|
|
Post by blazingstar on Nov 28, 2017 18:20:07 GMT
Hi everyone, long-time forum lurker, first-time poster. I'm popping in to comment on a theory I don't think anyone else has mentioned yet.
All signs scream to me that Tony has some sort of autism. Not knowing how to act in social situations, not knowing how to form a proper relationship with his own daughter, being able to relax around only one person at a time - these don't seem like neurotypical things to me. It doesn't excuse any of his abusive actions, but we should think about Tony with this possible context in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Nov 28, 2017 18:27:29 GMT
I still think Tony is just being a jerk intentionally or unknowingly, but reading the comic again and considering what has been said here maybe im jumping the gun. While the comment comes off as rude, it might not be meant as an insult or even really a comment towards Annie. "Oh Annie was the one that helped you. That makes sense, you would have needed someone to help with the workload."
I mean it seems like a stretch, but Tony does talk like an asshole. Assuming we know what a character meant/is thinking based on how they say something is a safe bet in general. But with Tony, we might not even be in the ballpark.
|
|
|
|
Post by fia on Nov 28, 2017 18:48:15 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. Oh gosh no, I have been incredibly close to people like this. The believability is what attracts me because my way of coping with my experiences is often to over-examine them; getting to re-encounter the personality types that trouble me in fiction is one way of doing this. Tony is not real; that makes it feel safer somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 28, 2017 20:49:11 GMT
Welcome to the forum, blazingstar ! 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... Those are two things that Antimony would be willing to challenge him over, demonstrably so in the first case. If he had either argument then he'd risk blowing the whole works. 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. "Insidious" is not something that I'm implying and I certainly agree that Anthony feels guilt and powerlessness over his inability to save Surma and free Antimony from the cycle of passing on the fire. Sure, the Court wanted Antimony to cease the nonsense with the forest but Anthony himself has been described as indifferent to Coyote and things etheric. From his point of view the benefits are probably questionable at best. If she gains greater etheric powers, what then? She'll be better at putting "ghosts" to rest? She'll be able to fight monsters in the woods by herself? Maybe she'll be employed by the Court as a secret agent and be sent on dangerous missions? If she makes friends with the green folk, isn't that something that would draw her away from her studies (and her father's influence)? Meet a boy and fall in love, then have a child and die? None of these things are likely in tune with the sort of life that I imagine Anthony wants for Antimony. I also never said that he takes pleasure in what he's doing with regard to Antimony. Rather, I think that he has a death grip on their current relationship for fear of what would happen when the status quo changes. From a "genre-savvy" standpoint of what Gunnerkrigg Court demands, of course, Tony's treatment of Annie is necessary to induce nigredo. From the perspective of the earlier chapters I believe I can agree with that. 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. I think that Anthony misreporting on what he's doing in the lab, with Kat or otherwise, would not be a sustainable strategy. 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".) The rain was drained of ether; that wasn't an attempt to help Zeta. Releasing stored ether would probably do the trick if they wanted to do that. I think the Court would be fine with the limited deployment of disposable etheric weapons/gadgets as long as they had a monopoly on their production. If captured they couldn't be reverse-engineered without an existing etheric program of their own. "Cheap" I agree, they would not want. [edit] Maybe a temp tattoo version of these? [/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 28, 2017 22:19:20 GMT
Maybe the Antony plot-thread was a big mistake of Tom's and a sign that writers need editors to say to them "I know this big arc that you want to write blows you away - you're too close to it to be objective about it - but the audience will find it tiresome and might even decide to stop reading your story if it goes on for long", but there's little we can do about that now. The pacing could just as easily factor in to how some feel about the story. I mean the Ant-Man film for instance also had a father and daughter who weren't on the best of terms, as well as countless others stories no doubt (including an anime that I've viewed, but because it's a big spoiler, I'd suggeset anyone reading PMs me incase they want to know what I'm referring to). Case in point, if anyone here's first reading of Chapter 51-55 were long after their completion, I'd like any feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 29, 2017 0:17:51 GMT
