jocobo
Junior Member
Posts: 78 
|
Post by jocobo on Nov 9, 2017 16:10:51 GMT
I'm not a mind reader but I'm pretty sure frogspanwed wasn't saying they've never been alone in the literal sense but were instead saying the "ghost" of Surma is always lingering over them, preventing them from bonding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Per on Nov 9, 2017 16:21:22 GMT
To Wombat: I can certainly side with your suggestion to avoid the forums (or just skim them) if I'm feeling frustrated with things. (I confess that I often think I should do that when I find that most of the conversation about a page focuses around a side-issue - say, a pop culture allusion or a gag - than around whatever important happened on that page.) Almost the opposite for me: I tend to think that points of ongoing plot or characterization are poorly served by the forum providing a blow-by-blow commentary track laced with socio-ideological rastering or hyperbolic forward projections, but sometimes appreciate people pointing out specifics that I may have missed, such as outside references (including but not limited to which years plane models were manufactured), callbacks or nonobvious in-world connections. As for TV Tropes, I have my own points of general criticism, but the fact that it doesn't read like an ambiguous essay on classic literature or art house cinema wouldn't really be one of them. And "tropes as unimpeachable truths" sounds like a gloriously nonsensical straw concept that we can all agree to jump up and down on. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Nov 9, 2017 18:55:05 GMT
I'm not a mind reader but I'm pretty sure frogspanwed wasn't saying they've never been alone in the literal sense but were instead saying the "ghost" of Surma is always lingering over them, preventing them from bonding. Thats been said, both here and in comic, it fairly obvious that they aren't "alone" in the sense that Surma haunts Tony via Annie. But in the literal sense, which was what frogspawned implied if not meant, they have factually physically been alone. How being alone with Annie seems to Tony isn't really important, at least to Annie, when he can be cool with other people if they are alone. |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 9, 2017 22:00:02 GMT
Alright. First of all, the answer is obvious. It's because she looks like Surma and has Surma's dead spirit inside her. That would creep any dad out. So that question is answered. Is it *really* answered though? That's certainly a valid interpretation (and Tony certainly mentioned that seeing her for the first time in years, the resemblance almost floored him), but Tom's storytelling has rarely if ever been that direct in the long run - there was a lot more said (and a lot that seemed to go unsaid) in that scene than what was on the surface. This would be kinda dark (not that the comic has been sunshine and rainbows lately anyway), but I'm wondering if Tony is wondering...if Annie isn't actually his kid. I'd argue that's highly unlikely to the point of being implausible. It's been heavily implied that Surma and Tony were inseparable from the day they fell for one another. ]...but the look he gave on page 813 looks like nothing more than resentment, and Surma's comment indicates that he does resent her somewhat. See - I can't help but feel that this interpretation was somewhat retconned based on many readers' reactions to Tony's actions upon his return. I look at that page and all I see is a man who has been crying, and at that point in time doesn't trust himself to speak in front of his daughter. Surma tells Annie not to worry, and that her father still loves her very much. The nature of flashbacks within a story is that they are shorn of much context, and in this case whatever Surma was referring to is very much open to interpretation due to that lack of context. In terms of storytelling, that's a technique which is intended to draw the reader in by creating an interest in what Surma actually meant, with the implied promise of later revelation. Prior to Tony's return (and indeed, it's been referred to a few times since), there were several chapters which explored the characteristics and aspects of Annie's nature which she seems to have inherited from Surma - not just in terms of inheriting the fire elemental's lifeforce, but also in her human tendencies (particularly being hot-headed and impulsive on occasion, as well as sometimes lacking confidence in her academic ability). From the very beginning though, we've also known that Annie can come across as very matter-of-fact and logical when relating things to others, including the reader. I'd argue that the inference has always been that this side of her comes from Tony, and that this hasn't been explored in-depth until after Tony's return because the sense of mystery around Annie's father up until then was a major facet of what made the story draw the reader further in. I'd suggest that the somewhat greater focus on Tony's story of late is less about making Tony the focus of the narrative than it is making up for lost time in explaining aspects of *Annie's* character which need to be revealed for the overall narrative arc to progress. And I'll get back to that shortly...  