|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 0:10:59 GMT
I'm asking why more couples in general, especially adults (as age doesn't always gauge one's ability to think or behave) don't make use of the option to go the casual route as it allows them to try different partners legitimately. I dunno. Me and my beau dated casually before we entered our current relationship. I also think it is the smart course. I can also tell you I didn't think that way when I was screwing around in highschool. Life is a learning curve. I mean that flips both ways. Would you want to stay in a relationship that isn't meeting your needs when you can see a way to fill those needs? Are other people feelings more important then the personal prusit of happiness? How much more important, what's the limit? Where do we draw the line on compromising personal happiness for the sake if other people feelings? I dunno about that, but I don't see Surma or Tony making this mistake again. They do get married, so I think they learned a lesson or were meant for each other. But I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common pattern in James dating life. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 28, 2017 0:12:28 GMT
I'm also wondering if he DID do what you suggested - he removed himself from her life. Without leaving her in the custody of people who could give what he couldn't is what I'm more bothered by really. Money and education is important, but so is social skills as well. Would you want to stay in a relationship that isn't meeting your needs when you can see a way to fill those needs? Are other people feelings more important then the personal prusit of happiness? How much more important, what's the limit? Where do we draw the line on compromising personal happiness for the sake if other people feelings? I get that, but even the relationships that work and last decades are still going to have hard ship that may equal the problems between Surma and James or surpass them. And the catch of having agency and the ability to consent to a relationship is accepting that things aren't always going to be kisses, hugs, sex and smiles. If the extent of the relationship is a couple going steady, the person staying behind can just break up with the person taking off for an unspecified amount of time if long distance is out of the question. So choosing not to kind of puts some blame on the partner as well. Or for that matter what would you consider if any to be the line between a problem you have to work through and one that merits ending the relationship? |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 0:32:31 GMT
I get that, but even the relationships that work and last decades are still going to have hard ship that may equal the problems between Surma and James or surpass them. And the catch of having agency and the ability to consent to a relationship is accepting that things aren't always going to be kisses, hugs, sex and smiles. But it's also about provided hugs kisses sex and smiles to the degree the other party needs. Yes expecting to only have kisses and smiles is wrong. But not being satisfied with the amount of hugs and sex you get is also vaild, even if you thought you would be when you started the realtionship . I don't see why one or the other means your can't decide to end it whenever you want, regardless of the physical location and reachablilty of the other party. Anyone is entitled to end any realtionship they want to when they want to, period. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 28, 2017 0:40:18 GMT
I don't see why one or the other means your can't decide to end it whenever you want, regardless of the physical location and reachablilty of the other party. Anyone is entitled to end any realtionship they want to when they want to, period. Ok, but why not just break it off before the other goes on an unbearably long trip? |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 0:43:43 GMT
Or for that matter what would you consider if any to be the line between a problem you have to work through and one that merits ending the relationship? You don't have to work through anything. You don't owe your partner a relationship. You don't have to have a great reason to be done with a relationship. If you want to work through distance, awesome and more power to you. If you want to end it because the distance is to much, also equally vaild. Same thing for there taste in music, or there veiws on God or politics. Relationships should end when abuse is present, that isn't something I think can be worked through. But again, I think there to be very few things that "merit" ending it no matter what. It all about what each individual wants. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 0:44:25 GMT
I don't see why one or the other means your can't decide to end it whenever you want, regardless of the physical location and reachablilty of the other party. Anyone is entitled to end any realtionship they want to when they want to, period. Ok, but why not just break it off before the other goes on an unbearably long trip? Because they didn't think the distance would be an issue until it was. Because she didn't want to break up with him then. Because she is inexperienced. Because she wasn't sure what to do. Because she hopes her feelings about the situation would change. Because gamma Ray's. |
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli33 on Oct 28, 2017 1:13:36 GMT
We cannot act like relationships and the creating/breaking of are all rational. Similarly we cannot act like parenting is rational either - especially in the case of a situation like Tony's.
"Why not this" "why not that". "They could have just done this" "they coud have just done that".