]The pacing could just as easily factor in to how some feel about the story. I mean the Ant-Man film for instance also had a father and daughter who weren't on the best of terms, as well as countless others stories no doubt (including an anime that I've viewed, but because it's a big spoiler, I'd suggeset anyone reading PMs me incase they want to know what I'm referring to). Case in point, if anyone here's first reading of Chapter 51-55 were long after their completion, I'd like any feedback. And maybe not just the pacing, but also the heavy emphasis, with the other plot threads given less attention (though we did see the Jeanne arc resolved). At least, that's the impression that I got from much of the criticism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 1:00:02 GMT
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. [...] 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. No, I'm not particularly used to those. You must take me for illiterate, though, if you follow up your clear explanation of why you think it shouldn't be called "abuse" -- that is, for political reasons with a snipe against left-wing rhetoric -- with the claim that you were merely commenting on how people were misusing the term "abuse", for no ulterior motive at all, but certainly not for political reasons with a snipe against left-wing rhetoric. It doesn't, as I've written. I happen to argue against Anthony's behaviour on this page, not because he's telling the truth, rather how he appears to use it to keep his distance to his daughter. Imagine the same dialogue, but accompanied by Anthony turning towards her with a smile. Could be laconically generous, could be slightly wry and wrinkled; no matter what, there's affection at the core of the gesture. Since Tony does feel strongly that his daughter is dear to him (as we've seen, and as she has seen, undiscovered by him), despite him telling only the truth, he's not being honest with himself (which is a nicely-crafted situation when you zoom out), nor with her. To compare, the accumulation of knowledge helps you nothing if you leave it all unsorted, cannot work with it, or find no joy in working with it. Put even more simply, mercy is a virtue that goes well with truth. Should you change your mind, I invite you to obsess over me at your leisure. For instance, the last time I managed to sucker myself into a politically-tinged discussion about Dr. Carver and the child abuse keyword, I was cast as right-wing instead. You might see why I've grown tired of this particular style of discussion. Whenever people with ~20 posts argue politics here, I routinely skim their post history. Call that "obsession" if you must; mean time I'll call it due diligence instead, or perhaps honest objective review of empirical evidence. You misunderstand. I've brought up an opinion of yours that is obviously not "left-wing" s. l. when you asked how I came to conclude that you want to argue politics, particularly against what you'd broadly subsume under left-wing politics. The last thing I want is to indulge you by turning this into a political discussion between us, rather than point out that I think your approach won't solve any problem you have with this forum, if you're earnest about it -- as it's been done to death, which is my personal interest here: ennui, the great enemy. It's fair to consider GkC emotionally charged in presenting ethical arguments one disagrees with (but again, I think this can't be avoided in art; generally, I like the artist more who commits to a privately-developed (aesth)ethics than the ostensibly-objective snapshooter, but that's not to say photography isn't a useful tool to scientists) -- I don't share it about those same issues as you list, and I'd rather ascribe the most evident righteousness to Renard's pride and character (e.g. similar speeches towards Ysengrin in The Fangs of Summertime, and towards Hetty in Quicksilver), but I can understand that one could see it differently. I do think your use of "propaganda" here falls precisely under your criticism of "abuse": unfair hyperbole. I don't have any bone to pick with your opinions, although I'd be baffled if anyone understood GkC as endorsing bestiality and cannot parse "cross-dimensional relationships"; perhaps a murky comment on how you take offense to the union of vector spaces producing another if and only if incestuous. Don't fret -- just a now-spent dogwhistle to express my fey, masochistically hopeless devotion to Our Lady of Discord to others in the know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 2:02:28 GMT
Those are two things that Antimony would be willing to challenge him over, demonstrably so in the first case. If he had either argument then he'd risk blowing the whole works. True, but he took him from her in the first place, when she didn't object (at first, before secretly passing control to Kat instead). I've assumed that he gave Renard back because he couldn't get him to speak (and there's a few reasons I could imagine he'd want to talk to him), which is why he needed control of him (seeing as Renard has little love for him), rather than because he feared Antimony would challenge him. That's plausible as well, though. It's something I'm implying. Fear does not make him sympathetic if he actually plans his inability to deal with his daughter by playing an absent authority, rather than conflicting himself into paralysis. But I