gergle
Junior Member
Posts: 51 
|
Post by gergle on Jun 11, 2018 16:36:53 GMT
Tony is using this opportunity to catch Annie alone on the stairwell, and apply the same mind control drug he used on Surma and Kat. Realizing his spray applicator to unreliable at this stage of testing, Tony decides to bring Annie into his home, where he can go with the tried and true "slip it into her drink" method. It worked on her mom, so why not, amirite? |
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Jun 11, 2018 16:46:34 GMT
Soon there will be two chairs in the living room. And nothing else. Perhaps a dog/wolf basket? Ninja'd. I'm choosing to imagine Annie's "sparkles", as her thinking about a "My Two Dads" situation with her, Tony, and Renard. At first I thought, Tony would be the Paul Reiser character, with Renard as the wild fun dad. Then I realized, it would be far more hilarious if Tony was shoehorned into the "fun dad" role. Now, I can't stop thinking of Tony hanging around the house, wearing a leather jacket, saying "cool" things like "If you are so cold Renard, stand in the corner, because it is 90 degrees *finger guns*". He's often found standing by the new pool table, with the balls not racked up, but geometrically arranged. |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 11, 2018 17:22:08 GMT
Also, Surma chose to perpetuate an endless cycle of pain and death; the first woman in this fire elemental line to consciously avoid having a daughter is the only one worth praising. There are clearly some holes in this story, and "Why did a man with no social graces or empathy and a woman who was fully aware that childbirth would kill her choose to have a baby together?" is one that I'm most eager to see filled. It's a tough decision for the fire elementals. You either have a child and physically dies as your soul is slowly transfered to her or you don't have a child and let your soul die (along with your mother's, your grandma's, and your every ancestor's soul) Yeah except Tom said somewhere that they don't ever choose the second option. Because by not having a child you're basically killing half your family tree (disregarding the grandfathers cuz they'd be probably too shocked/traumatized/suicidal/building-etheric-antennas to be decent grandpas) |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Jun 11, 2018 17:40:04 GMT
Also, Surma chose to perpetuate an endless cycle of pain and death; the first woman in this fire elemental line to consciously avoid having a daughter is the only one worth praising. There are clearly some holes in this story, and "Why did a man with no social graces or empathy and a woman who was fully aware that childbirth would kill her choose to have a baby together?" is one that I'm most eager to see filled. Yeah except Tom said somewhere that they don't ever choose the second option. Because by not having a child you're basically killing half your family tree (disregarding the grandfathers cuz they'd be probably too shocked/traumatized/suicidal/building-etheric-antennas to be decent grandpas) Yeah, but how is that worse than condemning yourself to slowly die and your daughter to watch you die? |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 11, 2018 18:05:36 GMT
Because by not having a child you're basically killing half your family tree (disregarding the grandfathers cuz they'd be probably too shocked/traumatized/suicidal/building-etheric-antennas to be decent grandpas) Yeah, but how is that worse than condemning yourself to slowly die and your daughter to watch you die? For us humans it's an easy choice. We don't know for sure if there's an afterlife and even those who know about psychopomps their only hope is what? Becoming a power source for the etheric world to " continues to spin, pup"? We'd obviously choose to live our life to the fullest. But etheric beings have it better (or worse, depending on perspective), they can be born as gods to live eternally by feeding from the ether as long as there's people dying believing in them, they could become gods by eating other gods, or they can live indefinitely through a failsafe reincarnation mechanism inherent to their species (e.g. fire elementals, at the cost of their physical lives). My personal opinion is that once they realize this, they understand that not having a child is the same as killing their mothers "again" (as they probably live with the guild of killing them once) along with the rest of their family tree |
|
|
|
Post by autumnn on Jun 11, 2018 18:11:44 GMT
I tried to figure out how to respond to this, but I kept coming back to the same conclusion: Tony and Surma just should never have had a child. Surma should've quickly realized that Tony isn't father material. Hell, Tony should have realized that he's not father material. Also, Surma chose to perpetuate an endless cycle of pain and death; the first woman in this fire elemental line to consciously avoid having a daughter is the only one worth praising. There are clearly some holes in this story, and "Why did a man with no social graces or empathy and a woman who was fully aware that childbirth would kill her choose to have a baby together?" is one that I'm most eager to see filled. But in any case, you're right. Tony is simply not father material. It's not fair to expect him to suddenly become father material. He's trying his best, which incidentally is a crappy effort