Anja, Donny and Sir Jimmy have alluded to the Court making Tony privy to things that are secret to even the brightest and most capable of it's citizens (even now, when Tony answers their questions with a reference to "work", they back off), and we know that the Court tasked Surma with seducing and trapping Rey - which would appear to be a pretty "black-ops" mission in itself. I've said before that there seems to be something about Annie's being a combination of Surma and Tony's traits and abilities which gives the Court the heebie-jeebies - particularly when it comes to her affinity to the Forest and her growing bonds with Ysengrin and Coyote. Having been stymied in their attempts to rein Annie in before, the Court essentially descended on Tony at his lowest ebb and blackmailed him into being the conduit for their next attempt - and were again thwarted when Coyote destroyed one of their buildings and threatened further destruction if they didn't rescind at least some of the restrictions 1 they'd placed on her. So - back to the aspects of Annie that seem to come from Tony. Firstly, this idea of Tony being entirely wrapped up in his own sturm und drang doesn't seem to hold water anymore to my understanding. In fact it seems to have become increasingly less plausible with every subsequent chapter, but this is based on my own reading - and I reserve the right to be totally wrong. faiiry has mentioned the page where Tony tells Donny that he "almost lost his mind" when he saw Annie's resemblance to Surma, however Tom's comment on that page stuck with me at the time, and I suspect it may be the crux of why the last few chapters have been the way they are. The comment was : Someone who hides the fact they are flipping out? Seems unreasonable to me. (What I'm saying here is that Annie does the same thing) ...and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this comic it's that when Tom says something, it's wise to pay attention! Bearing that in mind - a few pages before that, Tony makes an aside to Donny which could seem relatively innocuous compared to what follows, but I reckon that subsequent chapters heavily imply that it's actually rather crucial. His words are : ...which tell us several things. - That Tony considers himself solely responsible for Surma's death
- That Tony believes Annie would want nothing to do with him for that reason
- That Tony considers Annie's presumed anger and rejection justified
- Furthermore, he considers himself unworthy of her love.
- Therefore - if being the instrument of the Court's harsh punishment of Annie made her hate him, he deserved that anyway
- And if it meant that the Court's threat to exile Annie was nullified, any price he paid would be worth it.
So, Tom explicitly draws attention to their shared tendency to "hide the fact they are flipping out". Then we have the "freeing Jeanne" adventure arc, which featured the apparent near-death of Ayilu and the very real near-death of Smitty. The subsequent chapter has Red essentially giving Annie a "The Reason You Suck" speech, followed by a firm demand that Annie stay out of Red and Ayilu's lives in future. The narrative then cuts to Coyote relating one of his stories to Annie, Parley and Smitty in the Forest, after which we see Annie outwardly interacting with the couple as though things are normal and nothing has changed. However, the next page implies heavily, and without a single word that Red's words have affected Annie deeply - and just as we've seen with Tony, Annie is hiding the fact that she's in turmoil under the surface. Thankfully, we find out she's on her way to see Kat, who proceeds to rebut Red's accusations point-by-point when Annie asks her if she agrees. I reckon it's fair to argue that those events are demonstrating another trait that Annie and Tony share - namely a reflexive tendency to firstly solely blame themselves when something they initiated has negative consequences, and secondly assume that all involved will also hold them responsible. The implication is that it's only Kat's intervention that stops Annie from falling into a spiral of self-recrimination of the kind in which Tony is currently mired. Please forgive me if it's a little self-indulgent quoting myself for a third time here, but I think it's important : The central tragedy of Annie and Tony at this stage (via some really nifty storytelling) is that the overriding factor standing in the way of the familial relationship they both crave is their shared tendency to take responsibility almost reflexively - and thus blame themselves first and foremost - when things go wrong... Compounding that sense of tragic irony is that in consenting to Surma's request to cut ties with Anja and Donny, an unintentional distance has grown between Tony and the one friend who might be able to use reason and logic to break that sense of self-recrimination in the way Kat does for Annie. All of the above rambling - sorry for going on so long - I've brought up to support my own theory, which is ironically actually quite simple. I don't believe that Tony is treating Annie differently than