not. So the conclusion is that the forum cares more about Zimmy than either Kat or Tony! Hurrah! Interestingly, one of the only other threads, and one of the few older ones, that reached over 200 posts was here, about the revelation that Surma tricked Renard into coming to the court. I must admit I was not expecting that thread to be up there, but I guess it must have been a huge revelation at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 26, 2017 8:25:01 GMT
Also I find this concept of she had to tell him immediately right then before he could set a bag down to be unreasonable. I find ti further unreasonable she had to invite Tony to do it. She couldn't have asked to talk to him in private as soona s he got home? Um, no. I mean she could have, but she definitely shouldn't have. Sure Surma has that whole fire magic thing going for her and James seems chill, so Id argue she doesn't actually have to worry, but she should. Even in a fantasy world; you don't tell big muscular men you're ending things with them to be with someone else in private. You do it in public, with someone who you trust around and preferably some netural people around who can read the situation fairly. Tony should be there to support Surma, should it go badly it is something he has to deal with, she is his beau. I mean James feelings and pride might be pricked, but having wittiness to possibly prevent or de-escalate a situation is much more important. Ending a relationship isn't just about being polite and trying to spare the other person's feelings, it's largely about staying safe. People can react very poorly to this kinda thing. |
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Oct 26, 2017 11:31:07 GMT
There's absolutely nothing to suggest James is some abusive jerk who'd punch Surma's lights out if she upset him.
|
|
|
|
Post by watermist on Oct 26, 2017 11:51:49 GMT
Hi, guys. I just wanted to add another element to this discussion, one that I haven't seen mentioned yet. (If somebody else already said it and I missed it, my bad.) Yes, Surma isn't exactly faithful to Eglamore -- she cheated on James with Tony, as far as we know. However, James himself isn't exactly faithful, either. Oh sure, he's probably physically faithful, but emotionally faithful? Nuh-huh. Remember Jones? Specifically, this page. Look at Eglamore's clothes -- this flashback of Jones' very likely happened right after the one we're seeing right now. Besides, Surma has never liked Jones, while James has always had a rather... close relationship with Jones. While I'll be quick to call out Surma on her less-than-stellar actions, Eggs isn't getting off scoot-free, either. |
|
|
|
Post by ohthatone on Oct 26, 2017 12:55:08 GMT
Let me guess, he loses his temper and punches Tony for messing around with his girlfriend behind his back, forgetting about his newfound strength, and ends up accidentally putting Tony in the hospital. This will make him the bigger jerk in this situation (since putting someone in the hospital is worse than cheating), retroactively justifying Surma's, Tony's, Annie's, and the narrative itself's appalling treatment of him. Practically everything I learn about this guy just makes me feel more and more sorry for him. How DARE he not have the perfect and most convenient (for them) reaction to his friend hooking up with the love of his life behind his back?? To the Garbage Character Bin with him! Or maybe that won't happen, and I'm just a cranky windbag  Don't forget, Tony knows Kung Fu (Judo, rather) I think if James decides to get violent, Tony will be able to counter, taking James totally by surprise. So not only does Tony get his girlfriend, he probably gets a good serving of humble pie. With a side of resentment.
For as much as we've seen James, we know very little about him, so it's hard to feel one way or the other about him. maybe an Eglamore-centric chapter is coming?