and not good enough, but still, his best. In conclusion: Antimony Carver is the reason why God invented the IUD. Why do think that fire elementals are bad for procreating? Because their daughters are guaranteed to die? Buddy pal friend, I don't know if you're aware, but the "endless cycle of pain and death" that you're talking about exists for humans as well. You're gonna die, your mom's gonna die, any children you may have are gonna die, and everyone you've ever loved is going to die. That doesn't make reproduction bad. The only difference between fire elementals and humans is that the mother dies sooner than later, but for 99.99% of the history of humanity this applied to a lot of humans anyways; only relatively recent medical advances (that Anthony was trying to advance for fire elementals, in fact) have drastically reduced maternal mortality. I don't consider it a hole in the story that Surma chose to have a child with someone who wasn't suited to raising a child. That happens all the freakin' time in reality. As unfortunate as it is, people enter, stay in, and have children while in relationships with abusive partners all the time. The world isn't so nice a place. |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 11, 2018 18:17:36 GMT
(...) or they can live indefinitely through a failsafe reincarnation mechanism inherent to their species (e.g. fire elementals, at the cost of their physical lives). (...) While writing about it I was thinking about how would fire elementals multiply (i.e. how do their species grow in number or if it is a stagnant number and they're an endangered species fated to die off). My assumption is that there's a hidden mechanic in their reincarnation cycle that involve the individual in question not having an offspring and resulting in their circumstantial death (by accident, old age, murder, disease, etc) and subsequent release of all accumulated souls of previous incarnations in a big wild fire (like the ones in hot summers) as newborn fire elementals and the one that triggered the "event" (the one that died) will follow their way into the ether PS: I hope I haven't spoiled the end of Gunnerkrigg Court |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Jun 11, 2018 18:28:31 GMT
Why do think that fire elementals are bad for procreating? Because their daughters are guaranteed to die? No. Because they're guaranteed to die when their child is very young and leave their daughters without a mother. In this situation, procreation is purely selfish. Did you make an account for the sole purpose of being passive-aggressive? Not interested. I don't know if you're aware, but the "endless cycle of pain and death" that you're talking about exists for humans as well. You're gonna die, your mom's gonna die, any children you may have are gonna die, and everyone you've ever loved is going to die. That doesn't make reproduction bad. A mother having a child despite knowing that she's going to die when her child is very young and that her child will be forced to make that same decision when she's grown? In my view, that's bad. That's inherently bad. If Surma and her ancestors had a choice, they should have chosen not to breed. The only difference between fire elementals and humans is that the mother dies sooner than later, That's a pretty big difference, buddy pal friend. but for 99.99% of the history of humanity this applied to a lot of humans anyways; only relatively recent medical advances (that Anthony was trying to advance for fire elementals, in fact) have drastically reduced maternal mortality. So, your argument is that it's okay to give birth to a child despite knowing that you're going to spend that child's entire childhood actively dying only to finally and inevitably kick the bucket when they're still very young, because... lots of people in history have also died young? Okay. I don't consider it a hole in the story that Surma chose to have a child with someone who wasn't suited to raising a child. That happens all the freakin' time in reality. As unfortunate as it is, people enter, stay in, and have children while in relationships with abusive partners all the time. The world isn't so nice a place. It's a hole in the story why A) All these women have known they're going to die if they give birth but choose to have babies anyhow, and B) Tony wanted to have a child despite having no interest in raising or caring for one, nor the capacity to do so. Surma's choice to have a kid with this loser isn't a plot hole, per se, just a bad decision. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 11, 2018 19:59:29 GMT
It's a tough decision for the fire elementals. You either have a child and physically dies as your soul is slowly transfered to her or you don't have a child and let your soul die (along with your mother's, your grandma's, and your every ancestor's soul) Yeah except Tom said somewhere that they don't ever choose the second option. Because if one of them had, there would be no Annie and no comic. Maybe this is the story of the first one that chooses to die without procreating (if it is even possible, maybe some of them procreated because they were effectively immortal and tired of life). |
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Jun 11, 2018 20:29:47 GMT
"I love hating him." That may say something about you more than about Tony, the things you accuse him of you may be worse.