others when one-on-one with her due to feeling conflicted over Annie's resemblance to Surma or because he resents Annie for Surma's death (after all, it's explicitly stated that he solely blames himself). I believe that at least part of it is because he's convinced himself that he's done at least two things as a result of which she wants nothing to do with him (and if she doesn't already, she will when she finds out). I also believe that Tony is hoping that by keeping Annie at arms' length, he's protecting her from further Court scrutiny. [ 1 - Of course, Coyote was only concerned with the restrictions that directly related to himself and the Forest; Annie's having to repeat a year and reside separately from her classmates doesn't seem to have bothered him... ] |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 9, 2017 22:11:29 GMT
I also believe that Tony is hoping that by keeping Annie at arms' length, he's protecting her from further Court scrutiny. Yeah, but if The Court is really that formidable as a threat, shouldn't Tony consider that said they would be be privy to such a tactic? |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 9, 2017 22:34:37 GMT
Yeah, but if The Court is really that formidable as a threat, shouldn't Tony consider that said they would be be privy to such a tactic? It's been pretty much stated outright that if any of the characters in the story has a good handle on the Court's capabilities - to say nothing of motivations - that person is Tony. As such, it's a certainty that he'll have covered every angle he can. The question to my mind concerns Tony's significant efforts to keep the Court's eye away from what he's working on behind closed doors in that spartan flat of his. |
|
|
|
Post by phantaskippy on Nov 10, 2017 1:24:43 GMT
A few thoughts late in this lovely discussion:
Some have posted that this is what it took to get Annie to ask this question. They are right. We've been enraged with Tiny while Annie excuses his mistreatment of her. Her character refused to face the truth behind this question, that Tony isn't cold to everyone, just her.
Tony having psychological hang-ups about his daughter increasingly looking like her mother, and literally carrying her soul inside her, mixed with his guilt over his failure to save her, mixed further with his guilt over how he treats her, does not excuse his behavior. Tony is still an emotionally abusive and absent father.
We have to dig into Tony if this comic is going to offer him a chance at redemption. Which it seems to be heading toward. I understand people not liking that. Heck, as a person who cut my dad out of my own life for my mental health's sake I'd rather see the fire elemental incinerate the jerk, but that might not be this story's solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 10, 2017 1:52:51 GMT
]Almost the opposite for me: I tend to think that points of ongoing plot or characterization are poorly served by the forum providing a blow-by-blow commentary track laced with socio-ideological rastering or hyperbolic forward projections, but sometimes appreciate people pointing out specifics that I may have missed, such as outside references (including but not limited to which years plane models were manufactured), callbacks or nonobvious in-world connections. Maybe. (I'll admit that most of the pop culture references go as much over my head as they would over Annie's.) I don't enjoy it, either, when the discussions get that heated - to the extent that if the posters were meeting face to face rather than typing things on computers miles away from each other, there'd be bloodshed. (Unless it's the geographical distances that encourage the fury, and the posters would be more polite if they were meeting each other in person.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deepbluediver on Nov 10, 2017 3:14:33 GMT
I'd argue that's highly unlikely to the point of being implausible. It's been heavily implied that Surma and Tony were inseparable from the day they fell for one another. Yes, but that's not really the point. My issue was not with what happened, but with what Tony THINKS might have happened. It's also been shown that Tony doesn't have the best emotional reaction to some things (remember the scene with the Valkyrie-girl? Brin or whatever her name was) It's the kind of niggling doubt that I would expect someone like Tony to never voice out loud (gotta keep that mask from cracking) and might not even admit to himself that he has, but sits in the back of his brain, worrying and worrying away at him. And yes, it's the kind of thing that could be cleared up with a simple DNA test, but Tony also has a very particular kind of pride, and he strikes me as the kind of person who doesn't want to even consider that he might have been wrong, or deceived, or anything less than a perfectly calculating machine. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 10, 2017 4:22:33 GMT
