yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on Nov 27, 2017 16:39:34 GMT
I am disappointed we are this far into the chapter and still no answers on why Kat has a WiFi-enabled alarm clock. I'm gonna guess it's so that you can give it sound clips via the internet for customizable alarms. Or maybe it's so that it automatically updates when daylight savings happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Nepycros on Nov 27, 2017 16:45:53 GMT
Someone clue me in, how is he being passive aggressive? If I were uncomfortable about making humor at a particular time, the best thing I could do is offer praise for...
holy shit, I just got on board.
He could've salvaged everything just by saying, "Really? Good job, Annie." Instead he makes concise statements about Annie's work to Kat while Annie is present. That is crossing a line.
Cripes.
|
|
ST13R
Full Member
Quiet little mouse
Posts: 171
|
Post by ST13R on Nov 27, 2017 16:53:06 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence...
|
|
|
|
Post by nero on Nov 27, 2017 17:14:13 GMT
Problem is that we'll see Anthony continue to only give those sorts of remarks about Annie until Kat finally snaps and tell Anthony what the forums have been saying all along. I think Kat might be able to get through Anthony somehow and maybe since its her workshop whatever Court secrets that hold him back might be revealed a little.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 27, 2017 18:05:45 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence... It is time to overthink the comic once more. KAT: "You know, Annie helped me out a lot with the initial anatomical designs!" I infer from the previous panel that Kat calculated this statement to impact the conversation/interaction in a positive way. ANTHONY: "I see." This is an acknowledgement that Kat said something that she probably expected a response to, and a positive-tinged initial assessment of its truth value. The pause between Anthony's words in panels 7 to 8 are the implications of what Kat meant when she said that sinking in for Anthony. ANTHONY: "They did require some additional work." Since Kat doesn't challenge this statement I assume it is true (which is reasonable since many initial designs do need changes). But why say anything at all here? If it is true Kat should be well aware of it. If he were less intelligent and he hadn't made the previous statement I might take it for a place-holder made by someone who wasn't good at interacting with groups, just something to say since he apparently is expected to say something. Yes, it is (very probably) a factual statement. But since he had already acknowledged Kat's statement the fact that he said something more after that pause between Anthony's words in panel 7 to 8 means that there is more motive than simple acknowledgement here. Anthony is reaffirming that he believes the truth of what Kat is saying as opposed to doubting it, which some characters might be inclined to do because Antimony is not terribly mechanically inclined. But he already said something that would do that. Assuming there are no recording/broadcasting devices the potential audience for that final statement is Kat, Antimony, and Anthony and also assuming that Anthony spent the pause between panels 7 and 8 evaluating Kat's last statement for its implications on future lab interaction and his relationship with Antimony and Kat, which would be reasonable as that appears to be what Kat intended, what Anthony's saying can be broken down by audience member. For Kat, Anthony is participating in a conversation with her, reflecting on her thoughts as opposed to ignoring her or doubting her. However he is reminding her that Antimony is not an equal partner in their work. For Antimony, Anthony is putting her in her proper place; he has reviewed her work and finds it wanting (as per usual) which I interpret as a signal that Anthony expects their past style of interaction to continue. By implication this is a reassertion of their dysfunctional parent/child dynamic. And for Anthony, this is comforting as it perpetuates the relationships and power dynamic that he is familiar with as opposed to the lab heading off into uncharted territory. In doing so he defeats Kat's attempt to alter the Anthony/Antimony relationship without insulting Kat. Given the motives I'm aware of I don't see a reason for him to qualify what he's said next page, except if Antimony flies into a rage and he gets to correct her some more. Tears or fleeing the lab would not prevent Anthony from getting what he appears to want... unless they're Kat's, and I don't think that Kat is worked up to that level (yet). |
|
brokshi
Full Member
About as furious as my icon appears ecstatic.