believe it's mostly the latter. If this is true (Tony has a knack for offering conflicting reads of him), it must have changed by the time he sought an Etheric solution to his loss of Surma -- although, the way that turned out. Besides, his research in Brazil concerned what was probably an experiment in Etheric manipulation; if the events of Power Station weren't something that students of the Court generally witness, then Tony being "in deeper than most" (Eglamore) would point him towards, not away from, Etheric research. Jones didn't turn out to be a robot, either, and I think he's been imitating her (some of it is in the eyes). That's all spot-on. "Pleasure" -- in a twisted sense, because he appears to feel the current arrangement is more comfortable to them both and thus preserves it, when it clearly isn't -- "pleasure" as the opposite of pain, which is presumably what he fears if he was to confront her more honestly. Agree that Zimmy just happened to be around, but I'd been assuming that the Court's experiment was not to drain Ether from the rain, but to induce rain via manipulation of the Ether, which didn't quite work. The Omega Device tests (?) in Brazil might have been related. |
|
|
|
Post by crater on Nov 29, 2017 2:18:22 GMT
"Oh Annie was the one that helped you. That makes sense, you would have needed someone to help with the workload." But with Tony, we might not even be in the ballpark. this! I've seen with "people like Tony" that they can state facts in a way they think is a great conversation starter but its actually terribly offensive. People like that are hard on themselves, when they see themselves in someone, they can be just as "hard" on that person as they are on themselves. if Tony was to have a conversation with himself, and he was to say to himself "I built these anatomical designs." Then he was to reply back to himself "Yes, they did require some additional work." He wouldn't take this as an insult, instead he'd be "glad" the work was acceptable enough not to need to be redone. if he were alone with someone other than Annie, there would be a better social filter over his reply. Like "It was good but I needed to add some stuff" |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 29, 2017 3:05:41 GMT
The last thing I want is to indulge you by turning this into a political discussion between us If neither of us want to have a political discussion, then I suggest you stop fishing for one. You misunderstand. I've brought up an opinion of yours that is obviously not "left-wing" You misunderstand. You brought up something that does not indicate my opinion one way or another. Do I automatically oppose hair-care products because I am conscious that they are being advocated to me from the side of a bus? I do think your use of "propaganda" here falls precisely under your criticism of "abuse": unfair hyperbole. I don't have any bone to pick with your opinions, although I'd be baffled if anyone understood GkC as endorsing bestiality and cannot parse "cross-dimensional relationships"; perhaps a murky comment on how you take offense to the union of vector spaces producing another if and only if incestuous. There can be inherent truth and beauty to propaganda. Just because something is in service to an ideology does not automatically invalidate its worth as art. You seem to think otherwise. That's fine. We disagree. But you seem to be attributing malice to my desciptions where none exists. I do not condemn GkC because it has a tinge of propaganda in places. I still enjoy it. As for bestiality (you may have missed this on your first skim through) but there is a fox who became infatuated with a human. They were both creatures that were at least part spirit, but nevertheless distinctly human and beast. Would you not describe that the same way as I do? I also confess that "interdimensional" may have been the better term, but how else would you describe Shadow taking on a form to pursue a relationship with Robot? |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Nov 29, 2017 3:52:00 GMT
And maybe not just the pacing, but also the heavy emphasis, with the other plot threads given less attention (though we did see the Jeanne arc resolved). At least, that's the impression that I got from much of the criticism. That's a fair point too. Because aside from the unpleasantness of Annie/Tony's relationship, there's not much diversion other than say poor word punning title  , or Kat making a joke. Still, should things improve between Annie and Tony (whether the series is going on or not later, newcomers being able to read the more tense moments in faster time and getting to the happier moments might be less peeved than those of us reading the tense moments while waiting for even a sliver of progress. I've seen with "people like Tony" that they can state facts in a way they think is a great conversation starter but its actually terribly offensive. People like that are hard on themselves, when they see themselves in someone, they can be just as "hard" on that person as they are on themselves. if Tony was to have a conversation with himself, and he was to say to himself "I built these anatomical designs." Then he was to reply back to himself "Yes, they did require some additional work." He wouldn't take this as an insult, instead he'd be "glad" the work was acceptable enough not to need to be redone. True, but: 1. Of course if you're self-criticizing it's easier to see it has merely self-improvement, but to separate person who you try to conceal your overall viewpoint towards, said person is of course not going to be sure how the critique is meant. Plus... 2. At the end of the day, being a good authoritarian and/or critic entails being able to give credit where it's due even if minor. To merely tell someone that they suck without addressing what they do right is no better than trying to withhold criticism at all for fear of upsetting someone. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 29, 2017 4:04:55 GMT