4: More questions being raised than answered is storytelling 101. Actually, storytelling 101 says that when you open a door, you have to go back to close it. You can take your time getting there, and you don't have to give a very precise answer to every question, some degree of ellipsis is fine. But at some point in your story you have to set up the endgame and start closing doors without opening five new doors every time. World-building 101 says that every character has, over the course of their lives, multiple story arcs which begin and end at random times relative to the specific story arcs you want your story to focus on; and while many of these story arcs are irrelevant to your story, some of them may impact your story in odd ways - not only at their beginning and end, but also at various points in the middle. And it can be complicated. It's pretty plain that the James*Surma story arc finished for Surma years ago - before Annie was born - but one could plausibly argue that it still hasn't finished for James. The only plausible way to get all the doors closed at the same time is a scenario where everyone dies. And I do mean everyone. But even that can have doors left open, if some (or all!) characters stay around as ghosts, or go become angels, or have a power of self-resurrection, or... And more specifically, no matter where Gunnerkrigg Court ends, if Annie is still alive (or becomes a ghost or a psychopomp or a demigod or...) and functional, she will have arcs of her life story that are not yet complete. We HAVE seen a major long-standing story arc complete: Jeanne. Arguably another: Annie*Jack. We're seeing another move toward some form of resolution: Tony. A long sub-arc is done: Annie*Robot Part 1. Also Annie*Shadow. Another has reached a major resolution: Annie*Jones (Part 1?). A subtle but significant one, probably also: Annie-cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 10, 2017 4:51:07 GMT
Well, it follows that in this case "alone" is not applied. Right?
Yes, that.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 10, 2017 5:02:05 GMT
About tvtropes:
Any good story is a complex machine of many moving parts - most or all of which have also been used in other good stories, sometimes in similar combinations and sometimes much differently.
Tvtropes is - primarily - an incomplete catalog of what stories use any given part.
It also has an even less complete catalog of what parts are used in certain stories, but rarely gets all the parts in any one story and also rarely tells how many instances of one part are in the story - let alone in what order the parts are used and how they work together.
|
|
|
|
Post by aline on Nov 10, 2017 8:25:34 GMT
Actually, storytelling 101 says that when you open a door, you have to go back to close it. You can take your time getting there, and you don't have to give a very precise answer to every question, some degree of ellipsis is fine. But at some point in your story you have to set up the endgame and start closing doors without opening five new doors every time. World-building 101 says that every character has, over the course of their lives, multiple story arcs which begin and end at random times relative to the specific story arcs you want your story to focus on; and while many of these story arcs are irrelevant to your story, some of them may impact your story in odd ways - not only at their beginning and end, but also at various points in the middle. That's not what I meant when I talk about doors. And it can be complicated. It's pretty plain that the James*Surma story arc finished for Surma years ago - before Annie was born - but one could plausibly argue that it still hasn't finished for James. Not the point. The door needs to close for the reader, not for the characters. The point is that the story introduced a mystery. At multiple points we are made aware that "something" happened with James. If we, the readers, are not given at least a rough idea of what that "something" is, then why talk about it in the first place? The answer doesn't have to be incredibly detailed, that's ok. "Surma cheated on James and left him. He's still hurt to this day and resents Tony for this." <- this closes the door (assuming the author has nothing more to say on the matter). Sometimes we are given several possible answers and don't find out the whole truth, also ok. Sometimes we only get hints and are left to guess about some of the blanks in between, also ok. But the "something" is addressed again and the mystery gets some sort of resolution. Whether James comes to terms with the loss of Surma or not has nothing to do with it. Jones will keep going on her weird non-life for another few million years I'm sure, she'll meet people and do things. But her door within the story is already closed: we found out what she is, we know why she's here. Her mystery is solved. Coyote's door is open: why was he cackling after Jeanne was rescued? We have closed some doors in Tony's story, but not all: what about the Omega device? What about his friendship with Juliet and Arthur? If we never go back to these questions, that's not being mysterious. That's being sloppy.* *I'm not saying Tom is being sloppy, I'm talking in general. GKC is far from finished. |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 10, 2017 11:39:38 GMT