Would that life were so easy, weren't it? Would that a chorus of voices could come and make all of our life decisions for us, whenever we came to a brutally difficult crossroads.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the choices made, the actions taken are OKAY. I don't think anyone is claiming that they were the best way to handle the situation, or even a good way to handle the situation, or in Tony's case even a *completely sensible* way to handle the situation (in terms of running away from his daughter).
What we are saying is that they are understandable, and that these are characters to empathize with, and that sitting in judgement of them so is missing the point of tragedy. Pointing out that tragic heroes are flawed human beings who could have done things better is basic as hell, because that is the point of tragedy. They make mistakes in ways that we as readers can empathize with, and thus we connect to them.
It's like saying "Macbeth should have done things differently" or "Odysseus was a bad captain cause he got all his men killed".
Yeah. Yes. No goddamned kidding.
That's what makes the stories great. That's what makes the characters great.
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 28, 2017 1:33:23 GMT
That's what makes the stories great. That's what makes the characters great. Honestly I'm really not bothered by the characters themselves having done it, but rather those who suggest that cheating in general isn't wrong. Being understanding about it and forgiving a real person is one thing, but condoning it is a no-no. I only bring up the characters to better explain my point. And since I'm making this post, I'm just going to delete my previous one and repost it here to maxptc. You don't have to work through anything. The abuse thing goes without saying of course. Though important things in life rarely come without work or struggle though. Why should a successful relationships of the romance or platonic variety be an exception? Heck in the case of the story, even if Tony found a way to save Surma from her death, can you honestly say that they wouldn't find any hardships that would make the long distance problem with James feel like a cake walk? I'm willing to believe that Surma does see Tony as possibly the one and might feel he's important enough to endure any problems. That said, it means James and even a friendship with him may not be so important. But even if that's the case? I wouldn't want to put a potential new love interest even if they didn't mind it, in the position of being a cheater as well or to tarnish a potentially long lasting relationship with cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 1:45:23 GMT
Edit-Moved this to try to cut down on my fourm pollution. You don't have to work through anything. The abuse thing goes without saying of course. Though important things in life rarely come without work or struggle though. Why should a successful relationships of the romance or platonic variety be an exception? Heck in the case of the story, even if Tony found a way to save Surma from her death, can you honestly say that they wouldn't find any hardships that would make the long distance problem with James feel like a cake walk? True, but that doesn't mean you have to struggle or work on every realtionship. We get to choose which things are worth suffering for and which things are not. True some of the best things in life only come from suffering and work, and you should work at those. But sometimes suffering and working isn't more then suffering and working for nothing. Which was the case for James and Surma? We don't get to know, because she decided the effort/issues of being with James weren't worth ignoring her feelings for Tony. Sure if Surma put in more suffering maybe she could coup. But is it worth the risk of suffering for nothing when another option presents itself, one where the suffering to getting touched ratio is something she is more comfortable with? I'm willing to believe that Surma does see Tony as possibly the one and might feel he's important enough to endure any problems. That said, it means James and even a friendship with him may not be so important. But even if that's the case? I wouldn't want to put a potential new love interest even if they didn't mind it, in the position of being a cheater as well or to tarnish a potentially long lasting relationship with cheating. That is very understandable. You seem kind, loyal and I'd bet your word is as good as gold. You care about and act in response to peoples feelings. These are potive quailties. If all the characters in this comic shared those traits with you, I'd find somthing else to read. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 28, 2017 1:50:11 GMT
If all the characters in this comic shared those traits with you, I'd find somthing else to read. Well like I said before, I'm fine with the story's approach* as is. I merely make the argument for real world relationships in general. *That said, I hope anyway that Tom wouldn't condone or recommend their approach to real couples or couples to be. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 28, 2017 1:58:07 GMT
