|
|
Post by frogspawned on Oct 29, 2017 7:32:47 GMT
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. GKC makes a case for unconventional relationships, but I would never call it a propaganda piece.  So you wouldn't say that the writer of this comic is biased in favour of unconventional relationships? I always got the impression that they were firmly in favour. While i'd agree with you in a sense: Gunnerkrigg Court is not exclusively a propaganda piece it does have propagandist qualities, quite powerfully and emphatically promoting a certain view of the world as "correct" - and because we agree with the author on the subject we don't think of it as propaganda because it validates our world views. Does the fact that the creators and appreciators of socialist realism or germanic exceptionalism thought that it was great and artistic mean that those philosophical and artistic schools were not propaganda? |
|
ffkonoko
New Member
I've been a New Member for 9 years.
Posts: 44
|
Post by ffkonoko on Oct 29, 2017 9:06:22 GMT
Do we even know for sure that James and Surma were still dating before the trip? Maybe they were on a break.
*mood-lightening opening for old sitcom jokes*
|
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 29, 2017 10:19:28 GMT
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. That's arguable. A lot of art is propaganda on some level or another. But anyway the point is that if an artist does state something an observer doesn't agree with, said observer should be more than welcome to vocalize this disagreement. I'd say being around the other person is what any relationship of any kind actually is at its most basic level. Yeah, and you know what Surma could've done to rectify that? Tell Eggers she had a problem with that (which she is never shown doing) or break up with him because she needs to be with someone who's around more. Someone not being around doesn't justify cheating, because you can always tell them you have a problem with that or break up with them. 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. Because it says 'I don't care about what's going to make this more comfortable for you, I just want to get this over with as quickly as possible so I can go back to macking on Tony'. It comes across as hasty and inconsiderate. 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. I fail to see what's so unrealistic about asking someone to not mack on or have sex or whatever with someone else for....what, maybe a month, if that, so she can break up with her boyfriend first. That's not hard. That's not even in the same neighborhood as hard. Also, unfair to Surma. If you don't want to be in a relationship you have the right to end it. Um. Yeah. That's not in question here. The point is she didn't end it before she started macking on someone else. 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. It's not about waiting to fit another person's schedule. We don't actually know if there was a way Surma could've contacted James while she was in the Amazon, but if she could she should have, (and if she could've all along that makes everything even worse) and if she couldn't that wouldn't be because she was basing her breaking up with him around his schedule but because they were unable to contact each other because of the weird places they both were inhabiting at the time. 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? We already know at least part of the reason for this - he took the entirety of the responsibility for Surma's death onto his own shoulders and as he said to Donny, he felt that Annie would want nothing to do with "the man who killed her mother". .....And? You seem to be laboring under the impression that this excuses his behavior, or somehow makes it not neglect. 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. In real life that approach is certainly do-able, but from a storytelling standpoint there's a distinct lack of passion to it. In fact, some readers have said that they're not picking up much chemistry between Surma and Tony in spite of the fact that Surma made her point by literally straddling Tony's lap and pulling him into a passionate kiss! If Tom had presented things in the way you're suggesting they'd be even less inclined to believe there was any chemistry between them, no? No. If you're arguing that the way Surma handled this made the chapter more interesting.....no, I just don't see that. This chapter has just been completely and utterly dull and Surma's actions haven't helped that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli33 on Oct 29, 2017 10:29:35 GMT
Hey, guys. Tom has subverted our expectations at every turn. With that being said, I propose that on Monday, Tony will unexpectedly whoop Eglamore's ass with a fury and prowess that has never before been seen on this Earth. (Like someone said, we still don't know how Eggy got his scar. Consider this: IT WAS TONY.) EDIT: I wasn't initially serious, but then I remembered that Tony is canonically a martial arts teacher (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1019). Oh dear. Eggers may be fried eggs and toast. My money is actually on Tony taking a punch, or being sorely rattled by this dragon-man-grab, and that this incident will be what *prompts him* to take up martial arts - in particular, a martial art that's all about taking someone's weight and aggression and giant grabbing hands and using it against them. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 29, 2017 12:32:45 GMT
Lemme chime in and say how I break the ethics down here.