Posts: 108
|
Post by brokshi on Nov 27, 2017 20:08:13 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence... He's basically saying they weren't good enough and they had to fix 'em up. In essence that they were flawed, and the way he said it implies that it makes sense they were flawed since Annie was involved. On the side, Kat's reaction is meant to show how this is supposed to appear, which is a dig at Annie. Yes, initial designs always need some work, which is why it isn't worth commenting on. But he did just to let Annie know he wasn't satisfied with her work. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Nov 27, 2017 20:28:41 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence... Context is REALLY important. Tony isn't making some off-the-cuff neutral observation about how all initial designs need additional work. He's directly responding to Kat's comment about Annie's contribution. Look at these lines in relation to each other: "Annie helped me out a lot with the initial anatomical designs!" - "I see. They did require some additional work." Again, Tony is making his comment in RESPONSE to the information that Annie had a hand in the designs. As a result, the use of "they did require" strongly implies that the designs needed that work because Annie helped out. No, he's not flat out saying that's why they needed additional work. He's implying it, which is what makes it passive-aggressive instead of.... aggressive-aggressive. The trick with passive-aggressive statements is that they're designed to be debatable. No one can argue that "You suck" means anything other than "You suck". The intent is clear. But say something like "gosh, it must be nice to be around people that don't suck" and now everyone around you is wondering if you mean THEY suck, or if you mean someone else in the vicinity sucks, or if you're just making a general observation about the enjoyment of non-sucky company. They feel kinda like they're being insulted, but because the intent is muddied, they don't feel comfortable defending themselves. That's what makes passive-aggressive stuff so insidious. And I say this as someone with pagro tendencies I had to train myself out of. The final key point here is that this isn't something new. Tony has made these sorts uncomfortable comments in relation to Annie before. The pattern is as important as the context. |
|
|
|
Post by ohthatone on Nov 27, 2017 20:33:23 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence... He's basically saying they weren't good enough and they had to fix 'em up. In essence that they were flawed, and the way he said it implies that it makes sense they were flawed since Annie was involved. On the side, Kat's reaction is meant to show how this is supposed to appear, which is a dig at Annie. Yes, initial designs always need some work, which is why it isn't worth commenting on. But he did just to let Annie know he wasn't satisfied with her work. Was he supposed to go silent after he said "I see"? personally I would take that as even more offensive than acknowledging the fact that they needed some reworking. they aren't working on something where they can say "welp good enough" and Tony doesn't stroke me as the kind of person to give out praise just to make someone feel good. Kat's reaction is meant to show Kat's reaction, which she probably does worry how Annie will take it. Actually, when I first read this, I thought it was a dig at Kat's work since she's in charge and let the designs pass without the scrutiny they needed. but I didn't read this as "oh Annie was involved? that explains it", I read it as more "Annie was involved, huh, I should probably say something" and that is what we got. So far.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 20:35:59 GMT
Assuming there are no recording/broadcasting devices Nobody could possibly be so dense to not understand that initial designs generally require refinement, and that Kat already knows they've refined those designs, or that you couldn't express indifference better through other reactions. I agree that Anthony's comment must be intentionally dismissive. Which really only leaves this explanation; having been blackmailed by Court agents via "lever of love" once, he's trying to play them for fools whenever he thinks he's under surveillance (but then he should know that Juliette and Arthur have debugged Kat's workshop -- unless the Shadow Men, or certain people in the Court, need his surgery skills and he's clueless about J&A having their own interests within the apparatus). He might even justify this as concern for Annie's own safety (aside from, obviously, his own) -- and presumably he can't take her to his "safe-house" since they'd get observed en route, which would be just as incriminating. Nonetheless, the point that Anthony doesn't show the slightest sign of affection towards his daughter doesn't need to be made again; thus I'm assuming this chapter will change something. (Incidentally, Anthony isn't that perceptive if he couldn't connect the symbol on Renard's forehead to the seraphs' engraving, which he should see on his daily commute... but then Renard hasn't been near him for a while now.) As for whether Kat's lying (which I don't think she's short-sighted enough to do here), early on Annie did clearly have a better understanding of biology (and history, thus also Tony's assessment when her cheating was discovered) than Kat: "So their point of locomotion is in the joints? That's not quite how muscles work." |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 27, 2017 21:51:27 GMT