That's what makes the stories great. That's what makes the characters great. Honestly I'm really not bothered by the characters themselves having done it, but rather those who suggest that cheating in general isn't wrong. Being understanding about it and forgiving a real person is one thing, but condoning it is a no-no. I only bring up the characters to better explain my point. And since I'm making this post, I'm just going to delete my previous one and repost it here to maxptc. You don't have to work through anything. The abuse thing goes without saying of course. Though important things in life rarely come without work or struggle though. Why should a successful relationships of the romance or platonic variety be an exception? Heck in the case of the story, even if Tony found a way to save Surma from her death, can you honestly say that they wouldn't find any hardships that would make the long distance problem with James feel like a cake walk? I'm willing to believe that Surma does see Tony as possibly the one and might feel he's important enough to endure any problems. That said, it means James and even a friendship with him may not be so important. But even if that's the case? I wouldn't want to put a potential new love interest even if they didn't mind it, in the position of being a cheater as well or to tarnish a potentially long lasting relationship with cheating. The sense I get is, distance was only part of the problem Surma had with her relationship with James. He might not have respected her as an equal, for all the affection he did feel for her. Or perhaps she found he was less interesting to her, for all that he was a nice guy. It might not occur to her that they should break up, since he is nice, and she does like him on some level. And physical affection is pleasant. But once she sees an alternative, someone who provides the things that were lacking in her relationship with James, then she realizes she does want to break up. I do wonder if Tony being so different once he is comfortable in the jungle added some time pressure to her decision. Like, if she didn't do something, he would go back to the court and she would miss her chance. |
|
|
|
Post by vankersabra17 on Oct 28, 2017 1:59:41 GMT
Imagine you love someone deeply. Now imagine this person you trusted and adored betrayals you for the pathetic reason of you not being around. And then picture this person breaking up with you in public, in front of your friends and the person they cheated on you with. Not showing remorse, but defiance, not even an apology. It's humiliating. And there are still people crucifying James for acting like he did? Are you serious? What a bunch of BS. Violence is not the answer? Quite frankly... Punching Tony wouldn't even compare to the utter betrayal Surma did. She's such a weak-minded heartless bastard. But I still hope James just walk away. Surma dosen't deserve him. Both Tony and her are just not worth it. I'm hopping James is the one to tell Surma to get lost. Because she sure as hell deserves to hear that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Oct 28, 2017 2:41:59 GMT
*That said, I hope anyway that Tom wouldn't condone or recommend their approach to real couples or couples to be. A writer isn't and shouldn't be the moral police.  Otherwise you get art on the level of a didactic pamphlet. Us readers, on the other hand, can take the art as a sorting algorithm for what we regard as virtue, flaw, or even sin. That's the true, rarely tapped power of creative work, like the Bhagavata Purana, which give us an endless palette of elevated human existence and archetypes to pick from and orient ourselves towards. That's the power of myth, the power of works such as the Lord of the Rings. Let ourselves experience more than just our life, and build upon the commonalities and varieties in the story. I've been in Surma's position, I've been in Eglamore's position, I've been in Tony's position but with my own personal variations on the theme. I know how I felt as a cheater, it was mortifying and I didn't know what I was doing. It felt so terrible that I vowed never to do that again - even though it later led to discovering that I was deeply wired as polyamorous, so I was in fact castigating myself for an aspect of my most innate nature. I have never cheated again! The way Surma handled this situation was so much better than I personally have handled mine, that I have to laugh - thinking how you guys would talk about me if you knew. We can recognize our own flaws in flawed characters, and reconcile with them. Decide what we don't want to be, or rationalize them away, or judge them as something we oh never would ever. Yeah, sure. Maybe not this particular badness, so you can feel good judging and elevating yourself above it. Approaching art as an audience member of the Jerry Springer show is in poor taste; unproductive and ultimately fruitless. It's a waste, especially when the art holds in itself the potential for personal catharsis. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Oct 28, 2017 2:44:48 GMT
<fast rewind with squeaky backwards voices to just before this scene started>
"James, welcome back. I hope your training was productive. There's something I have to tell you, so why don't you put your bag down."
"Hey, what's up with calling me James? And why do I have to put my bag down?"
"Well, you know what they say, sometimes there are things you just shouldn't say to someone before they put their bags down, it's just better that way."
"... Who are 'they' and what do they say this about?"
"Look, there are things. Bag things. And not bag things. To say. And you shouldn't mix them up. What I'm trying to say is..."
"Why don't you say whatever it is you have to say and then I decide whether I want to put my bag down for it."
"James, please don't be difficult about this. It's just a bag, you were going to put it down, weren't you?"
"The bag. Stays ON. My shoulder. Until I don't want it to."
"All right, James. All right. I'm breaking up with you."