"Oh Annie was the one that helped you. That makes sense, you would have needed someone to help with the workload." But with Tony, we might not even be in the ballpark. this! I've seen with "people like Tony" that they can state facts in a way they think is a great conversation starter but its actually terribly offensive. People like that are hard on themselves, when they see themselves in someone, they can be just as "hard" on that person as they are on themselves. if Tony was to have a conversation with himself, and he was to say to himself "I built these anatomical designs." Then he was to reply back to himself "Yes, they did require some additional work." He wouldn't take this as an insult, instead he'd be "glad" the work was acceptable enough not to need to be redone. if he were alone with someone other than Annie, there would be a better social filter over his reply. Like "It was good but I needed to add some stuff" I would be more open to that interpretation except we have another example of someone saying something that would make Antimony feel more secure in Anthony's affections to which Anthony responded with a comment that had a similar effect to what we've seen happen in this chapter. On the next page he followed up with a compliment to Kat to soften the impact on the Donlans and continue working on Antimony. Those are two things that Antimony would be willing to challenge him over, demonstrably so in the first case. If he had either argument then he'd risk blowing the whole works. True, but he took him from her in the first place, when she didn't object (at first, before secretly passing control to Kat instead). I've assumed that he gave Renard back because he couldn't get him to speak (and there's a few reasons I could imagine he'd want to talk to him), which is why he needed control of him (seeing as Renard has little love for him), rather than because he feared Antimony would challenge him. That's plausible as well, though. It would be in line with Donald's comment about Anthony and control. When Anthony told Antimony to give him control of Renard he was on a roll; he'd successfully insulted Antimony's appearance and demanded she remove her makeup in front of her then-classmates, making the class sit silently as she complied, then hit her with the cheating and changed her living arrangements. She was compliant, so that was a good time to push. Additional context: During these events there were two incidents where their personal relationship was referenced. First he told her to call him "sir" instead of father, which is arguably proper protocol for a teacher who had a child in his/her class, and when he declined to converse with her about his injuries after class, and cut her off when she tried to talk anyway. After Coyote knocked a building over the balance of power changed completely. Yes, Renard wasn't speaking to Anthony, and was probably remaining in stuffed animal form most of if not all the time, and Anthony doesn't have a lot of interest in things etheric, but even so I would think that Anthony would still want to keep Antimony safe. If he wanted to or was ordered by the Court to return Renard then I figure Antimony wouldn't have to visit him for that purpose. That's why I suspect his returning Renard with minimal dialogue was Anthony picking his battles. He'd rather quit (and put Antimony in potential danger) than have Antimony challenge his past decision and overturn it. It's something I'm implying. Fear does not make him sympathetic if he actually plans his inability to deal with his daughter by playing an absent authority, rather than conflicting himself into paralysis. But I believe it's mostly the latter. How much of the way Anthony interacts with Antimony is planned and how much is unconscious from reinforcement over time is an entirely separate issue but I suspect it's at least partly conscious. He is an intelligent and educated adult. Is he a high-functioning [insert diagnosis here]? Possibly, but if he's been displaying similar behavior since childhood then I would think the Court would have evaluated him on it. Could he have gotten worse after Surma's death? Sure, the death of a loved one is a common trigger for declining mental health, but Antimony seems well used to how he acts. Not sure that there's a value in determining what percentage of Anthony's character merits sympathy and what percentage is douche. "Pleasure" -- in a twisted sense, because he appears to feel the current arrangement is more comfortable to them both and thus preserves it, when it clearly isn't -- "pleasure" as the opposite of pain, which is presumably what he fears if he was to confront her more honestly. Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Nov 29, 2017 6:05:26 GMT