Assuming there are no recording/broadcasting devices Nobody could possibly be so dense to not understand that initial designs generally require refinement, and that Kat already knows they've refined those designs, or that you couldn't express indifference better through other reactions. I agree that Anthony's comment must be intentionally dismissive. Which really only leaves this explanation; having been blackmailed by Court agents via "lever of love" once, he's trying to play them for fools whenever he thinks he's under surveillance (but then he should know that Juliette and Arthur have debugged Kat's workshop -- unless the Shadow Men, or certain people in the Court, need his surgery skills and he's clueless about J&A having their own interests within the apparatus). He might even justify this as concern for Annie's own safety (aside from, obviously, his own) -- and presumably he can't take her to his "safe-house" since they'd get observed en route, which would be just as incriminating. Nonetheless, the point that Anthony doesn't show the slightest sign of affection towards his daughter doesn't need to be made again; thus I'm assuming this chapter will change something. It's true that the Court is a surveillance state and that the "shadow men" have indicated an interest in this location, but do they have a reason to monitor Kat's workshop now? It's become their asset. Anthony presumably reports, Antimony's been cowed into submission and Kat's always been compliant. If they were paranoid in general or had a reason to be suspicious it would be another story. As things stand, having a team actively eavesdropping and reporting would make security worse since there would be more people in on the lab's activity and their reports would double the sensitive paper trails; hardware itself isn't immune to being compromised. Beyond that, I think the ship has sailed on convincing the Court that Antimony isn't useful in pressuring Anthony into doing things, and Anthony's interaction with Antimony is consistent with before being blackmailed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 22:58:43 GMT
]It's true that the Court is a surveillance state and that the "shadow men" have indicated an interest in this location, but do they have a reason to monitor Kat's workshop now? It's become their asset. J&A were not acting on "the Shadow Men's" orders when they severed the connections as they claim -- and I'm assuming that the Shadow Men collapse into, well, atomic factions. In other words, the revolving-door leadership of secret services in authoritarian states suggests a rather... uneasy hierarchy; and these organizations tend to get split and rearranged at will precisely to facilitate infighting, since they can challenge the state. We still know very little about how "the Court" is structured; from all the characters in focus, Anthony is (appropriately) the only one who's been obviously tempted to look into this, so far -- next to Jack, but he's still looking for someone whereas Tony found Surma somewhere else entirely (so he thinks; the intrusion of "Court violet" and colour-link to the satellite dish next to the cabin suggests otherwise). Check the puns. I don't think he does -- and he's probably more useful to them if left largely to himself; that's what they did when he went on his pilgrimage (which, of course, came full circle). You have to wonder if that was the Court's intent in bringing back Tony, as the one person who does have the influence to confuse Annie out of her position as the Forest medium. How much of Coyote's aggression against the "Broken Man" can be traced to jealousy? Yeah -- poor Paz. Then again, think of the mice. Absolutely -- and regarding that last point, Kat herself could probably do that; we've seen her jammers as early as Power Station (although, once again, the Court may even encourage some transgression to lure people into its "urban" appeal). If "the Court" or "the Shadow Men" consider Kat's work dangerous, they'd probably not permit Anthony to grow himself a hand (oh, and note the quite possible parallel between Anthony and Ysengrin here). You know that, I know that, but Tony might be grasping at straws because he feels cornered. For all we know, the Court could have been running a fire-elemental breeding program and at least some of the physicians or nurses at Good Hope were planted personnel -- that's not as outlandish as you might think, if you go by the practices of actual secret services. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 27, 2017 23:13:58 GMT
I feel a bit confused, why does everybody see this response as putting Annie down? While Tony isn't giving praise, this response isn't downright saying Annie is useless, it's just Tony giving a factual statement: the initial designs did require some additional work; pretty normal for initial designs. We aren't seeing his face, so no idea if his comment is meant to be positive or negative (or neutral), and for all we know, there's another panel on the following page of Tony trying to awkwardly follow up on the sentence... Lack of praise is arguably at times the same as putting one down. I mean he could have saved face by saying "They did require some additional work, but her imput shows promise". There's a fine line between "being bad at social situations" and "just being a c**t". A lot of people seem interpret Anthony as having ASD (autistic spectrum disorder), and speaking as someone who's on the spectrum, if I said that kind of shit in front of any of my friends, the best-case scenario is that I get called out for being an insensitive jackass. The difference is that I'm a twenty-something in college, and he's a doctor. Who had to go to medical school. And learn about bedside manner. Is treating other human beings with respect something that they don't teach in UK medical school? Because that's the only reason I can think that "social awkwardness" is an acceptable excuse at this point. Honestly, I think to a degree, educators underestimate the value of socialization. Schools see it as nothing more than chatting with your homies and gossiping, while jobs like being a doctor or even simple job like a store clerk requires you to carry yourself with friendly and confident demeanor, which lack of is arguably a legit grounds to deny one employment. Which really only leaves this explanation; having been blackmailed by Court agents via "lever of love" once, he's trying to play them for fools whenever he thinks he's under surveillance (but then he should know that Juliette and Arthur have debugged Kat's workshop -- unless the Shadow Men, or certain people in the Court, need his surgery skills and he's clueless about J&A having their own interests within the apparatus). He might even justify this as concern for Annie's own safety (aside from, obviously, his own) -- and presumably he can't take her to his "safe-house" since they'd get observed en route, which would be just as incriminating. To which I ask, what if the Court or some of the members are genre savy enough to recognize the tactic ("Seriously? He thinks we're stupid enough to buy the tactic of acting distant towards her for her protection? Does he think we're supervillains from the pages of The Amazing Spider-Man or something?"). If that was the case over Tony simply being himself, then it would mean that he's emotionally scarring his daughter for nothing. I mean if he considers The Court to be that intimidating and a threat to take seriously, then I would think he considers such a method to be futile But he is also deliberately trying to push Annie away, there's no question about that. Based on his drunken ramble a few chapters ago, he has fully internalised the "I'm a bad person and my daughter should hate me"-mindset, and really does his best to get her follow the program. I feel that this is the issue that Kat really needs to confront him with, if there's to be any progress. I do wonder if there's precedence in real life for such a method not only working, but not emotionally/mentally scarring the person one is seeking to protect with said method. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 27, 2017 23:19:16 GMT