Dating isn't marriage; it isn't even always monogamous. It's an arrangement at will, meaning that any partner can terminate the relationship at any moment for any reason. Assumption my part: Surma and James were not in an open relationship. If that were the case she wouldn't need to break up with James as she appears to be doing.
Lying to someone to manipulate them is wrong. Misleading someone is often bad in general and even when it leads to a good end is a disrespectful way to treat someone close to you. If people have a responsibility to correct a partner's misunderstanding is a gray area but allowing them to mislead themselves to gain advantages is questionable at best. However, relationship-talks are awkward and lots of people, particularly young people, leave a lot unsaid rather than risk embarrassment so making inferences about relationship status is reasonable and often necessary. Going by their age and the careers they later chose I figure it's likely that Surma and James made at least some sidelong explicit mention of future plans involving each other working together and possibly about family planning, as Surma's case has some unique issues but if that didn't happen James would probably be within the realm of reason to make some assumptions regarding that based on the fact that they were dating and may have made some life-altering decisions based on those assumptions.
Either way, Surma doesn't have a strict responsibility to prevent James from misleading himself (by blissfully assuming he's still in a relationship) so she does not have a moral obligation to inform James that she's ending the relationship. Going just by what was in the comic it may not be technically cheating unless it didn't work out with Anthony and she decided to stay with James (and perhaps not inform him about what happened in the jungle) but it's rude. More on that later.
Another assumption on my part: Circumstances have conspired to make James difficult to communicate with at the moment that Surma decided she wanted to pursue a relationship with Tony. They're in the jungle and he's off training somewhere. They should have satellite phones and email but likely James doesn't have a device with him or something.
That put Surma in the position of having to choose to delay exploring a new relationship with Anthony in the jungle where he is the only companionship to be had in order to end things with James respectfully, or to just go for it and deal with James later. The former would have taken a fair amount of willpower but would have led to a better situation long-term with James possibly at the cost of all the progress that could have been made in a relationship with Tony during the month in the jungle.
That said, Surma ending the relationship with James without informing him and trying it on with Tony is still rude, particularly so considering they'll have to be at school and/or work together in the future, and that fact isn't mitigated by the dilemma Surma was facing (even if it wasn't a problem of her own making). It also appears Surma chose the earliest moment James came back to inform him that his status has been changed to single without regard to audience and circumstances, perhaps with the notion that doing so would somehow make up for the delay (it doesn't) or possibly with the idea that having said audience would be useful to her in that James would tailor his reaction to appear more reasonable for the audience's consumption, and if he overreacts then there are important witnesses. Again, this is really rude and I think it's now a pattern pointing at a shortfall in the basic respect department. Not sure if James could opt out of the Dragonslayer program at this point but I might so that I wouldn't get stuck working with Surma in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Oct 29, 2017 12:54:09 GMT
So, there's a lot of people digging into how Tony's treated Antimony, so here's my take: Tony's inability to express himself when two+ people are around is probably some kind of aetheric quirk, like Paz's talking to animals. That would be pretty in line with what we already know in canon, and why Tony pretty clearly hasn't fixed it at this point in time, even after his experiences traveling the world and such giving him ample opportunity to work on it. The issue on the subject of Antimony is not only that she's Antimony and she reminded him of Surma, but why they'd never have exposed this in childhood. I mentioned it a comic or two back, but it makes sense that Surma and Antimony never being apart kept Tony from being himself around Antimony, and we know that after Surma died, Antimony pretty quickly was moved to Gunnerkrigg. To put it another way, Antimony and Tony were unable to be alone until not only after Surma died, but also after the events of GC so far have played out. But why wouldn't he be able to express himself when they were alone after that? Two possible reasons: One, the fact he looks at her and sees Surma could be enough to keep him from opening up. Or two, and this is the idea I like: The Court, either deliberately or accidentally, has leashed him by letting him know they're watching Antimony. It's clear that he has issues with perceiving more than one person around him, and the Court bringing him back to leash Antimony implies that Antimony's a high-profile person for them, that they would watch fairly consistently. We even had him establish that he ensured no one was listening in when Donnie and him talked alone, after all! It's really pretty interesting, to me. This is an excellent theory which I think is probably true. Although on the surface I'm loud, I find it hard to open up to anyone and have a thing about the possibility of other people hearing things, so this rings true to me. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 29, 2017 13:00:25 GMT