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Oct 26, 2017 13:45:44 GMT
There's absolutely nothing to suggest James is some abusive jerk who'd punch Surma's lights out if she upset him. There isn't anything to suggest he isn't. But more importantly there is definitely stuff to suggest he's a hothead who punches people when he's emotional/angry. Most women I know break up with guys in well lit public areas during the day, on purpose, for their own safetey, so there's that |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 26, 2017 14:17:27 GMT
Hi, guys. I just wanted to add another element to this discussion, one that I haven't seen mentioned yet. (If somebody else already said it and I missed it, my bad.) Yes, Surma isn't exactly faithful to Eglamore -- she cheated on James with Tony, as far as we know. However, James himself isn't exactly faithful, either. Oh sure, he's probably physically faithful, but emotionally faithful? Nuh-huh. Remember Jones? Specifically, this page. Look at Eglamore's clothes -- this flashback of Jones' very likely happened right after the one we're seeing right now. Besides, Surma has never liked Jones, while James has always had a rather... close relationship with Jones. While I'll be quick to call out Surma on her less-than-stellar actions, Eggs isn't getting off scoot-free, either. Uh, that takes place after Surma broke up with Eggs. And while emotional unavailability can be bad for a relationship, it's not in the same league as cheating. Not even close. There's absolutely nothing to suggest James is some abusive jerk who'd punch Surma's lights out if she upset him. There isn't anything to suggest he isn't. That's not an argument. There's also isn't anything to suggest James can't turn into a frog when no one's looking, but it's a pretty safe bet he can't. We need proof for our claims and suppositions. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 26, 2017 15:07:03 GMT
Uh, that takes place after Surma broke up with Eggs. And while emotional unavailability can be bad for a relationship, it's not in the same league as cheating. Not even close. Without a good depiction of James's normal interactions with Jones and Surma, it can be hard to tell how justified Surma is in breaking things off. Suppose James takes all his problems to Jones, and refuses to let Surma help him deal with them. Surma sees him get worried, depressed, angry, etc, but he tells her he's fine. Instead, he goes to Jones, and she comforts and advises him. James canonically is making all these sacrifices and training trips for Surma's sake, but he doesn't listen to what she actually wants from him. So Surma ends up emotionally shut out from his life, and her own desires are being ignored. It would be one thing if James kept his problems to himself, and didn't seek outside aid. But because he goes to Jones, that is in fact, emotional infidelity. Whether the scenario is canon or not remains to be seen, but it's a definite possibility that fits with what we have seen so far. |
|
|
|
Post by rinabean on Oct 26, 2017 15:57:22 GMT
She kissed Tony before breaking up with Eglamore. Deciding your gonna tell him your leaving at the earliest convenience isn't the same as actually dumping someone. So yes, unless we learn they agreed to not be exclusive, she's a cheater. She could have been waiting months and she probably had no way at all to contact him. I don't think he owns her life like that, they're not even married. Also I find this concept of she had to tell him immediately right then before he could set a bag down to be unreasonable. I find ti further unreasonable she had to invite Tony to do it. She couldn't have asked to talk to him in private as soona s he got home? Or told Donny and Anja what happened and that when Eglamore arrived she wanted to speak with him alone so she could break it to him? Refusing to do normal things like kissing him and demanding to speak in private would have been just as uncomfortable. Also we saw this situation before when Parley came back from training, what if Smitty was going to break up with her? Everyone would have been there unless he was going to humiliate her by acting like he didn't love her or lead her on by pretending he still did, it's just how it is. This is the most honest and quickest and therefore kindest way to do it. As far as we know, Surma and Eglamore were friends before they were dating. I think that's what bugs me about this. Dumping someone in this fashion seems to be needlessly mean and insensitive to the other person. Just in general, there are better kinder ways to dump someone. So I'm going to assume Surma is being intentionally callous here until shown otherwise. Maybe she's been harboring resentment for Eglamore being gone, feels her feelings have been neglected so she's disregarding his at the moment? I don't know. It's definitely dulled the polish on her character for me. I can't see anything she could have done better with all of the above taken into account. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 26, 2017 16:23:28 GMT
There's absolutely nothing to suggest James is some abusive jerk who'd punch Surma's lights out if she upset him. I doubt James is, he seems like a good person, but just him punching out someone "for Surmas sake" is actually a pretty big warning sign. I get that violence towards a bully is attractive, but violence is violence and just because it's towards someone who deserves it today doesn't mean it will always be. That's not an argument. There's also isn't anything to suggest James can't turn into a frog when no one's looking, but it's a pretty safe bet he can't. We need proof for our claims and suppositions. How many men have yelled/assaulted women when they get dumped? How many men turn into frogs? You can't just compare something you don't think will happen to something that definitely won't happen and say "both are ridiculously" as if that's a real point. Men have attacked women when dumped. Men never turned into frogs. Being worried and taking steps to prevent a potential scene is always a good idea for a women, more so of your former beau has a history of violence, which James does. I get it, it seems like Surma cheated and that's bad. James seems nice so he probably isn't about to go all alpha dog. That doesn't mean everyone should assume James is a super hero that's only capable of handling emotional turmoil perfectly. In fact, he seems to me kinda dickish about respecting feelings he doesn't agree with. But to boil it down, men attack women all the time, and James has punched someone out when upset. I dunno about you're relationships, but that's more then enough to warrant a public dump in my experience. Edit: Also women don't need a special reason to break up with men in public in my opinion. Them being men is enough. Men die of heart attacks, women die of men. The history of men is the proof/argument for "he might attack Surma". He didn't need to punch someone else who wasn't a physical threat for that to be vaild, but he also did that. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 26, 2017 17:55:11 GMT
Now I'm a little confused. I see many here claiming to be glad that the characters aren't cookie cutter saint caricatures, but then I see attempts made to suggest Surma isn't in the wrong. Nothing wrong with enjoying an immoral/ammoral character, but if you have to rationalize/justify why ones behavior is okay, that's usually a sign of them being in the wrong to begin with. She could have been waiting months and she probably had no way at all to contact him. I don't think he owns her life like that, they're not even married. Ehh. Isn't the point of going steady even without being married that you agree to be exclusive to one person though? I mean if one is going to experiment with other potential dates/partners, then why not establish a casual relationship then? How many men have yelled/assaulted women when they get dumped? How many men turn into frogs? You can't just compare something you don't think will happen to something that definitely won't happen and say "both are ridiculously" as if that's a real point. Men have attacked women when dumped. Men never turned into frogs. Being worried and taking steps to prevent a potential scene is always a good idea for a women, more so of your former beau has a history of violence, which James does. I get it, it seems like Surma cheated and that's bad. James seems nice so he probably isn't about to go all alpha dog. That doesn't mean everyone should assume James is a super hero that's only capable of handling emotional turmoil perfectly. In fact, he seems to me kinda dickish about respecting feelings he doesn't agree with. But to boil it down, men attack women all the time, and James has punched someone out when upset. I dunno about you're relationships, but that's more then enough to warrant a public dump in my experience. And sometimes it's the female half who's in the moral wrong, which we have definitive proof with Surma who mislead Renard for the purpose of him being captured. Heck while Tony bears more criticism for Annie as he is still around, thus able to potentially make good with Annie, Surma needs to be held accountable to some degree. Namely overestimating Tony's more relaxed nature and expecting him not to being too emotionally compromised as a parent and as I stated in regards to Tony, let whatever pride keeping them distant from the Donlan preventing them to get in touch with them to be there sooner for Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 26, 2017 18:53:23 GMT
And sometimes it's the female half who's in the moral wrong, which we have definitive proof with Surma who mislead Renard for the purpose of him being captured. Heck while Tony bears more criticism for Annie as he is still around, thus able to potentially make good with Annie, Surma needs to be held accountable to some degree. Namely overestimating Tony's more relaxed nature and expecting him not to being too emotionally compromised as a parent and as I stated in regards to Tony, let whatever pride keeping them distant from the Donlan preventing them to get in touch with them to be there sooner for Annie. Yes, Surma and Tony fucked up and didn't do right by Annie. But Surma not being able to see the future doesn't mean she handled this situation poorly. Yes she did a bad thing, and has done other bad things to Renard and others in the past, and yes Tony made some poor choices after this event, and likely before this as well. That doesn't mean she handled falling for someone else and dumping her old guy wrong. That's a messed up situation, but she has handled it as maturely as possible, so far at least. I get that falling for someone while with someone else isn't ideal and is very cruel to the ditched party. But dating, love and being young is messy. This happens, and it happening doesn't make any of the three a monster. Surma doesn't have to and shouldn't think of herself as a bad person who needs to do right by James. She is allowed to fall in love with Tony. She fell for someone else and needs to explain that to the person she no longer wants, but beyond that she doesn't owe James any sort of interaction. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 26, 2017 19:13:38 GMT
I think this would be a boring comic if everyone was perfectly behaved and rational all the time don't you? My complaints aren't really with Tony and Surma as it does fit their characters. I'm just more iffy on the claim that every single real life person has done so. True, any person is imperfect, but I question the idea claiming that people in real life never make the right/good choices. Again, I'm just addressing the claim that everyone does it, not the choices made by the fictional characters.Really I was merely going off on a tangent to suggest that claiming that people always make the wrong choices is just as much a falsehood as suggesting that they are perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Oct 26, 2017 19:13:51 GMT
FYI I don't think that arguing about who's in the right is going to lead anyone anywhere. It's clear that everyone has very strong views about cheating vs safety vs needy and abusive partners vs a whole bunch of (understandably) emotive topics, and I don't see that any of that is going to lead to resolution.