I find it interesting that in the contemporary mindset, honesty and objective review are now seen as "Abuse".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 23:45:52 GMT
To which I ask, what if the Court or some of the members are genre savy enough to recognize the tactic ("Seriously? He thinks we're stupid enough to buy the tactic of acting distant towards her for her protection? Does he think we're supervillains from the pages of The Amazing Spider-Man or something?"). People who consider secret services alluring (outside of make-believe games) must have a blind side. Unfortunately, I'd agree that the Court should be experienced enough not to blunder here. But apart from self-pity in the way Lightice suggested (we know that something happened with his parents, possibly a source of his fear), that's all I can offer for an explanation. Whenever Annie isn't there, his attitude doesn't exactly suggest that he would rather have seen Surma give birth to a tangle of vipers -- and someone as attaching as Tony should grow, if anything, overprotective of his daughter (he did give her martial arts lessons). In fact, I think nobody has been shown in tears more often over the course of the comic, and every time it was over his family, and at least once specifically due to him harming his daughter. It's rather puzzling that he'd never confess to Annie about his fear of making a poor father -- which could well be true (but nobody ever chooses just one teacher anyway), and in that case, they would probably both come out better from it -- specifically because we know that Annie usually excels at mediation (a talent he doesn't seem to realize, of course). What's more puzzling is that Annie appears too unaware or uncharacteristically docile to confront him about this (she tackled Jack quite differently), even though she was present at all the clues we also took, and instead went with "brainwashing" as the explanation (?!), which, frankly, felt completely out of whack to me. Fear is the source of all irrational behaviour. (Greed is applied fear.) I find it interesting that in the contemporary mindset, honesty and objective review are now seen as "Abuse". Left-wing politics, which are obviously your target here, are actually on evident decline within democratic countries -- a natural extension of them claiming "the contemporary mindset" for themselves, no matter what is right or wrong about their political positions, and some honesty left in the workings of democracy (seeing as most adults would quite sensibly not want a randomly-selected instant or circumstance of their life to persist into eternity). This will probably flip right back in some years when the next colour-coded guild considers all problems essentially solved in theory, except how to get people to agree on it (as it's "reasonable", or perhaps psychologically fashionable, to assume that "reason" isn't the right answer here). Honest objective review may still involve base ulterior motives. But it's true, "abuse" also gets tiring -- it might be very German to think abuse has to involve malice rather than ineptitude or fear, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Nov 27, 2017 23:50:55 GMT
I am disappointed we are this far into the chapter and still no answers on why Kat has a WiFi-enabled alarm clock. The alarm clock is really a Seraph in disguise, it even has a big red button on top. The WiFi allows the Seraph to keep all his brothers up to date. |
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Nov 28, 2017 0:03:56 GMT
I am disappointed we are this far into the chapter and still no answers on why Kat has a WiFi-enabled alarm clock. The alarm clock is really a Seraph in disguise, it even has a big red button on top. The WiFi allows the Seraph to keep all his brothers up to date. Now that's just creepy. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 28, 2017 0:31:22 GMT
To me, one of the big problems with "Antony's just pretending to act cold and distant to protect Annie from the Court" is that Antony was shown acting that way towards her even before the Court got hold of him (as in the silent look he gives her when he's by the side of the dying Surma).
Not to mention that I don't think it fits the tone of the comic. Antony's coldness stemming from his flaws, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities (character drama) seems more the kind of thing that would happen in "Gunnerkrigg Court" than mere "I'm acting this way to dupe the scheming watchers" (spy thriller).
I suspect that the Court's role in this is ultimately a plot device (if one made convincing by the past events in the story). Tom wants to do drama about Annie and her father's troubled relations, but the nature of those troubled relations would most likely ensure that Antony would be keeping well away from her, if he could. Thus, bring in the Court as a means of forcing him to be in the same community as her and interacting with her, and to keep him from bolting out the door - after which, its role in this is fulfilled.
(To explain better what I mean: one of my college English teachers described the villainous Don John in "Much Ado About Nothing" as a plot device character, to manipulate Claudio into thinking Hero false and rejecting her. The real antagonist is Claudio's own insecurity and fears, but these would not be enough, on their own, to dupe him into thinking that she had betrayed him. So Shakespeare puts in a plotter to frame Hero and push Claudio into coming to the wrong conclusion, and who then goes permanently off-stage, his role completed.)
|
|
Sadie
Full Member
I eat food and sleep in a horizontal position.