Fair point - but regardless of what Surma and Tony know, Annie would still be safe at the Court school as long as *she* was unaware of what was going on (and here I'm thinking as much about the way the Court began using Surma to capture Renard as I am the ominous-sounding "Omega Device" they've had Tony researching). The same is also true of Anja and Donny. True. And, as I've said before, despite the Court's track record, it's still primarily a research institution and school, not some Belbury-style conspiracy. I doubt it'd have done most of the uglier things it had if it hadn't been living next door to Gilltie Wood and feeling nervous about its inhabitants. (Though I do think, from what I've seen of the Court's ether experiments, and what we already know about the ether, that the forest-folk have a point; playing around with the ether does seem dangerous. Unfortunately, the forest-folk are better at shows of angry force than diplomacy; maybe things would have gone better if they'd tried pointing out to the Court the potential consequences of those experiments in a calm and reasonable fashion, instead of growling and snarling. On the other hand, the Court might be so set on those discoveries that they wouldn't listen even if the forest-folk had approached them in that fashion.) |
|
|
|
Post by sarahsyna on Oct 29, 2017 13:23:23 GMT
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. Him jumping straight to blaming someone else doesn't say "we've never talked about this" it says "I can't accept that the fault would lie with me or Surma". If she has mentioned it to freinds, she has mentioned it to her boyfriend James as well and even if she didn't it means they had a crappy realtionship devoid of baisc communication. I'd sooner believe James just didn't take her complaint's seriously, so this is still a shocker to him. I think James also looks like a tool here, but I don't think any of three come off well here. All three handle this break up like inexperienced teenagers, which makes sense. Uh, no. Just because you mention something to a friend doesn't mean you've automatically said it to a partner, especially if you are someone as apparently selfish and impulsive as Surma. And even if they did have a bad relationship because she didn't communicate her problems to him, she's still in the wrong for cheating on him. In order to see Eglamore as a bad boyfriend who 'deserved' his girlfriend treating him like trash, you have to create additional context that isn't actually in the comic. To see Surma as a selfish person, you just have to look at stuff in the comic like her cheating, or her tricking Reynard for the Court. James is understandably upset that his (seemingly long-time) girlfriend cheated on him, especially with someone that, as far as he knows, she actually kinda dislikes, and he's floored because it also seems to coming out of nowhere. That's not him being a tool. (Also, are they even teenagers here? I'm getting the impression that they're young adults.) 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. In real life that approach is certainly do-able, but from a storytelling standpoint there's a distinct lack of passion to it. In fact, some readers have said that they're not picking up much chemistry between Surma and Tony in spite of the fact that Surma made her point by literally straddling Tony's lap and pulling him into a passionate kiss! If Tom had presented things in the way you're suggesting they'd be even less inclined to believe there was any chemistry between them, no? See, the chemistry is supposed to show up before the kiss. As in, we're supposed to understand why she wants to kiss him before she actually does it. 'she straddles and kisses him' isn't chemistry, it's a stand-in for chemistry, at best. As it is, well, he was there when she got over her fear of bugs? I guess? He existed in her proximity for a couple weeks? He was vaguely polite? Relaxed Tony isn't exactly a stellar personality either. Like, as a reader, I don't have to be attracted to Tony myself or anything, I just have to understand why Surma is, and I have to understand why Tony is attracted to her as well. The thing is that I can't see it at all. Personally, I was rolling my eyes when she kissed him. If there was supposed to be passion there, I sure didn't see it, because there was no chemistry or passion beforehand, where it mattered. At least if Surma waited on it, we'd have gotten to see her actually debate pros and cons in her head and maybe see what she actually likes about him. But, like, if it was revealed that Surma and Tony's entire relationship was just a big mistake and they just kept it going because they felt they couldn't go back now, I'd believe it because I have no idea why they apparently love each other. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 29, 2017 15:20:16 GMT
I have a shaky timeline of ages, supported by Chrysoprax. Page 436 takes place before the current chapter. Tom gave 2 different answers for how old Surma and Anja were on that page: either late teens or early 20s. (http://www.chrysoprax.org/gunnerkrigg/results?term=how%20old%20surma) So let's say they are 19 or so on page 436.