"Oh Annie was the one that helped you. That makes sense, you would have needed someone to help with the workload." But with Tony, we might not even be in the ballpark. this! I've seen with "people like Tony" that they can state facts in a way they think is a great conversation starter but its actually terribly offensive. People like that are hard on themselves, when they see themselves in someone, they can be just as "hard" on that person as they are on themselves. if Tony was to have a conversation with himself, and he was to say to himself "I built these anatomical designs." Then he was to reply back to himself "Yes, they did require some additional work." He wouldn't take this as an insult, instead he'd be "glad" the work was acceptable enough not to need to be redone. if he were alone with someone other than Annie, there would be a better social filter over his reply. Like "It was good but I needed to add some stuff" I agree with you about those types of people existing and your summary of them. While I'm not sure Tony is like that, since Tony is normal around some people, I could be convinced. Still he isn't a youngling, people I've know who act like that, as defense mechanism or part of who they are, try to be nice about it and aware of it. They definitely don't let themselves get away with hurting other if they are made aware of it, and try to not hurt other unintentionally. Tony, as usual, may have a reasonable explanation for why he is the way he is and is acting the way he acts. That just doesn't make it any less dickish or less his responsibility to change, which he needs to do if he is sincere about wanting to be a father to Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by aline on Nov 29, 2017 8:22:19 GMT
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. That is not in any way what I'm saying, as I'm sure you're aware. People who are trying to have a serious, educated conversation about what constitutes abuse or not don't usually formulate it the way you did. Tone does a world of difference. I'm quite aware that the world is more complicated than left / right. I've met horrible sexists and racists who claimed to be left-wing, I know ferocious advocates of the transgender cause who are religious conservatives in every other aspect of their life. I'm not trying to caricature what you said. But when you just throw a sentence like that on the Internet, people interpret it based on their previous experiences hearing similar arguments. My previous experiences in this regard are mostly about (american) people trying to belittle (american) left-wingers (I specify nationality because this is essentially an american discourse that my part of the world has not, thank God, imported yet). Communication happens in a context. Pepe the frog has political meaning now, nobody can say "it's just a drawing of a frog". In the same way, specific arguments and rhetorics are loaded with political meaning because they have been used a lot in the context of political discourse in the past. Especially on the Internet, such context plays a large role in how people interpret what is said, because we don't know each other and can't see each other, so we don't have much else to work with. You too interpreted what I said based on a political context, you're not discussing this limiting yourself to the exact meaning of the words I wrote. It doesn't really make sense to be angry at people because they infer something from your words because of context. It happens all the time. You can just elaborate a little, or not if you don't care. Or I guess you can just choose option three, and keep being as condescending as possible while pretending you don't want to pick a fight. It's my opinion that diluting the term "Abuse" in this way contributes negatively to the discussion of more genuine cases[...] The definition of abuse has been discussed ad nauseam other dozens of pages on this forum in the past, I don't actually want to resurect that, especially not if your plan is to start discussing Trump on top of that. I swear to you, I have zero interest in this. I'm French. US inner politics hysterics have already invaded my tumblr dashboard almost entirely. I don't care. Believe me. I do not. Frankly I was just reacting to your tone (or your choice of words to be more accurate), which sounded condescending. I don't care who you vote for, or why. I'd appreciate it if we could keep this forum frienldy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 8:23:07 GMT