HOWEVER:
I think there's a few things we've learnt that are actually quite interesting and worth talking about:
We've seen the headstrong, impulsive and <i>brave</i> (and fiery) side of Surma before. Now we're seeing the headstrong, impulsive, irrational and risk-taking side of Surma. We've also seen the manipulative side of Surma before- this is a bit different, I think. We've also seen Surma as a mother, who in comparison is quite passive and washed out, when you think about it.
We've seen the closed, robotic side of Tony before. We've also seen the 'when a passive quiet person loses their shit and is an asshole to their child' Tony. Now we've seen the more laid back and funny side of Tony.
I imagine we're going to see a new side of Eggers next. We've seen the jock Eggers, the heroic Eggers, the insecure Eggers, the needy Eggers, the recklessly aggro Eggers and the 'trying to be fatherly' Eggers.
TBH for most of this chapter I've been in the doubtful and unconvinced camp but I'm starting to come around. Part of that is because I've reread some of the older chapters- I'd suggest having a read back on previous looks at all 3 of those characters...
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Oct 26, 2017 19:16:11 GMT
Again, I'm just addressing the claim that everyone does it, not the choices made by the fictional characters. Has anyone made the claim that cheating is ok, or that cheating is something that everyone does? because I'm pretty sure I've read this entire thread and no-one has argued this? Cheating is definitely not ubiquitous. And cheating while I understand it I think I made clear from my POV is still not *right*. I'm fairly certain everyone else has clarified that that's what they meant too? |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 26, 2017 19:37:29 GMT
Again, I'm just addressing the claim that everyone does it, not the choices made by the fictional characters. Has anyone made the claim that cheating is ok, or that cheating is something that everyone does? because I'm pretty sure I've read this entire thread and no-one has argued this? Cheating is definitely not ubiquitous. And cheating while I understand it I think I made clear from my POV is still not *right*. I'm fairly certain everyone else has clarified that that's what they meant too? Bold Text 1. Maybe not, but you have people in general (some on the forum may or possibly may not be in this category) who tend to operate with the notion that there's no such thing as a good person (i.e. a person who strives to do right by others, but not perfect of course). But to take a quote from earlier: That kind of strikes me as suggesting that all person in the dating field are incapable of avoiding that particular mistake. I'm fine with how the story is going since yeah the two in question as well as the main cast has screwed up, I'm just question the idea that real people don't make sensible/good/smart choices at all. Bold Text 2. Maybe, but I see people mainly suggesting that Surma was: A: Never exclusive (or claiming to be anyway) to James or... B: Merely feared breaking up with him for fear of violent rebuttal as opposed to the possibility that she might simply not have cared as much about his feelings. Basically reads to me as suggesting that the idea of her being apathetic to his feelings is out of the question, and to be fair maybe despite her more amoral nature she was afraid to hurt him, but it's not entirely implausible if she wasn't concerned with the possibility. Plus... C: There's the comments suggesting that it's not cheating if a couple in question aren't married, but again why choose to go steady then when it seems like a more open form of casual dating would serve some people's needs better? |
|
|
|
Post by ohthatone on Oct 26, 2017 20:26:22 GMT
Edit: Also women don't need a special reason to break up with men in public in my opinion. Them being men is enough. Men die of heart attacks, women die of men. The history of men is the proof/argument for "he might attack Surma". He didn't need to punch someone else who wasn't a physical threat for that to be vaild, but he also did that. Whoa, this is a bit much, don't you think? yes, some men take their anger out on women, but some women do the same. Are you going to try to argue that if Parley and Smitty broke up, Parley would have to do it in public for fear of Smitty? Even before her training? Or Anja for fear of Donnie? Or Janet for fear of Winsbury? I'm not saying this isn't possible James will get violent. he's been away a long time. No one knows how powerful he is right now. maybe fresh out of training he's all jacked up on testosterone and coffee and could be a legitimate threat--again we just don't know enough of his character. but the broad paintbrush of ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT TOWARDS WOMEN IF GIVEN THE CHANCE is kinda much.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Oct 26, 2017 21:25:41 GMT