That means that in the current chapter, everyone is anywhere from 19-20 and up. Not kids, but not grown-ups, and certainly not old enough to be infallibly wise about relationships.
We know also from Chrysoprax that Surma and Tony first got married, then left the Court, then got pregnant. Surma was late-30s when she died, so she certainly isn't pregnant by the time of the current page, nor will she be pregnant for another several years. This is based on the fact that she died when Annie was 12, so probably got pregnant when she was 25-27.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowflake on Oct 29, 2017 15:40:27 GMT
...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 more complicated than that. What you're saying is right, but it was Annie's own actions in choosing to continue secretly copying Kat's schoolwork (because she didn't want Kat to think she was stupid) that gave the Court the pretext to do so. My point isn't that Annie never misbehaved; it's that the adults who were ostensibly responsible for her, and who ideally should have disciplined her and put her on a better path instead were either oblivious or actively using her mistakes as leverage to gain control over her & Tony. Children misbehave. Adult guardians are supposed to teach them to do better, and let them learn from experience while preventing them from running into severe danger or permanent negative consequences. Adults failed in many instances to do that for Annie. Has it? The events immediately following Tony's return were certainly traumatic from Annie's point of view, but on the other hand Tony returned Renard as soon as she asked him, and Annie was able to lead the gang in freeing Jeanne's spirit largely unimpeded. The only long-term consequence still present is having to repeat the year, and Annie seems to have made her peace with that. I said "emotionally". Annie was a mess, every relationship she has was affected, and her relationship to Tony is still in ruins. Respectfully, how do you figure that? On the basis that it's increasingly likely that the decision to have Annie attend the Court school while Tony went looking for answers was mutually agreed between Surma and Tony in advance, I can't see how that's a fair accusation. Is there is any indication that Surma consented to the idea of Anthony going off on an Orpheus quest and not contacting their daughter for years? I don't recall any, and it seems like Surma knew better than anyone just why such a journey would be useless. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 29, 2017 15:55:37 GMT
GKC makes a case for unconventional relationships, but I would never call it a propaganda piece. So you wouldn't say that the writer of this comic is biased in favour of unconventional relationships? I wouldn't. I WOULD say that the writer observes that unconventional relationships exist. And that sufficiently-unconventional people (e.g. robots, Shadow) can have no other kind of relationship. And that sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't - sometimes, even, they are one-sided. You know, kind of like conventional human relationships. If accurately reflecting human relationships is propaganda, and deliberately distorting them is propaganda, then practically every piece of fiction ever written is propaganda - and the term becomes meaningless and useless. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 29, 2017 16:37:29 GMT
Lemme chime in and say how I break the ethics down here. Dating isn't marriage; it isn't even always monogamous. It's an arrangement at will, meaning that any partner can terminate the relationship at any moment for any reason. Assumption my part: Surma and James were not in an open relationship. If that were the case she wouldn't need to break up with James as she appears to be doing. Okay, so what's the point then of going steady as opposed to dating casually if you can just do the deed with someone else without consideration for whom you're already involved in? It just seems to me that if you want the relationship without the responsibility (other than being honest about dating other people in general if not the exact amount), than casual, open dating is the best way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Oct 29, 2017 17:23:57 GMT
I always got the impression that they were firmly in favour. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 29, 2017 17:44:09 GMT
Lemme chime in and say how I break the ethics down here. Dating isn't marriage; it isn't even always monogamous. It's an arrangement at will, meaning that any partner can terminate the relationship at any moment for any reason. Assumption my part: Surma and James were not in an open relationship. If that were the case she wouldn't need to break up with James as she appears to be doing. Okay, so what's the point then of going steady as opposed to dating casually if you can just do the deed with someone else without consideration for whom you're already involved in? It just seems to me that if you want the relationship without the responsibility (other than being honest about dating other people in general if not the exact amount), than casual, open dating is the best way to go. I think the distinction they are going for is the for non-serious dating, people are just getting to know interesting strangers, so going on dates with one or two other people at the same time is normal and not cheating. Once you get to steady dating, you aren't dating other people, but it is not wrong to stop steady dating if either party wants to stop. However, in order to start dating someone else, steady dating has to end. The overlap in which Surma had not broken up with James, but was in a relationship with Tony is morally wrong. We all agree on that. The severity of that wrong, however, varies according to each of our individual perspectives on that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Oct 29, 2017 17:58:40 GMT