ony is still an emotionally abusive and absent father. No he isn't. Abuse is a *pattern* of *repeated* behaviour in which an abuser repeatedly engages in harmful behaviour towards their victim, usually for the abuser's own self-gratification. Tony was mean to Annie *once*, and it turned out that the Court had blackmailed him into it using the threat of exiling her permanently - on the day she was supposed to graduate - if he refused to go along with it. He's distant, but that's because he thinks she hates him. And as for "absent", we still don't know what his ultimate goal was when he went away, only that the creatures in the cave tricked him, and when the Court found him they demanded he return and be the instrument they used to rein Annie in. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 10, 2017 12:53:15 GMT
Thats been said, both here and in comic, it fairly obvious that they aren't "alone" in the sense that Surma haunts Tony via Annie. But in the literal sense, which was what frogspawned implied if not meant, they have factually physically been alone. How being alone with Annie seems to Tony isn't really important, at least to Annie, when he can be cool with other people if they are alone. They haven't ever factually, physically been alone because Surma's Fire is a demonstrably real thing and now inhabits Antimony. |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Nov 10, 2017 13:32:51 GMT
Thats been said, both here and in comic, it fairly obvious that they aren't "alone" in the sense that Surma haunts Tony via Annie. But in the literal sense, which was what frogspawned implied if not meant, they have factually physically been alone. How being alone with Annie seems to Tony isn't really important, at least to Annie, when he can be cool with other people if they are alone. They haven't ever factually, physically been alone because Surma's Fire is a demonstrably real thing and now inhabits Antimony. If Tony can't be open with Annie because the Fire Elemental is an ever-present second being, then he should have had the same reaction with Surma. The biggest stretch I can make is maybe Tony opened up to Surma/Fire Elemental because he was unaware of the Fire Elemental at the time and now he is aware and reacts differently to Annie/Fire Elemental. But I personally believe Tony can't interact with Annie because he buried himself in self loathing for his failures with both Surma and Annie, as shown in Chapter 53. |
|
|
|
Post by phantaskippy on Nov 10, 2017 13:43:26 GMT
It doesn't matter why he went away, absent is absent. It means you aren't there. And even now that he is there he doesn't engage with Annie, even when he is present he isn't present with her.
He was mean to her once? Abuse doesn't require meanness, look at how she reacts to him every time he is around, the girl is emotionally stunted.
Emotional abuse isn't necessarily intentional either, it often comes from the insecurity and hurt of the abuser, as they cycle between pushing the victim away and trying to regain control of the relationship.
Tony's return is just about a perfect example, he returns from absence where she can't even reach him and goes straight into control mode. When she pushes back he gives her space, and befriends her friend while ignoring her and intentionally leaves the room the minute she arrives.
His intent is irrelevant, he dangles affection for her to see, but denies it to her, and when her behavior affected him, he was "mean" to her, and by mean, he was controlling and distant, isolating her from people who support her while giving no support or understanding himself or even structure to help her do what he demanded.
Tony is emotionally abusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 10, 2017 14:22:57 GMT
Tony's return is just about a perfect example, he returns from absence where she can't even reach him and goes straight into control mode. Tony is emotionally abusive. Rubbish. You're reading far too much into it because "emotional abuse" is a pet theory that was banded about before we found out what actually happened before Tony showed up in Annie's classroom. What happened when he returned was not of his doing. The point (and central tragedy) of the matter is that both Annie and Tony are have convinced themselves that each has a problem with the other, when it simply isn't the case. He's not emotionally abusive, I repeat - he believes she hates him and wants nothing to do with him. I suspect that Tony is working on something he doesn't want the Court to know about, and for that reason as well (knowing that the Court is keeping relatively close tabs on Annie) he has to keep his distance. |
|
|
|
Post by phantaskippy on Nov 10, 2017 14:42:46 GMT
I see, so when he's emotionally distant, it doesn't hurt Annie because he doesn't know better, and when he shows affection and warmth to others but never to her it doesn't affect Annie because the court is manipulative, and when he disappears for long stretches and is unreachable by his daughter, he isn't really absent because he has his reasons, and when it takes a deceptive act by another adult to even allow Annie to see her father show any human emotion, that doesn't hurt her because she is wrong in thinking he doesn't care.