Posts: 146
|
Post by Sadie on Nov 28, 2017 1:20:09 GMT
Was he supposed to go silent after he said "I see"? I mean, you could write an entire book on the things he could have done that weren't being silent or giving praise. "I see. Well, I'm working on X now" or "It takes many hours to do designs" or "I adjusted the initial musculature layout in those designs" or "You must have found that helpful, Kat". Or like "I see. Those designs were written on paper", if we want to argue that he's just awkwardly pulling random observations out of a hat. See, that's my thing. We know Tony cares about Annie. If he didn't, he wouldn't have cared what the Court did to her and washed his hands of the whole parental deal. We know Tony has emotional reactions to Annie. Tony admitted to it in his own words. We also know he sees himself as an awful person and thinks Annie should too. So whenever Tony says anything to, about, around, or in relation to Annie, it's NEVER from a place of "well, I have no feelings or opinions about what she does, so I'll just come up with something". There's always that intense pain, grief, insecurity, and self-recrimination underlying it. Anyway, I don't think he's maliciously trying to hurt her just for the sake of hurting her. I just can't accept his words as existing without any ulterior motive. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 28, 2017 1:21:39 GMT
It's rather puzzling that he'd never confess to Annie about his fear of making a poor father -- which could well be true (but nobody ever chooses just one teacher anyway), and in that case, they would probably both come out better from it -- specifically because we know that Annie usually excels at mediation (a talent he doesn't seem to realize, of course). What's more puzzling is that Annie appears too unaware or uncharacteristically docile to confront him about this (she tackled Jack quite differently), even though she was present at all the clues we also took, and instead went with "brainwashing" as the explanation (?!), which, frankly, felt completely out of whack to me. I believe the latter explains the former. Antimony would be easily able to pick Anthony apart verbally and emotionally so Anthony *must* retain the power in the relationship. The father criticizes the daughter, not the other way around. If Anthony demonstrates remorse or that he wants Antimony's affection then that endangers his control. The implicit threat is complete abandonment; for things to work the way they appear to, Antimony must fear on some level that Anthony will withdraw completely if she successfully challenges his authority... and then the few crumbs of approval and attention that she's been subsisting on will be gone entirely. Of course, Antimony is getting older and trying to form new relationships so the clock is running down on this strategy's effectiveness in general as she becomes more emotionally mature, and in particular since that will bring more people into the Antimony/Anthony equation who are likely to unbalance it. Antimony might be more willing to challenge Anthony to defend someone else important to her than she would to stand up for herself. I don't think he does [report] and he's probably more useful to them if left largely to himself; that's what they did when he went on his pilgrimage (which, of course, came full circle). He might be excused in part or wholly from normal reporting standards and channels but Anthony has to be reporting and reporting regularly. Reporting, communication of goals and progress towards goals, is one of the basic building blocks of organizations. For counter-spooks the reporting can be minimized and silo'd but it still has to exist. It might be one-way and not face-to-face, like secure email or something similar; perhaps Anthony only sees MIB when there's a problem, but if the Court didn't have that control then there'd be all sorts of diversion of time and resources to other projects. Nothing could be accomplished. You have to wonder if [Antimony being cowed into submission] was the Court's intent in bringing back Tony, as the one person who does have the influence to confuse Annie out of her position as the Forest medium. How much of Coyote's aggression against the "Broken Man" can be traced to jealousy? I think I commented at the time that it was a "kill two birds with one stone" sort of situation. Antimony gets reined in and Anthony gets dragged back to the fold. For all we know, the Court could have been running a fire-elemental breeding program and at least some of the physicians or nurses at Good Hope were planted personnel -- that's not as outlandish as you might think, if you go by the practices of actual secret services. It's true that organizations like the Court are incestuous; the same people that the Court might want for a fire elemental breeding program would likely be the same people that Anthony would want there for curing Surma. And the Court probably has to show a certain amount of effective results in areas related to national defense and weapons applications and so forth or risk their connections and funding sources. But I think that it would be easier and safer from the Court's perspective to figure out a hack that would allow normal people to use stored ether to create temporary pyrokinetic abilities. There's just a lot less chance of that getting out of control. The fire-elemental breeding would represent basic research that could be applied to other things down the road, though. |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 28, 2017 1:57:03 GMT