The overlap in which Surma had not broken up with James, but was in a relationship with Tony is morally wrong. We all agree on that. The severity of that wrong, however, varies according to each of our individual perspectives on that sort of thing. True, and I believe that while cheating isn't the worst thing evah so to speak, I do think it's far from being a harmless teenage quirk*. And I have to question whether someone who was cheated on and had their heartbroken could argue with the latter. I mean to bring up the cliche of the golden rule and what it entails, would anyone here be willing to suck it up if someone you dated and felt strongly for disregarded your feeling (whether factual or if that's your perspective)? *Which even then can be forgivable, but not to the point that you pull a stepford smile in light of hearing it happened. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Oct 29, 2017 18:10:47 GMT
Lemme chime in and say how I break the ethics down here. Dating isn't marriage; it isn't even always monogamous. It's an arrangement at will, meaning that any partner can terminate the relationship at any moment for any reason. Assumption my part: Surma and James were not in an open relationship. If that were the case she wouldn't need to break up with James as she appears to be doing. Okay, so what's the point then of going steady as opposed to dating casually if you can just do the deed with someone else without consideration for whom you're already involved in? It just seems to me that if you want the relationship without the responsibility (other than being honest about dating other people in general if not the exact amount), than casual, open dating is the best way to go. Lots of people feel that way. The problem is sometimes they want to hook up with someone who's looking for something more in a relationship and are less than forthcoming about that, and then wind up treating them as disposable one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Oct 29, 2017 18:12:51 GMT
Yeah, and you know what Surma could've done to rectify that? Tell Eggers she had a problem with that (which she is never shown doing) or break up with him because she needs to be with someone who's around more. Someone not being around doesn't justify cheating, because you can always tell them you have a problem with that or break up with them. We have no evidence she hasn't mentioned it, and she did break up with him as soon as possible. And you can't always tell them if they aren't around. Kinda how not being around works. What would have made this comfortable? Comfort isn't what braking up is about, you can always assume the dumped party is going to be uncomfortable. Wanting to get this over with quick might be to so she could get her mac on, or because ending things quickly is fairest to James. Comes across as her trying to right a wrong situation as quickly as possible to me. I can see why it comes off as rude, I personally think is the best course of action. It's easy if you are happy and statisfied in your relationship. If you're less then, and the you find someone you do want, I'd not only say it's no longer easy, I'd say doing so is just depriving yourself of happiness for the sake of someone else who isn't providing it. And i don't think we ever owe that to someone. . And because she couldn't contact James, the only moral thing was to stay dating him for another month? That's ridiculously to me. Just because you can't contact the other person doesn't mean you can't be done with them. Once you decide to be done, all you owe is telling them ASAP. If they are one room over, you don't get to wait. If they are in the military, you wait for a call or write a letter. If they dragon train privately for long stretches of time, you tell them when they get back. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Oct 29, 2017 18:51:15 GMT
For greater context, Surma said that she doesn't know how long James will be on his training missions. That adds some strain on top of just being apart for long periods of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Oct 30, 2017 0:08:09 GMT
Hey, guys. Tom has subverted our expectations at every turn. With that being said, I propose that on Monday, Tony will unexpectedly whoop Eglamore's ass with a fury and prowess that has never before been seen on this Earth. (Like someone said, we still don't know how Eggy got his scar. Consider this: IT WAS TONY.) EDIT: I wasn't initially serious, but then I remembered that Tony is canonically a martial arts teacher (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1019). Oh dear. Eggers may be fried eggs and toast. James has a scar? I looked at some of his appeareances, but I did not find it.  Or was that part of the joke? But I guess as well Tony learned judo after this incident. GKC makes a case for unconventional relationships, but I would never call it a propaganda piece. So you wouldn't say that the writer of this comic is biased in favour of unconventional relationships? I always got the impression that they were firmly in favour. I guess Tom is in favour in unconventional relationships, but they are only a part, not the main focus of the comic (and not all of them are portrayed positively, see for example the cruise ship being in love with Lindsey). By that logic every book, comic, film etc. which includes a diverse cast would be a propaganda piece for diversity. But they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 30, 2017 1:20:22 GMT