I get it. If you have a reason or excuse your actions can't hurt others.
Cool beans.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 11, 2017 0:19:45 GMT
I suspect that Tony is working on something he doesn't want the Court to know about, and for that reason as well (knowing that the Court is keeping relatively close tabs on Annie) he has to keep his distance. I wonder if it's that simple. Such an answer would suggest that this trouble isn't really due to the weaknesses and failings of either Annie or Antony - the blame comes from a set of shadowy conspirators, and if Annie and her father were no longer under their thumb, the problem would disappear. But from what I've seen of "Gunnerkrigg Court" so far, I doubt that Tom would be taking such a route. Yes, the Court holds some responsibility for this situation - but I think that the credit comes ultimately to the failings of these two people, rather than the schemings of a faceless cabal. |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 11, 2017 0:28:21 GMT
I get it. If you have a reason or excuse your actions can't hurt others. That's not it at all. What I'm saying is that the term "emotional abuse" carries connotations of intent. By my reading, it has never been Tony's intention to cause harm to Annie - if anything, all indications point to the exact opposite. Yes, the way he treated Annie in the classroom that day was shockingly harsh on the surface, but that doesn't tally up with what we've seen of him before (in flashbacks) and since. Misdirection is a pretty standard storytelling technique and, while I'd never presume to second-guess Tom, I wouldn't be surprised if that was what he was going for when re-introducing Tony. Of course, the reaction from many readers at the time was so strong and visceral that I wonder if Tom hasn't deliberately gone further than originally intended in trying to redress the balance since. As I said above, in "Annie And The Fire" we saw not only that Tony had been coerced into being the Court's "cat's paw" in making Annie repeat the year and separating her from her classmates, but also that Tony blamed himself (and only himself) for Surma's death 1 and that behind the seemingly emotionless way in which he was delivering Annie's punishment from the Court, he was actually close to an emotional breaking point. Then in the subsequent arc involving Jeanne, we saw Annie behaving in exactly the same way - blaming herself for the things that went wrong (until Kat set her straight) and appearing outwardly calm in front of people she cares about while her emotions ran riot under the surface. I'd be beyond surprised if that juxtaposition of father and daughter was unintentional. So - on one level, I'd argue that Tom's been trying to show us that one reason for Annie and Tony's stilted relationship at present is because each of them believes that the other wants to keep them at arms' length as a result of failings on their own part (i.e. Annie believes Tony is being distant because he's disappointed in her, and Tony believes that Annie is being distant because she blames him both for Surma's death and her current predicament). If that's the case then there's a strong vein of storytelling to be mined there. But there are other questions related to this arc alone which I reckon hint at something quite crucial going on with Tony. Firstly, we know he asked Annie to turn Rey over to him when he was delivering the Court's punishment. Based on what he told Donny, that wasn't one of the Court's conditions - so what did Tony want with Rey? 2 It's also worth noting that Tony returned Rey to Annie at the first time of asking. Secondly, we know that Tony's journey ended with him finding the creatures in the cave and what happened to him and Annie as a result, but it's never been explicitly stated what his intentions regarding the 'pomps actually were (In his exhausted and injured state, he accepted the creatures' offer of seeing Surma before he actually got to ask them anything) - was he originally after something else? Thirdly, Tony seems to be outwardly giving the impression that the Court have reined him in and that he's "back within the fold", so to speak - but if that's the case, why has he thoroughly circumvented Court surveillance within his house? 3I have my own theories as to what he may be up to, which I won't embarrass meself by getting into right now... All I will say is that I don't think the fact that the one flashback we've seen in which only Annie and Tony are present shows Tony bandaging Annie's injury is a coincidence...  1 - Which is why I can't fathom why some readers still seem to think he blames Annie in any way, shape or form. 2 - Bearing in mind that Tony seemed to want to talk to Rey in his flat - which just so happens to be the one place on campus Court surveillance can't penetrate. 3 - And along the same lines, why is it that (to the best of my memory) we've never seen Annie invited inside? [PS. todd - I wasn't saying it's an either/or thing! ] |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 11, 2017 1:25:29 GMT