"What? Surma, but, w-why, is it -"
"It's your poor bag handling skills in social situations, James. I just can't take it anymore. Look, everyone in this room knew you should have set your bag down there. Everyone but you. You never do. And now I've had to break this to you before you put your bag down, and that makes me hate myself, and you, and everything, and I don't want to feel that way about myself. So I'm breaking up with you. And that's that. I'm sorry, James."
"You... have GOT to be joking..."
<resume scene>
|
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli33 on Oct 28, 2017 3:25:42 GMT
That's what makes the stories great. That's what makes the characters great. condoning it I think this might be a bit of projection. I'm having some doubts as to whether anyone here is actually condoning it. What we're all saying here with all of our "teens will be teens" and "I've been there before" is that it *happens*. Cause teens are stupid, but more importantly because people are stupid. Yeah, faced with anyone in reality doing this, you can forgive them while also saying "c'mon don't do that". Of course. And of course it's a self-feeding cycle too, cause the more vehement you are in defense of your point, the more we see it as you're trying to say that it's a bad story cause the characters are flawed, which I don't think is what you're saying, but is I think what some of here are reacting to. Communication is hard. People are complex enough without communication also getting in the way. Sigh. But then, that's what makes stories like this tick, isn't it. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 28, 2017 5:19:24 GMT
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that cheating isn't wrong - in my opinion it's kind of a grey zone whether or not Surma WAS cheating at any point, though. It's not like she had the ability to contact Eggers and break it off with him whilst she was in the jungles of darkest Brazil.
|
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 28, 2017 5:25:01 GMT
Imagine you love someone deeply. Now imagine this person you trusted and adored betrayals you for the pathetic reason of you not being around. I don't think it's a pathetic reason. If somebody's always away, you grow apart. That old saying that absence makes the heart grow fonder? Almost never true. If someone is always gone - and in Eglamore's case, likely is unable to even make a phone call - then there pretty much is no relationship. Surma had every right to find someone else. The way she went about it is questionable, but her motives aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by grinningcat on Oct 28, 2017 6:09:20 GMT
So the next panel is going to pretty much be this right?  |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 28, 2017 6:52:44 GMT
I don't think cheating is necessarily evil, I think it's always wrong and never just 'handling things poorly'. All you've got to do is break up with someone first before you screw around with someone else. It's not hard. I mean for us? Sure, text and phones are awesome. For someone who's partner is away with no means of communication for long periods of time, it is actually kinda hard. And while I agree it's tacky to move on before letting the other person know, once you're done you're done. You don't have to continue putting your libdo on hold for the sake of someone you're now leaving. More so when that was one of the things that led to the relationship ending. Yeah, you do. That's exactly what you have to do until you can officially break up with them. That's what being in a relationship is at its most basic level: not fooling around with other people. Being mean to a kid isn't the only way a parent can abuse a child. Neglect falls under that umbrella too. And it's that neglect plus that unbelievably selfish treatment of her once he re-enters her life that makes a pattern. On what basis are you assuming neglect? Uh, the whole disappearing from her life without so much as a goodbye right after her other parent died and failing to contact her in any way for over a year? Again, she still could've waited until he'd actually had a chance to set his bag down. Even if she's worried he's going to act out, that doesn't mean she has to do this the second he gets back. I disagree. This was the smartest, most up front and honest way to handle this. I also don't see how waiting makes it more comfortable or kinder. It will play out just the same as this moment, but with an akward attempt at a hug or a kiss first. You rip band aides off quick for a reason, dragging it out is much worse. I'm not saying she should pretend it's not over for a while to make it easier for him or anything because fuck that, but it's incredibly tacky to not even let him get settled before you get into this. We're not even talking about a day or even hours, we're talking about maybe letting him put his bags down. *That said, I hope anyway that Tom wouldn't condone or recommend their approach to real couples or couples to be. A writer isn't and shouldn't be the moral police. Otherwise you get art on the level of a didactic pamphlet. That isn't always the case though. Like, if someone wrote a propaganda piece for white supremacy, that should absolutely be condemned for what it is. It isn't Tom's responsibility to be the moral police, but nobody's asking him to be. What's being said is that if he says this is the right way to do things, they don't believe that's correct and they're gonna call him out on it. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that cheating isn't wrong - in my opinion it's kind of a grey zone whether or not Surma WAS cheating at any point, though. It's not like she had the ability to contact Eggers and break it off with him whilst she was in the jungles of darkest Brazil. Then she could've waited until she could contact him. Just say: Tony, I want to end my relationship with James when we get back and start going out with you. And there you go, done. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Oct 28, 2017 7:17:38 GMT