Whoa, this is a bit much, don't you think? yes, some men take their anger out on women, but some women do the same. Are you going to try to argue that if Parley and Smitty broke up, Parley would have to do it in public for fear of Smitty? Even before her training? Or Anja for fear of Donnie? Or Janet for fear of Winsbury? I'm not saying this isn't possible James will get violent. he's been away a long time. No one knows how powerful he is right now. maybe fresh out of training he's all jacked up on testosterone and coffee and could be a legitimate threat--again we just don't know enough of his character. but the broad paintbrush of ALL MEN ARE VIOLENT TOWARDS WOMEN IF GIVEN THE CHANCE is kinda much. Disclaimer: I don't believe for a minute that James would be violent with Surma. Everything we know about his personality so far goes against it, and I'm pretty sure Surma knows that. I think people are totally overanalyzing this scene and finding subtext where the author never meant to put it. Now about the more generic stuff. It's not that all men are violent towards women. It's that all men have the potential of being violent, from the perspective of women who can't read peoples minds. How you assess a potential threat as a person has a lot to do with your personal experience, and the experiences of people close to you. About two-thirds of my female friends have been victims of assault by men in some way, some several times. That's a lot. Not some weirdo in the street, note. It's almost always boyfriends, coworkers, and so on, people who started out friendly, who looked like normal guys, and got some measure of trust from them, then proceeded to abuse that trust. When I was in third grade, one of my primary school classmates was raped by the goddamn baker at age eight. She went there every day to buy bread for the family. He smiled at her. He was a nice and friendly adult who knew her parents, and everything was normal and safe until suddenly it wasn't. You can't tell. You can't tell until you know someone really well, and how many people do you know really well? You'd be surprised how many men will be perfectly nice until their girlfriend tries to leave. That's because deep down, they think dating is the same as owning. So they cherish you for staying, and punish you for leaving, like some unruly pet. I don't have much break up experience myself, but I'm on guard with almost every man I interact with. It's not a judgment on that man's character, it's just me protecting myself in a situation where I don't have all the facts. Once you know for sure he's an asshole it's usually too late to do much about it. Of course women can take their anger out on men too, but in practice they rarely dare do that in a physical way. It's a lot more difficult for a woman to physically intimidate a man than the reverse. Most women aren't Parley. In the vast majority of cases, when a woman is hit by a man, she will be scared, because she won't think that she'll be able to fight back. Most men won't be scared into submission when a woman hits them. They'll be angry, not terrified. They might not hit back, but they know they can (and it's much more related to what your culture tells you about your strength than your actual physical strength). That's why there are a lot more abused women than abused men. Not because women are better or something, but simply because the balance of power doesn't go in that direction. Humans are lazy and risk averse. They're a lot more likely to do something if they believe they have a high chance of success. A man who hits a woman to get what he wants has much higher chances of success than the reverse. A woman who hits a man has a much higher risk of being slapped back than the reverse. It's as simple as that. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 26, 2017 21:34:03 GMT
As an aside, women tend to initiate domestic violence more often than men. www.aeesq.com/2017/03/23/women-initiate-domestic-violence/But let's not descend into going back and forth on whether the one page we see is Surma taking precautions, doing the mature thing, or just accidentally ending up in this weird confrontation. We just don't know. We need more context before we can say for sure which scenario we are seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by kukapetal on Oct 26, 2017 21:45:23 GMT
Most people don't take such an extreme view of men and their potential for violence that they're afraid to tell their male acquaintances bad news in private for fear of suddenly being turned into a punching bag. I'd wager such people are in the minority. So yeah, it seems a bit odd that Surma would take that view. Regardless of whether they have the capability or not, most people don't view their male friends, partners and acquaintances as violent psychos just waiting to snap, so yeah, I'm still going to need to see some evidence if either Surma believing such a thing (though if she did, why wouldn't she be terrified of being alone with Tony for weeks and weeks?) or James giving her reason to think that of him personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 26, 2017 21:49:32 GMT
That and I think it can't be stressed enough that some women are capable of being immoral/amoral and aren't always misunderstood/misguided saints. And sometimes it's the female half who's in the moral wrong, which we have definitive proof with Surma who mislead Renard for the purpose of him being captured. Heck while Tony bears more criticism for Annie as he is still around, thus able to potentially make good with Annie, Surma needs to be held accountable to some degree. Namely overestimating Tony's more relaxed nature and expecting him not to being too emotionally compromised as a parent and as I stated in regards to Tony, let whatever pride keeping them distant from the Donlan preventing them to get in touch with them to be there sooner for Annie. Yes, Surma and Tony fucked up and didn't do right by Annie. But Surma not being able to see the future doesn't mean she handled this situation poorly. Yes she did a bad thing, and has done other bad things to Renard and others in the past, and yes Tony made some poor choices after this event, and likely before this as well. That doesn't mean she handled falling for someone else and dumping her old guy wrong. To be fair we may learn more about Surma's handling of Annie and even things regarding her Pre-Tony like misleading Renard, but to give my take: 1. I'm not merely suggesting Surma was a bad parent because she didn't read the future, but because unless she merely overestimated Tony, then the alternative is that she didn't concern herself with how her death would affect his parenting. 2. Whether it's because of lack of information on the comic's part or bad memory on my part, is there any sign that Surma was either: A: Forced into manipulating Renard or... B: Regretted doing so after? |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Oct 26, 2017 21:51:55 GMT