It's been pretty much stated outright that if any of the characters in the story has a good handle on the Court's capabilities - to say nothing of motivations - that person is Tony. As such, it's a certainty that he'll have covered every angle he can. The question to my mind concerns Tony's significant efforts to keep the Court's eye away from what he's working on behind closed doors in that spartan flat of his. I don't know. I mean his judgement thus far has proven to backfire on him (believing he would have been able to save Surma from her fate and unaware that his attempt to reach her nearly cost Annie her life, plus not recognizing that his daughter actually loves him). |
|
|
|
Post by rinabean on Nov 11, 2017 1:26:39 GMT
I get it. If you have a reason or excuse your actions can't hurt others. That's not it at all. What I'm saying is that the term "emotional abuse" carries connotations of intent. By my reading, it has never been Tony's intention to cause harm to Annie - if anything, all indications point to the exact opposite. abuse doesn't require intent, at all. Neglect is a form of abuse and often has no intent whatsoever. Also, Tony does intend to be absent from Annie, to leave her an orphan in a strange place for many years. That wasn't an accident. That was a choice he made. A series of choices he made. He may have had his reasons but that doesn't change that he intentionally abandoned her. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Nov 11, 2017 1:58:49 GMT
2 - Bearing in mind that Tony seemed to want to talk to Rey in his flat - which just so happens to be the one place on campus Court surveillance can't penetrate. 3 - And along the same lines, why is it that (to the best of my memory) we've never seen Annie invited inside? All of a piece here... culturally, a person's home symbolises themselves. This is a minor theme in this comic, if you think about it. So we're not surprised when the pathologically closed, private, empty man who refuses to share any of himself with his daughter never invites her into his pathologically empty dwelling. The scene where he invites in Donald, bearing a bottle of booze, is especially symbolic. And the fact that it is closely guarded from Court surveillance is consistent with him being a sort of mystery that the Court, perhaps, can't absolutely fathom. I wonder if we are going to see any story elements in which Reynardine and Annie's friends, who have been in Tony's house, meaningfully penetrate his psychological barriers as well. Wasn't Kat a member of this group? |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Nov 11, 2017 2:23:39 GMT
Thats been said, both here and in comic, it fairly obvious that they aren't "alone" in the sense that Surma haunts Tony via Annie. But in the literal sense, which was what frogspawned implied if not meant, they have factually physically been alone. How being alone with Annie seems to Tony isn't really important, at least to Annie, when he can be cool with other people if they are alone. They haven't ever factually, physically been alone because Surma's Fire is a demonstrably real thing and now inhabits Antimony. As was Surmas individuality, which we know disappeared when she died. The fire is an inheritance of power/magic, not a continuation of any individuality. Surma isn't around in any real sense, nor are all the other ancestors that once had that fire. It like having black hair or being 6'10. You have inherited that, but that doesn't mean the people you inherited it from are inside you. And while those past fires are part of Annie in a more tangible sense then our ancestors are with us, it is still the same idea. Otherwise Surma wouldn't need a bone antenna to be brought back, and doing so wouldn't have nearly killed Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by pinegreenjellybean on Nov 11, 2017 3:11:27 GMT
So, btw, I always saw Annie as physically inheriting everything from her mother except hair texture, which she got from Tony. So I don't see her as a total Surma clone. Surma has curly hair even in the morning, which indicates that she didn't curl it, vice versa with Annie, which indicates that she didn't straighten it. So I don't think she's genetically identical to Surma, due to that little bit of Tony-ness in her hair.