If neither of us want to have a political discussion, then I suggest you stop fishing for one. I've pointed out that you brought up "abuse" because of political considerations before you proved this true. That's all. Whether these political considerations swing this-a-way or that-a-way or zig-zag, I don't mind. The one political discussion we two have had sees us agreeing on that you have to be careful with "abuse" and that rhetoric sucks. That's a good one; nonetheless, how do you decide which of the available hair-care products to buy? Probably not by those advertisements. You've never criticized homosexuality; you spoke out in favour of "loving who you love". Yeah, it's fair to ask that I clarify your opinion. But that's not what I told you clued me in. No, we disagree on that GkC is written "in service to an ideology" in the first place, unless by ideology you don't mean various starter-kit convictions ending in "-ism", but rather how a given individual perceives the world due to its peculiarities (through all the properties of its sensual organs, through its memories and how they associate, etc.) -- in which case of course all art arises from one such. For myself, I'd try a definition of "propaganda" as a work of art designed with the purpose of convincing people, usually by emotional manipulation rather than argument, that they can pass judgment on an idea they know nothing about -- and should adopt the same one as given. It differs from expressing the author's genuine private views because it cannot be otherwise, or of the author constructing a fictional worldview in service of the artwork's structure (which is, broadly speaking, style). Incidentally, that makes The Fairie Queene artful propaganda -- so we don't seem to disagree where you think we do, or I have to think of a definition that fits my thoughts better. Nothing can absolve anyone of the responsibility to think for oneself. Sometimes one gets lost, yeah. Some people get lost much less. Those are admirable. What can I say, I've stayed who I am. Funnily, this doesn't contradict the above; nonetheless I think I can at least spot malice where some exists. Cute to put this right after the above, though. I wouldn't. It's a fox-shaped spirit that (according to Coyote) draws its existence from human imagination, and whose behaviour suggests a human-like mind, rather than that of an actual fox -- not least, he can talk. Whatever ancestor of Annie's copulated with a flame (to Coyote's great amusement) would fit more closely what I think is meant by "bestiality", but never mind that; by the same reasoning that the myth of Zeus and Leda isn't an endorsement of bestiality, neither as a story, nor if depicted in painting, GkC does not endorse bestiality -- which was my point as written, not whether it occurs. Unlike homosexuality, I do see bestiality as a crime, although the German judicative inexplicably lifted the ban two years ago, under provision that "the animal isn't coerced by an act contrary to the law", which I find pretty damn idiotic. But yeah, politics. Sorry. Besides, we've seen Renard regret his murder of Daniel, which is the most evident indictment of his actions (and Antimony was disappointed in hearing of what her mother did, too -- if rather because she tricked him; not that Annie didn't trick Jack afterwards, though...). And of course, Renard's a damn lewd one -- fitting with established mythology. ("Are you two going to kiss now?", for instance.) Bet you, he's much worse in Reineke Fuchs. It wouldn't have been better or worse, I think. (dimension, n. -- Sorted layers of increasing reality. The work of physicists and journalists alike is to discover new ones.) He was accidentally cut from the floor by Parley dropping the Coyote Tooth in shock, after which followed the recuperating Robot's realization that he "loves his good friend Shadow" (they had been close for a while... a love transcending the dimensions!!). Shadow Two had no choice in his elevation at all. In any case, the expected target audience for webcomic propaganda about interdimensional relationships seems... negligible. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on Nov 29, 2017 15:24:11 GMT
You too interpreted what I said based on a political context, you're not discussing this limiting yourself to the exact meaning of the words I wrote. I gave a contemporary political example to better explain my position, because you had already tried to frame an apolitical discussion in terms of politics. Or I guess you can just choose option three, and keep being as condescending as possible while pretending you don't want to pick a fight. If you find me condescending, I apologise. I swear to you, I have zero interest in this. I'm French. US inner politics hysterics have already invaded my tumblr dashboard almost entirely. I don't care. Believe me. I do not. Then you might try not looking for political arguments where they do not exist. Saying "People these days are petty and entitled" seems to me more an objective fact than a political statement. Do you not agree? Frankly I was just reacting to your tone (or your choice of words to be more accurate), which sounded condescending. I don't care who you vote for, or why. I'd appreciate it if we could keep this forum frienldy. I don't believe i've mentioned who i've voted for. If neither of us want to have a political discussion, then I suggest you stop fishing for one. I've pointed out that you brought up "abuse" because of political considerations before you proved this true. That's all. I wouldn't say that responding with an example from contemporary politics after people reframe the discussion to include politics retroactively means that my original statement was politically motivated. Do I automatically oppose hair-care products because I am conscious that they are being advocated to me from the side of a bus? That's a good one; nonetheless, how do you decide which of the available hair-care products to buy? Probably