Not to mention that I don't think it fits the tone of the comic. Antony's coldness stemming from his flaws, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities (character drama) seems more the kind of thing that would happen in "Gunnerkrigg Court" than mere "I'm acting this way to dupe the scheming watchers" (spy thriller). Even then, I'd argue that the whole lie to or keep the loved one at a distance is possibly a questionable choice that it would be nice to see addressed in fiction. I mean to begin with that only works if: 1. Your enemy is too dumb to exercise genre saviness. 2. Enemy having a code of honor and not striking innocents or those in the dark. Case in point, unlike her film counterpart, Gwen Stacy never did find out that her boyfriend is Spider-Man, yet the Green Goblin still considered her fair game for targeting. Besides, I think there's some debate to be found that being spurned by your loved one and/or having trust issue make external threats seem like a better alternative. So whenever Tony says anything to, about, around, or in relation to Annie, it's NEVER from a place of "well, I have no feelings or opinions about what she does, so I'll just come up with something". There's always that intense pain, grief, insecurity, and self-recrimination underlying it. Anyway, I don't think he's maliciously trying to hurt her just for the sake of hurting her. True, but there's a lot to be said about how sometimes good intentions can be even worse than maliciousness. With the latter, you know it's bad and will be prepared for problems, but the former would have you being blind to a particular problem. And lets face it, anyone in the factual right never has to state having good intentions, it's the ones who screwed up and need validation for their words/actions. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 28, 2017 4:23:12 GMT
I find it interesting that in the contemporary mindset, honesty and objective review are now seen as "Abuse". Left-wing politics, which are obviously your target here, are actually on evident decline within democratic countries -- a natural extension of them claiming "the contemporary mindset" for themselves, no matter what is right or wrong about their political positions, and some honesty left in the workings of democracy (seeing as most adults would quite sensibly not want a randomly-selected instant or circumstance of their life to persist into eternity). This will probably flip right back in some years when the next colour-coded guild considers all problems essentially solved in theory, except how to get people to agree on it (as it's "reasonable", or perhaps psychologically fashionable, to assume that "reason" isn't the right answer here). Honest objective review may still involve base ulterior motives. But it's true, "abuse" also gets tiring -- it might be very German to think abuse has to involve malice rather than ineptitude or fear, though. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was making a "target" of left-wing politics at all. Unless you believe that the left wing is the only body in the world today that is so hysterical and childish it can take no feedback that isn't cringingly positive? Or perhaps the only institution that is not build on a solid foundation of firm scientific evidence and logical argumentation and would crumble if assessed objectively? |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Nov 28, 2017 7:59:26 GMT
Yikes, Tony. I'm trying to see you sympathetically, but you're not making it any easier. Would it kill you to say something vaguely positive about your daughter once in a while? He's a doctor. Who had to go to medical school. And learn about bedside manner. Is treating other human beings with respect something that they don't teach in UK medical school? Anthony evidently learned his bedside manner from the Greg House school of medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Nov 28, 2017 8:26:22 GMT
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was making a "target" of left-wing politics at all. Maybe because we've all heard the "People who complain about abuse are just whining" rhetoric before. And while the word is sometimes used inappropriately, people I've heard tell variants of the sentence were always just taking a swing at left-wing politics in general. It has pretty much the same argumentative value as "kids these days". Unless you believe that the left wing is the only body in the world today that is so hysterical and childish it can take no feedback that isn't cringingly positive? Or perhaps the only institution that is not build on a solid foundation of firm scientific evidence and logical argumentation and would crumble if assessed objectively? You know, I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic. I'm a bit far away from the levels of hysteria politics tend to reach in some areas of the world, these days. Every time I read international papers, I wonder if I stumbled on an article from the Onion. This week in the US a guy tried to launch himself to the moon with a homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat. I feel a bit the same way reading that sentence. It sounds so ridiculous it can' possibly be serious, but I just can't tell anymore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 9:55:38 GMT
If Anthony demonstrates remorse or that he wants Antimony's affection then that endangers his control. The implicit threat is complete abandonment; for things to work the way they appear to, Antimony must fear on some level that Anthony will withdraw completely if she successfully challenges his authority... and then the few crumbs of approval and attention that she's been subsisting on will be gone entirely. Of course, Antimony is getting older and trying to form new relationships so the clock is running down on this strategy's effectiveness in general as she becomes more emotionally mature, and in particular since that will bring more people into the Antimony/Anthony equation who are likely to unbalance it. Antimony might be more willing to challenge Anthony to defend someone else important to her than she would to stand up for herself. Yet he returned Renard to her, allowed Kat to visit her in her secluded chamber... If he was insidiously looking to control Antimony by making a resource of affection and limiting the supply, that would make no sense; and that an amateur entomologist who got to know the love of his life in a forest should not understand why his daughter likes the forest is beyond absurd, so he must have ordered Annie to "cease the Forest nonsense" not because he disapproves of Gillitie's inhabitants, but because of orders from someone in the Court, possibly mixed with his own worries about her safety (thus the likewise-absurd Absolutely Safe Capsule she was shoved into). I think he's not showing affection for a different reason; Tony presumably can't deal with his guilt of "letting Surma