Hey, guys. Tom has subverted our expectations at every turn. With that being said, I propose that on Monday, Tony will unexpectedly whoop Eglamore's ass with a fury and prowess that has never before been seen on this Earth. (Like someone said, we still don't know how Eggy got his scar. Consider this: IT WAS TONY.) EDIT: I wasn't initially serious, but then I remembered that Tony is canonically a martial arts teacher (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1019). Oh dear. Eggers may be fried eggs and toast. James has a scar? I looked at some of his appeareances, but I did not find it. Or was that part of the joke? Eggers has had a scar since early days. It appears under his eye. It's here as well. It appears whenever he does, except in flashbacks, but a lot of the time it just looks like a shadow or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Zox Tomana on Oct 30, 2017 2:18:35 GMT
Eggers has no scar here, but after his tussle with Reynardine in Sivo's body he has wounds and a suspiciously placed bandage. The major problem with this being the orientation of the scar compared to the wound. Perhaps it's a detail Tom didn't put in before, maybe it just healed weird. He doesn't have that vertical looking scare in the next close up though, or the one after that. The earliest I can find that vertical line is here, and you can just barely see it. |
|
|
|
Post by GriffTheJack on Oct 30, 2017 2:21:30 GMT
If is just me, or have these two last threads been primarily the same handful of people saying the same thing over and over every page?
Anyway, welcome to the new members voicing in on the controversy! There have definitely been several interesting posts.
--
To throw my hat in the ring of repeating myself, this continues to be a solid (but not amazing) chapter that won't matter until we get back to Annie and Kat.
|
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Oct 30, 2017 3:26:09 GMT
If is just me, or have these two last threads been primarily the same handful of people saying the same thing over and over every page? People (including me) will never get tired of arguing over whether or not everyone in the comic is a horrible person and/or the comic is terribly written. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Oct 30, 2017 8:43:59 GMT
I guess Tom is in favour in unconventional relationships, but they are only a part, not the main focus of the comic (and not all of them are portrayed positively, see for example the cruise ship being in love with Lindsey). By that logic every book, comic, film etc. which includes a diverse cast would be a propaganda piece for diversity. But they are not. I did feel propagandised, even though I have always agreed with the message that people should be allowed to love who they love. Certain chapters felt motivated by proselytising, certain moments felt like they were put to paper in service of an ideology. I've already agreed that propaganda is not the primary purpose of Gunnerkrigg Court, but to say it does not propagandise at all I feel is dishonest. So I remain convinced that propaganda can absolutely be artistic, and that art definitely can be propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by youwiththeface on Oct 30, 2017 11:06:25 GMT
Yeah, and you know what Surma could've done to rectify that? Tell Eggers she had a problem with that (which she is never shown doing) or break up with him because she needs to be with someone who's around more. Someone not being around doesn't justify cheating, because you can always tell them you have a problem with that or break up with them. We have no evidence she hasn't mentioned it, and she did break up with him as soon as possible. No, we have no evidence she has. We have absolutely nothing that suggests she ever brought it up to him. If you want to claim she ever brought it up with him there has to be evidence she did and there's none. If you want to claim something happened or someone did something, you need proof. No court convicts on there being no evidence someone didn't do something. And while Tom has provided us with proof that Surma was unhappy with James always being away, he's provided none that she ever spoke with him about it. And one of the most recent panels certainly suggests it was something she never brought up with him. And you can't always tell them if they aren't around. Kinda how not being around works. Yeah, because phones aren't a thing. But it doesn't matter because Surma wasn't interested in telling James before the trip if her day dreaming about him was any indication. So him not being around wasn't necessarily that big a factor in her being able to break up with him, as it wasn't something she was wanting to do before they'd both left. In this case, when she wanted to break up with him, neither of them