not by those advertisements. Living in the age of user-reviews is helpful here, but not perfect. There can be inherent truth and beauty to propaganda. Just because something is in service to an ideology does not automatically invalidate its worth as art. You seem to think otherwise. That's fine. We disagree. No, we disagree on that GkC is written "in service to an ideology" in the first place Fair enough. As for bestiality (you may have missed this on your first skim through) Funnily, this doesn't contradict the above; nonetheless I think I can at least spot malice where some exists. Cute to put this right after the above, though. My humour can be quite acidic, but I don't intend you any harm. but there is a fox who became infatuated with a human. They were both creatures that were at least part spirit, but nevertheless distinctly human and beast. Would you not describe that the same way as I do? I wouldn't. It's a fox-shaped spirit that (according to Coyote) draws its existence from human imagination, and whose behaviour suggests a human-like mind, rather than that of an actual fox -- not least, he can talk. Whatever ancestor of Annie's copulated with a flame (to Coyote's great amusement) would fit more closely what I think is meant by "bestiality", but never mind that; by the same reasoning that the myth of Zeus and Leda isn't an endorsement of bestiality, neither as a story, nor if depicted in painting, GkC does not endorse bestiality -- which was my point as written, not whether it occurs. Unlike homosexuality, I do see bestiality as a crime, although the German judicative inexplicably lifted the ban two years ago, under provision that "the animal isn't coerced by an act contrary to the law", which I find pretty damn idiotic. But yeah, politics. Sorry. But he identifies more closely with his animal self, does he not? I get the impression that Renard would be quite annoyed at the idea that he's been tamed or domesticated, becoming "More Human" and losing touch with his roots in the animal/spiritual kingdom. Likewise, Ysengrin would take exception to your description of spirits as merely the fruit of human imagination - and would probably be even more insulted by the idea that his mind is "Human-like" just because he uses language, no matter the veracity of that one way or another. And the Renard/Surma relationship I don't think is condemned because they were human and fox, but because the intentions of one of the pair were quite cruel. If they had both been sincere Antimony might have had more free-spirit/trickster influences instead of unflappable/scientific ones, but I wouldn't see the story changing much otherwise. but how else would you describe Shadow taking on a form to pursue a relationship with Robot? He was accidentally cut from the floor by Parley dropping the Coyote Tooth in shock, after which followed the recuperating Robot's realization that he "loves his good friend Shadow" (they had been close for a while... a love transcending the dimensions!!). Shadow Two had no choice in his elevation at all. But he did still take on a new form to pursue a relationship with Robot. In any case, the expected target audience for webcomic propaganda about interdimensional relationships seems... negligible. Don't be bidimensionalophobic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2017 5:49:16 GMT
I wouldn't say that responding with an example from contemporary politics after people reframe the discussion to include politics retroactively means that my original statement was politically motivated Even if I wasn't aware of what you really mean by "contemporary", speaking of the contemporary mindset cannot be but political... or so I think. There can be no harm done here; the second-worst we can do is to annoy the piss out of each other, which is quite different (I should think we're making progress to avoid this mutually); and the worst, to clot the flow of this forum. Like it or not, you can believe me and aline when we both say that, indeed, the "abuse" thing has been done to death ever since the title page of The Tree. Language is a big deal, to put it lazily; but of course Renard's bodies, and in particular his senses, are not that of a human, and that will influence his mind. I think people tend to take more pride in that what is "at the edges" -- the volatile that requires conscious investment to maintain. This was the doubt Hetty recognized in him during Quicksilver. Of course, Renard solved that problem for himself by substituting another. Humans are not necessarily tame. Not mine, but Coyote's -- which, for the time being, is all I have for explanation of how the Ether creates mythological beings as independent from human minds. Truth is what we, as readers, should be concerned about -- not whether the characters would be insulted by our judgment. Again -- you're using a final clause where not appropriate to the story. He took on a new form, not by his choice or even intent (well, as far as we know), and also pursued a relationship with Robot, but that had started earlier already. "Taking on a new form", if taken literally (Lat. forma has a range of meaning that spans "shape, aspect, beauty"), could mean as little as getting a haircut the day before a date, or some such. There are various grades of "body modification" with differing acceptance between individuals, but no, let's not go there. Why, I'll have you know that, first of all, my best friend is a cardboard cutout. Furthermore... |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Dec 14, 2017 5:51:15 GMT