A writer isn't and shouldn't be the moral police. Otherwise you get art on the level of a didactic pamphlet. That isn't always the case though. Like, if someone wrote a propaganda piece for white supremacy, that should absolutely be condemned for what it is. It isn't Tom's responsibility to be the moral police, but nobody's asking him to be. What's being said is that if he says this is the right way to do things, they don't believe that's correct and they're gonna call him out on it. You miss the point. Propaganda pieces aren't art, whichever "side" they belong on. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 10:01:00 GMT
I'd say being around the other person is what any relationship of any kind actually is at its most basic level. Why? Would that make it easier? I just don't think it matters if he holds a bag or not, saying it right away is the least cruel thing. Any delay seems worse to me. Then she could've waited until she could contact him. Just say: Tony, I want to end my relationship with James when we get back and start going out with you. And there you go, done. That's a really unrealistic expectation. Also, unfair to Surma. If you don't want to be in a relationship you have the right to end it. If you want to start a new one, you can. That's how it is. You don't have to wait for it to fit the other person's schedule. But I think we have different ideas regards to what we "owe" a partner, and I bet Surma James and Tony also have different ideas then either of us. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Oct 28, 2017 10:06:37 GMT
You miss the point. Propaganda pieces aren't art, whichever "side" they belong on. I dunno about that. Propaganda can be beautiful and artistic - i'd argue that the most effective stuff is. Compare something like Gunnerkrigg Court and Bill Nye Saves the World. They are both propaganda pieces in favour of unconventional relationships, but one is sophisticated, intelligent and engaging while the other is tacky and crass. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahsyna on Oct 28, 2017 10:17:50 GMT
To be honest, considering what we've gotten now, I think that how Surma and Tony got together shouldn't have been shown as all. Before we knew, we could have imagined something sweet and romantic, some sort of genuine connection, but even after reading that entire thing, I have no idea why either of them want each other, and I now dislike Surma for being such a horrible, selfish person that she couldn't even do her boyfriend the dignity of dumping him first. Her and Eglamore showed more chemistry in that one page when they're kids than her and Tony did the entire chapter.
Plus, I honestly have a hard time believing that her and Eglamore weren't working out since she only brings it up now. It just sounds like rationalisation to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowflake on Oct 28, 2017 10:30:32 GMT
Regarding meeting Coyote and Ysengrin, she actively broke school rules and committed the diplomatic blunder of sending a robot into the forest Okay, remember the bit before that, when she tries to draw a teacher's attention to the fact she has a second shadow and gets blown off? That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The court almost certainly knew about her increasingly reckless behavior, and cheating on her homework, but all that made her a good hostage for getting Tony to do what they want. And we all agree that it was evil and a betrayal of the Court's duties as a school, and that Annie is currently paying the price for some adult's decision to prioritize having leverage over Tony above giving her the discipline she needed, yes? It's worth noting that Annie tends to disregard voices of reason, the few that there are. Heck, she even stole from her best friend's parents. She would view pretty much anyone they could have discipline her as an obstacle, and not someone to obey. Wow, sounds almost like she's not the kind of kid who should be left with nearly zero adult supervision for three years. It's actually good that they bring in Tony in, to treat her like the child she is. Otherwise, they would have to punish her like an adult who is gaining power, and is being manipulated by immensely powerful, ideologically opposed entity. It's good that she has adult supervision of some kind, but going from near-constant parental presence to none + almost complete liberty to tight discipline + isolation has been traumatic for her emotionally, and a large part of the blame for this is on Tony. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 10:38:58 GMT
Plus, I honestly have a hard time believing that her and Eglamore weren't working out since she only brings it up now. It just sounds like rationalisation to me. She brought up the distance as an issue twice in comic before the breakup. I have a very easy time believing a relationship with distance and no way to communicate isn't working out, even without showing a page of them arguing about his trip. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahsyna on Oct 28, 2017 11:09:36 GMT