were around, and it's unclear whether she could've contacted him. What would have made this comfortable? Comfort isn't what braking up is about, you can always assume the dumped party is going to be uncomfortable. Yeah and there are ways to make it less uncomfortable. Like red4bestgirl said, it wouldn't have been hard to let him put his bags down, guide him into another room, let him get a cup of coffee or a soda or something, maybe have a talk about both their trips, and then gently break up with him. It's easy if you are happy and statisfied in your relationship. If you're less then, and the you find someone you do want, I'd not only say it's no longer easy, I'd say doing so is just depriving yourself of happiness for the sake of someone else who isn't providing it. And i don't think we ever owe that to someone. Yes you do if you're in a relationship with someone. To think that depriving yourself of something unessential for any amount of time is too much....that's the way a five year old thinks. How long would've been too long? A day? A week? Like I said, at most Surma probably had to wait a month but in all likelihood it was shorter than that. That's not at all too much to ask of a person. And because she couldn't contact James, the only moral thing was to stay dating him for another month? Not stay dating him, because that implies still doing lovey-dovey stuff with him even though she wanted to break up. But not fooling around with someone else? Yes. Amorous activities are not like food or water. You can go without them for a month. Easily. Hell, Surma seemed to be doing just fine without that kind of thing in what was presumably the weeks she was there with Tony before she made a move. Well I disagree. I mean, it's not like we're looking at actual people here. Tom drew the scene the way he did for a reason. The fact the he draws James with his bag still in hand as opposed to on the floor is, I believe, purposeful. And its purpose is not to say anything particularly flattering about Surma. Not actually people? That's your argument now? I guess we can say anything they do or say means anything we want, since they aren't actually people. Guess they shouldn't treat each other or there relationships realistically then. That's a really bad point. No it's not. These characters are not doing things because they want to do them, they're doing things because Tom's using them to tell a story. And what Tom shows them doing is meant to tell us things about these characters and further said story. It's obviously not the same for real people, who just do what they want because they want to and not because they have an audience to perform for. So when looking at a character's actions, it's prudent to wonder what Tom might be trying to communicate to us with what he's drawn. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 31, 2017 2:25:44 GMT
When does a relationship end?
1) when one person commits to a decision that it HAS ended, and forms the intent to inform the other person ASAP?
2) when the other person is informed of this decision?
If #2, but communication is for some reason not immediately possible, how long must the person who no longer considers themselves to be in that relationship wait before acting on that change?
|
|
|
|
Post by wynne on Oct 31, 2017 6:46:06 GMT
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) Just from personal life experience... people don't hear people they're in relationships with all the freaking time. Not just over the serious stuff! My parents' relationship is 30+ years strong, they aren't going anywhere, but I can't even count the number of times my mom has spent 10+ minutes going over something in the car, only for my dad to bring it up 5 minutes later as if the conversation never happened. Him: "Why didn't you talk about it?" Her: "I JUST DID." I do it too, because ADHD. And my brother does it, because his brain tends to focus on different parts of conversations. It doesn't make you bad or anything, just a little oblivious. Plus emotions can mess with peoples' perception and hindsight is 20/20; I think a lot of people look back on at least one or two breakups and realize there were warning signs that they were willfully in denial about or tried to rationalize away. I'm not saying this is definitely (or even probably) what happened, but I could very easily see this being a 500 Days of Summer-type situation: From James/Joseph Gordon-Levitt's perspective, everything's hunky-dory and he's with the love of his life. From Surma/Summer's perspective, her boyfriend's ignoring issues with their relationship and brushing her off when she tries to bring them up. Cue him being blindsided by the breakup. No one's the villain, but no one comes off particularly well either. In a young romantic relationship with a lot of time apart, James focusing on the good bits and brushing any doubts under the rug seems... pretty realistic. Even more so when you consider that his time away from Surma is packed with super intense Dragon-training stuff, while hers seems to be filled with being bored/missing him/thinking about how being separated for months on end sucks. And I can see her doing her best to just deal with it, because what are you gonna do, until suddenly she spends all that time with Tony and realizes she doesn't have to be in a relationship that requires months-long separations. |
|
Or was that part of the joke?