Hi all, Apologies for resurrecting quite an old thread, but I've been slammed with work and life stuff and haven't had time to check in of late. When I saw this page a couple of weeks back I knew that it was going to throw the cat amongst the pigeons again - particularly with the "Tonysceptic" contingent of the readership - though I'd imagine that was intentional. The question was asked earlier in the thread as to how come Tony "hasn't learned" - but I'd respectfully redirect that question back to the source. Specifically, the last several chapters have clarified some significant character arc points - two of the more important ones being : - When in a social situation with more than one other person, something within Tony (which may or may not be related to the autism spectrum)
causes him to shut off his emotional responses almost entirely - When Tony is in Annie's presence, he experiences an internal (guilt- and shame-driven) emotional overload so severe that it takes every last atom of his (apparently extremely powerful) self-control to avoid breaking down on the spot
Kat is clearly trying to engineer a connection between Annie and Tony by bringing them together like this, and there's absolutely no doubt that she means well. Unfortunately the likelihood is that she's unaware of the second issue - much less the reasons behind it - and as such couldn't possibly know that this plan would cause him to close himself off even more thoroughly than usual. To play "Tony's Advocate" for a second, I think it's important to remember that his MO (and his psyche's usual avenue of retreat) when overwhelmed is to throw himself into work and become "all business". In the current context his "business" is being Annie and Kat's teacher, and because he's thrown up his emotional walls, he's not taking their personal relationship into account. When Tony says that the designs "need[ed] additional work" he is, on one level, simply performing his task as a teacher by telling his students that their work could have been better. Kat's expression shows that (probably like most people) she has instinctively made an inference that "I mentioned Annie helped" plus "Tony said the designs needed more work" means "Tony said the designs needed more work BECAUSE I mentioned that Annie helped". With just about any other person than Tony, that deduction would probably be on the money - however the distinct possibility exists that because Tony has walled off the emotional and social parts of his mind (something he has been adept at doing since childhood), he simply did not process that the two students he was correcting happened to be his daughter and her best friend. Because of my tardiness in posting, I have the advantage of seeing that Tony's flat affect remains fixed on every subsequent page and with every other character who joins them. Speaking for myself, whenever he's being like this I tend to think it could be more revealing to pay attention to what he *doesn't* say or do. In this case, he doesn't raise any objection to Annie's presence, nor does he give any indication that he thinks Annie's abilities aren't yet sufficient for her to be of real help. If he were as self-absorbed as some readers seem to believe, he could have used the designs not quite being up to scratch as a pretext for asking Annie to leave... Yet he doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 14, 2017 16:14:31 GMT
tc, you have some interesting ideas there. Thing is, though, Tony's saying "they needed work" still amounts to "the initial designs you've already reworked extensively were initial designs" - something that didn't need said in ANY context.
|
|
|
|
Post by tc on Dec 14, 2017 23:19:10 GMT
tc, you have some interesting ideas there. Thanks! I'm not sure that's what he is saying though. If my theory is correct his brain is thinking "Student 1 is telling me Student 2 worked on the designs and Student 2 doesn't know that extra work was required, therefore I must inform Student 2 of this". |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 15, 2017 2:32:53 GMT
tc, you have some interesting ideas there. Thanks! I'm not sure that's what he is saying though. If my theory is correct his brain is thinking "Student 1 is telling me Student 2 worked on the designs and Student 2 doesn't know that extra work was required, therefore I must inform Student 2 of this". So you're saying Tony (at least in whatever mode he was in at that moment) thinks Annie is too stupid to realize that when Kat said "initial designs" she didn't mean "final designs"... |
|
|
|
Post by tc on Dec 15, 2017 4:47:18 GMT
So you're saying Tony (at least in whatever mode he was in at that moment) thinks Annie is too stupid to realize that when Kat said "initial designs" she didn't mean "final designs"... Not at all. He's saying those designs needed work regardless of whether they were initial or final. More to the point, I don't think he's necessarily taking Annie's involvement into account at all - he's just relating feedback as a teacher. |
|
, or Kat making a joke.