Just mentioning because it urks me when fictional kids are basically clones of one of their parents. |
|
Noka
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by Noka on Nov 11, 2017 7:42:07 GMT
I get it. If you have a reason or excuse your actions can't hurt others. That's not it at all. What I'm saying is that the term "emotional abuse" carries connotations of intent. By my reading, it has never been Tony's intention to cause harm to Annie - if anything, all indications point to the exact opposite. I do not disagree with you, tc, that Tony has reasons for why the things that happen around him happen, and that he probably doesn't intend to hurt Annie. But emotional abuse, unfortunately, does not at all entail intent. Intent is completely irrelevant to abuse. If I am convinced punching someone in the face will knock the demons out of their skull and help them think gooder, punching them in the face is still characterized as assault. The same rules apply here: you do not have to be acting with intent to be emotionally abusive. The opposite is true: often, emotional abuse can be unintentional, where an abuser may not understand the scope of their actions or be acting to suppress their victim, but it still happens, and there lies the issue. While yes, people usually mean intentional abuse when discussing emotional abuse, it isn't good to immediately force the conclusion that they intend to discuss that Tony intended to abuse Annie when there is something that needs to be recognized, and that is that Tony should be held responsible for the shit he pulled with Annie, even if he didn't fully intend it. In a discussion of if Tony was abusive or not, we can't concern ourselves with intent. His intent is what makes him redeemable, not what justifies his actions. |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 11, 2017 8:59:44 GMT
believing he would have been able to save Surma from her fate and unaware that his attempt to reach her nearly cost Annie her life... Er, if I recall correctly Tony said he "promised [he] could help" - he didn't say he believed he could save her. And he most certainly was made aware that the antenna was harming Annie by Zimmy's intervention. Neglect is a form of abuse and often has no intent whatsoever. True, but on what basis are you presuming neglect? And on what basis are you presuming that decision was Tony's alone? But emotional abuse, unfortunately, does not at all entail intent. For what it's worth I did a little Googling, and it would appear that the specifics are still disputed. What is not disputed is that in order to e considered abuse, the act of the abuser diminishing their victim has to be systematic. It has to be part of a repeated pattern. Tony has clearly shown that he holds *himself* responsible for "the shit he pulled with Annie", even though he arguably had little choice. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Nov 11, 2017 15:10:58 GMT
True, but on what basis are you presuming neglect? Actually failing to contact your child in several years is enough to be convicted with abandonment and neglect in sthe western countries I know (UK France and Germany). Even if you make sure the child is left somewhere where their basic needs are fulfilled, as a parent you are still supposed to show some token interest by, for example, sending a postcard twice a year or something. And on top of that you must make sure at least that they have a guardian who will take care of them - an actual person, not "the Court". |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Nov 12, 2017 5:37:34 GMT
Actually failing to contact your child in several years is enough to be convicted with abandonment and neglect in sthe western countries I know (UK France and Germany) ... And on top of that you must make sure at least that they have a guardian who will take care of them - an actual person, not "the Court". Correct - however I'd be surprised if there weren't certain contingencies and dispensations in place for, say, undercover law enforcement or foreign intelligence operatives. That's talking about the real universe in which we live though, not a fictitious universe centred around a secret society which has spent centuries trying to harness and meld the powers of scientific and quasi-magical etheric disciplines. I think it's reasonable to infer that the standards might have to be somewhat different - and indeed it's arguably the case that Tony is in many ways (as was Surma) an intelligence operative for the Court. I could re-iterate that we've just been shown that Surma and Tony's relationship started (and presumably continued) as an equal partnership - in fact the latter part of the chapter has Surma taking the lead in several ways. There has to be a reason for Tom showing us this, and I'd guess that at least part of the reason is to imply that Surma almost certainly had a say in what would happen to Annie in the event of her death. It's also probable that she and Tony agreed what he would have to do. The question that has to be asked is; what could possibly be so vital to Surma and Tony that they would agree to have the Court care for Annie, and have Tony leave Annie behind in order to travel far and wide on a research expedition? |
|