i'm also in the camp of "no one's really the bad guy here so far, just a bunch of messy humans" One of my favourite Tom Siddell quotes:  |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 26, 2017 22:51:01 GMT
Are we seriously arguing that Surma broke up with Eglamore in public because he's abusive and she's afraid of him?? I think that's frankly ridiculous. A) This isn't that type of comic. B) He isn't that type of character, from literally anything we have seen so far. C) This really, REALLY isn't that type of comic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jumjatree on Oct 26, 2017 23:27:11 GMT
Personally, this screams "college break-up" to me. It's pretty common for people going off to college to break off their long distance relationship after a couple weeks away from them. I know a lot of people who have broken up with their highschool years long relationship after they've met someone else and hung out with them for a week or two. It's not that they didn't care for them; it was kinda just that point in their life.
We've seen flashbacks suggesting that Surma may have not been that emotionally involved in the relationship as James has. I think that if it wasn't Tony it could've been someone else. Surma and Tony enjoy each other's company; they're not in love yet. I think Surma just realized she wasn't that into James other than attraction or just wanted to see what else was out there. Surma's method of breaking up with him (and also cheating) was shitty but we've know Surma to be impulsive and dismissive of other's (Renard, Anja, etc.) I personally like seeing more of her negative traits after seeing her motherly kind side for a majority of the comic (excluding the flashback with Renard).
Overall, I'm just hoping that this whole story about Annie's parents encourages her to confront her father. I hope Annie gets the closure she needs; I don't care if it's her excluding him from her life or reconnecting with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Oct 26, 2017 23:57:11 GMT
Most people don't take such an extreme view of men and their potential for violence that they're afraid to tell their male acquaintances bad news in private for fear of suddenly being turned into a punching bag. I'd wager such people are in the minority. Surma does not look afraid at all and no I don't think this entire discussion is relevant to the story. But some readers have that stance (to not break up in private), and when a woman tells you she would only break up in public, that has probably roots in her personal experience with men rather than an "extreme view of men". When something bad happens to you or someone close to you, that danger becomes more real and you take more active steps to avoid it. And boyfriends who freak out at break-up are not the majority but also really not that rare. Well, I've seen widely different numbers in other studies. I'm not dismissing this, but I'm also not accepting it as undoubtedly true before more fact-checking. The blog of a lawyer trying to attract divorce clients is hardly an independent source. After a primary check of his references, I have: one study that was mainly about adolescents, another conducted by a masculinist non-profit, and a third one referring to a 17 years old Independent article, itself referring to a study I could only find summaries about, that apparently used data from various unnamed sources dating "back to 1972". I will investigate these numbers further, but so far I'm not convinced there is anything groundbreaking about it, except that this guy is probably a good choice if you're a man who wants custody of the children. Men under-report more than women, but women under-report abuse too. The estimates are about 25% of domestic violence towards women reported to the police (around 10% for men). This rate has been increasing recently, but still the difference in reporting rate is not actually that huge. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 27, 2017 0:27:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Oct 27, 2017 0:43:37 GMT
Are we seriously arguing that Surma broke up with Eglamore in public because he's abusive and she's afraid of him?? I think that's frankly ridiculous. A) This isn't that type of comic. B) He isn't that type of character, from literally anything we have seen so far. C) This really, REALLY isn't that type of comic. Yeah... I gotta agree that the discussion is a HUGE leap. Given the timing and IRL social context, I'm not surprised at it, but geez. We have exactly zero information how this particular arrangement came about, so saying "Surma set it up" is 100% speculation, and we have lines of evidence that Surma has thus far viewed James in a favorable light. No evidence besides him punching a guy for getting uppity that he is particularly prone to violence, and absolutely no evidence that he is violent towards his friends. The only person of these five that we can imagine being under threat from him is Tony. Seriously. |
|