Plus, I honestly have a hard time believing that her and Eglamore weren't working out since she only brings it up now. It just sounds like rationalisation to me. She brought up the distance as an issue twice in comic before the breakup. I have a very easy time believing a relationship with distance and no way to communicate isn't working out, even without showing a page of them arguing about his trip. There's not even a hint that she ever brought it up to Eglamore though, which, if it was something bad enough to facilitate a breakup, she would have. This honestly looks like the first time he's even hearing it, which really just makes her look even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 28, 2017 12:19:59 GMT
She brought up the distance as an issue twice in comic before the breakup. I have a very easy time believing a relationship with distance and no way to communicate isn't working out, even without showing a page of them arguing about his trip. There's not even a hint that she ever brought it up to Eglamore though, which, if it was something bad enough to facilitate a breakup, she would have. This honestly looks like the first time he's even hearing it, which really just makes her look even worse. Maybe he was never around so she couldn't bring it up? But more seriously, we have no idea what they have talked about in private. We never see flashbacks of them dating. There is no hint that Surma didn't talk about the distance bugging her with James Ifs she's mentioned it to people outside the realtionship, it's reasonable to believe she has said it to James. Maybe James is hearing it for the 1st time, but its the 100th time Surma has brought it up to him. We can assume, but that how asses are made. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahsyna on Oct 28, 2017 13:50:17 GMT
There's not even a hint that she ever brought it up to Eglamore though, which, if it was something bad enough to facilitate a breakup, she would have. This honestly looks like the first time he's even hearing it, which really just makes her look even worse. Maybe he was never around so she couldn't bring it up? But more seriously, we have no idea what they have talked about in private. We never see flashbacks of them dating. There is no hint that Surma didn't talk about the distance bugging her with James Ifs she's mentioned it to people outside the realtionship, it's reasonable to believe she has said it to James. Maybe James is hearing it for the 1st time, but its the 100th time Surma has brought it up to him. We can assume, but that how asses are made. If he was around enough to date her, he was definitely around enough for her to talk to him about it. The fact that James has literally no idea why is actually a very big hint, as is the phrasing they both use. There's no 'is this because' or anything like that from Eglamore (I mean, he jumps straight to the idea that Tony did something), and Surma's phrasing is very much like she's telling him something for the first time (and possibly trying to rationalise it to herself). That, combined with the fact that we already know from this very chapter that Surma was selfish enough to cheat because she apparently couldn't be bothered waiting two weeks at most, is a pretty big indicator that she's well able and willing to be an absolute ass to Eglamore in this situation. Honestly, the only person who comes off any bit well out of the three of them right now is Eglamore. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 28, 2017 13:51:57 GMT
She brought up the distance as an issue twice in comic before the breakup. I have a very easy time believing a relationship with distance and no way to communicate isn't working out, even without showing a page of them arguing about his trip. There's not even a hint that she ever brought it up to Eglamore though, which, if it was something bad enough to facilitate a breakup, she would have. This honestly looks like the first time he's even hearing it, which really just makes her look even worse. We also have no hints whatsoever that James was a good boyfriend. We just know that at one point, they liked each other. Unless we somehow force Tom to show every moment of the relationship, we have to trust the author to show us representative moments that lead to the current flashback. That means when we see Surma complain to Anja about James being away so much, that if that continues, Surma will have a problem with it. Likewise with her resentment of Jones, we are shown these things to give context to the eventual breakdown of the relationship. Likewise, the current argument we are in the middle of is supposed to be something from which we can infer the general state of the relationship before. If James were to say something like, "Why didn't you tell me you felt that way?", we would conclude that Surma was unfairly bottling up her dissatisfaction. If he says, "I know it was hard on you, but I thought we could make it work." Then we conclude that he wasn't taking her seriously when she tried to bring it up. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 28, 2017 13:56:11 GMT
I didn't ever think that the mention in "Ties" of Surma not being too keen on Jones was supposed to be that significant; I saw it more as Tom just stressing what he'd been repeatedly saying outside the comic - that the "third girl" in the photograph was *not* Jones.
|
|
Otherwise you get art on the level of a didactic pamphlet.