die", being unable to disentangle his wife from his daughter (not to call him "incestuous", though -- I mean it as I understand Ysengrin on this), and subsequently harming his daughter in despair to retrieve his wife's "spirit" (which means that he's still failing to draw the obvious conclusion) -- all of which make him afraid to commit to Antimony, and he rationalizes this as protecting her -- both from shadowy organizations, and from his dismal imagination of himself -- by which, of course, he becomes what he fears more than by anything else. Tony is tragic, and I even suspect that he craves it, in that it gives him aesthetic pleasure. There's not enough in the comic to conclude that, though. From a "genre-savvy" standpoint of what Gunnerkrigg Court demands, of course, Tony's treatment of Annie is necessary to induce nigredo. What I meant is that Anthony might not report various details honestly -- what he's doing at the lab (presumably a black box to the outside), or why he's doing it. As far as I can see, though, there's no clue either way; we don't know about his motives and which echelons, if any, approve of his plan. They might not be close to reaching that point yet -- their induced rain couldn't soothe Zimmy. We don't know why it didn't work, but presumably, there's more at play here than the Ether acting as a vehicle for simple vitalism; the court must have gotten the memo about the synthesis of urea. I don't think that the Court would have less trouble with widely-distributed cheap weapons, either, and in any case, seems to prefer unique "big guns": Jeanne, for instance, and presumably the pompously-named Omega Device. (The Soviet department responsible for nuclear weapon production, by contrast, used the almost-laughable euphemism "Ministry of Medium Machine Building".) ---- I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was making a "target" of left-wing politics at all. Combined powers of honest objective review and a (sadly-necessarily) grown awareness of factions trying to ensnare me. In general, I've seen "[child] abuse" employed, often enough, as a keyword to steer into politically-tinged discussion. Therein, I've found that people accusing Anthony of it tend to express "left-leaning" positions elsewhere, while those who argue to absolve him tend to "lean right" (although these are uncouth generalizations; beyond that, results might differ in an anonymous survey; perhaps those more reluctant to render their political position on this forum don't show this correlation, or not as strongly). Using the word "hysterical" tends to coyly, if none too subtly, suggest opposition to feminism, but perhaps I place too much faith in how much others care about etymologies. Furthermore, you've argued that this comic puts forth "artistic propaganda" about "unconventional relationships" (read: unconventional because homosexual, not because a robot holds hands with a shadow cut from the floor while they're doing math homework). The only puzzle here is why you thought I wouldn't solve it. Mu. |
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Nov 28, 2017 10:48:46 GMT
Sigh. I'll get the "asssssshollllle" chant generator hooked back up. One would have hoped Tony had learned something, anything, from recent events, but no. We're now several chapters and a couple of years overdue for someone to front Tony properly about what a dick he's being and not chicken out. If ONLY there was a PERSON present who wouldn't even FLINCH when PUNCHING A DEATH GOD or CHASING AWAY THE LOVECRAFTIAN LIBRARIAN OF THE R.O.T.D.!!! |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 28, 2017 15:44:43 GMT
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was making a "target" of left-wing politics at all. Maybe because we've all heard the "People who complain about abuse are just whining" rhetoric before. And while the word is sometimes used inappropriately, people I've heard tell variants of the sentence were always just taking a swing at left-wing politics in general. It has pretty much the same argumentative value as "kids these days". There are certainly those in the current political and higher education fields that argue that things that are not abuse are abuse. If you are confident that they are all on the left, then I bow to your expertise. It's my opinion that diluting the term "Abuse" in this way contributes negatively to the discussion of more genuine cases - similar to the way that the over-use of "Racism" where it does not apply (e.g. in reference to President Trump) has led to the rise of the far-right, where people who have been castigated for holding reasonable viewpoints have been forced to shift further right to find a group that will accept them. Unless you believe that the left wing is the only body in the world today that is so hysterical and childish it can take no feedback that isn't cringingly positive? Or perhaps the only institution that is not build on a solid foundation of firm scientific evidence and logical argumentation and would crumble if assessed objectively? You know, I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic. I'm a bit far away from the levels of hysteria politics tend to reach in some areas of the world, these days. Every time I read international papers, I wonder if I stumbled on an article from the Onion. This week in the US a guy tried to launch himself to the moon with a homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat. I feel a bit the same way reading that sentence. It sounds so ridiculous it can' possibly be serious, but I just can't tell anymore. Modern politics and activism are reaching levels of self-parody that make me despair, it's true. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was making a "target" of left-wing politics at all. Combined powers of honest objective review and a (sadly-necessarily) grown awareness of factions trying to ensnare me. In general, I've seen "[child] abuse" employed, often enough, as a keyword to steer into politically-tinged discussion. Therein, I've found that people accusing Anthony of it tend to express "left-leaning" positions elsewhere, while those who argue to absolve him tend to "lean right" (although these are uncouth generalizations; beyond that, results might differ in an anonymous survey; perhaps those more reluctant to render their political position on this forum don't show this correlation, or not as strongly). Using the word "hysterical" tends to coyly, if none too subtly, suggest opposition to feminism, but perhaps I place too much faith in how much others care about etymologies. Furthermore, you've argued that this comic puts forth "artistic propaganda" about "unconventional relationships" (read: unconventional because homosexual, not because a robot holds hands with a shadow cut from the floor while they're doing math homework). The only puzzle here is why you thought I wouldn't solve it. Perhaps because there is nothing to "Solve". You might be used to dealing with people who hide their "True Colours" behind layers of misdirection and intrigue, but I assure you that I am not one of that kind. I was commenting on the fact that people in this thread seemed to be accusing Doctor Carver of abuse when all he did was reference that when a high school student tries to create artificial life that there is some extra work required to make that into a reality. Maybe that strikes you as unreasonable. It doesn't strike me that way. As for referring to earlier discussions, you will note that I do not see the need to obsess over positions you have previously taken - but for the purposes of indulging you I am happy to confirm that I do still believe that portions of Gunnerkrigg Court have been unnecessarily preachy about unconventional relationships (Not only homosexual ones, but also cross-racial, bestiality, robosexual, cross-dimensional.) Unless you believe that the left wing is the only body in the world today that is so hysterical and childish it can take no feedback that isn't cringingly positive? Or perhaps the only institution that is not build on a solid foundation of firm scientific evidence and logical argumentation and would crumble if assessed objectively? Mu. Not certain I take your meaning here. |
|
|
|
Post by fia on Nov 28, 2017 16:25:46 GMT
You could literally write a PhD thesis about the co-morbid social anxiety and narcissism that Tony exhibits. For me, this is evidence of Tom's great character-building; I am still enjoying the Tony arc, partly because of how fascinating the Tony-Annie relationship is. Part of its fascination is how broken it is. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Nov 28, 2017 16:39:59 GMT
I don't think it's a lie? Kat's been working on this for a long time, but at the very beginning when she had the bird wing revelation, Annie definitely knew a lot more about human anatomy and general biology than Kat did. It's entirely possible this is intended, but unless I'm forgetting some instance where she displayed actual postgrad-level anatomical insights - as opposed to the impressive but superficial knowledge of a pre-teen richly exposed to the subject - I don't see she could have had much to contribute to Kat's genius-level bio-cyber-magitech project except basic assistance. Kat would have had to be able to swiftly incorporate every related context in full in her toolbox anyway. That's why "helped me out a lot with the designs" sounds like a fib to me - any actual work of Annie's would necessarily be so conceptual and preliminary that none of it would survive even the earliest prototyping stages. And Tony only started working with Kat after she had several epiphanies and are now sciencing and engineering at a level where only another tech prodigy can hope to contribute. So if he takes Kat's comment at face value, he's basically saying, "well, that explains the mystery of the discrepancies between [current subject-focused genius Kat] and [earlier slightly less genius Kat approaching subject, vaguely attributed to Annie]". If he'd been a smoother person he might have said, "well, it's impressive for a non-magitech-genius to be even approaching your current level of work", but maybe that's roughly equivalent in his mind. In any case, I don't really see a specific put-down unless we think he thinks Annie should be expected to perform on Kat's even for Court standards extraordinary level. |
|
|
|
Post by rinabean on Nov 28, 2017 17:14:21 GMT
You could literally write a PhD thesis about the co-morbid social anxiety and narcissism that Tony exhibits. For me, this is evidence of Tom's great character-building; I am still enjoying the Tony arc, partly because of how fascinating the Tony-Annie relationship is. Part of its fascination is how broken it is. Maybe this is all it is. If you don't know anyone like this, maybe you can enjoy this sort of thing. Interesting character, interesting topic of study. I guess it should have been obvious to me that I'd hate this considering Tony might as well be my own father. I hope Tom isn't writing from experience too. In any case, unless someone's about to murder him I'm probably going to stop reading soon. This has been going on far far too long without him getting his comeuppance. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 28, 2017 17:39:11 GMT
I don't think it's a lie? Kat's been working on this for a long time, but at the very beginning when she had the bird wing revelation, Annie definitely knew a lot more about human anatomy and general biology than Kat did. It's entirely possible this is intended, but unless I'm forgetting some instance where she displayed actual postgrad-level anatomical insights - as opposed to the impressive but superficial knowledge of a pre-teen richly exposed to the subject - I don't see she could have had much to contribute to Kat's genius-level bio-cyber-magitech project except basic assistance. Kat would have had to be able to swiftly incorporate every related context in full in her toolbox anyway. That's why "helped me out a lot with the designs" sounds like a fib to me - any actual work of Annie's would necessarily be so conceptual and preliminary that none of it would survive even the earliest prototyping stages. Perhaps that's why Kat said "initial anatomical designs". It's also why Tony's reply amounts to "the first-draft sketch was a first-draft sketch". Something that it serves no useful purpose to say. And this was after he had acknowledged Kat's statement, so it served no conversational purpose either. |
|