Tony in his own way may be compulsively trying to save his wife and daughter, protect from dying, protect from Gunnerkrigg Court, showing open affection for Annie might put her in danger in his eyes. (She then becomes a tool for the court to use to manipulate him)
Meanwhile in real life I have seen people with their love of hating other people do all sorts of harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 11, 2018 20:32:21 GMT
It's a hole in the story why A) All these women have known they're going to die if they give birth but choose to have babies anyhow, and B) Tony wanted to have a child despite having no interest in raising or caring for one, nor the capacity to do so. Surma's choice to have a kid with this loser isn't a plot hole, per se, just a bad decision. A) Maybe it's because of the reason I stated above, i.e. allowing their species (including herself) to live indefinitely through their offspring. Or maybe it's just instinct. And by instinct I mean the same reason female cats seeks a second mating even though the first was essentially brutal rape with biting and spiked genitals involved. You can't explain that, it is as it is... B) They were relying on him succeding in his research to prevent Surma's death. He actually loved Surma, and she wanted a child (for A's reasons). If his research proved fruitful and Surma didn't die, he'd have his character growth happen sooner and he would probably become a decent parent. But surma died and he got away on a lifelong quest to build an etheric antenna to bring her back from the dead (actually from inside Antimony, ripping her soul apart, but he didn't know that). Add that to his apparent autism and his not knowing how to deal with his guilt towards Annie and you have the Why for him being like that |
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jun 11, 2018 22:05:17 GMT
Changing tone for a minute, can I just say: I spent days wondering what Tony would say to Annie, and none of my predictions were correct! Somehow Tony's tone was still exactly in 'Tony hasn't changed much' land while also being just a fraction more expressive and warm than he has been capable of toward Annie in the past. It's really something. The language is so ambiguous: he could be a huge arsehole who can't manage to say simple kind sentences in an open honest way, or just a terrified human with no social graces and tons of self-loathing, but also love for his only daughter. Tom is a great writer. He should get paid a bajillion dollars for writing comics. A different note though: so I feel like for me there are some cultural gaps here that help to keep in mind. I'm from Mexico and live in the US, and in both places boarding schools are relatively uncommon. Kids generally live with their parents their whole childhood. But in the UK, the boarding school thing is common –– and a lot of, if not all, kids spend loads of time each year away from their families, like GC kids do. So in a situation like Annie's, where her father was AWOL for years and years and the Court was her only true home, I think it makes Tony's hesitation around asking her to live with him make more sense. They needed to check in with each other and affirm that, in spite of her interesting intermittent custody situation (GC acting in loco parentis) yes, they are still family, and his place is the appropriate place for her to return now that he is physically available. It seems like maybe he was thinking of the Court as not just in loco parentis, but as a literal guardian of Annie ( "her father died out there"). Now that the Court needs to be completely evacuated, he may be realizing he is the next best thing to keep Annie safe, that he really is still alive and he is her father, or a fatherlike thing, after all. (Remember his grief at being told she would be "banished from the Court and the program entirely" after she graduated. Sounds a lot like being told her 'adoptive' guardians don't care a whit about her. We don't actually know, because we have never seen it, whether Annie would be safe outside the Court. If she's an oddity in the Court, what is she in the normal world?) For all we know, that might have been Tony's situation. He never mentions his own parents. What if he was completely raised by the Court? He may not know many other ways to live. Recall his unbelievably sparse apartment. I have a friend who lives like Tony. He was homeless as a child - won't even sleep in a bed, he finds it uncomfortable to. He sleeps on the floor or on couches, even when a bed is available. Anyhow. I do still think Tony is a very shitty dad. But he's a very, very sympathetically shitty dad. |
|
|
|
Post by fia on Jun 11, 2018 22:26:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mturtle7 on Jun 11, 2018 22:27:48 GMT
I know it's not in Annie's character, but I do really wish the fire elemental part of her would snap and she'd roast him over a spit (verbally of course). I really hate Tony. I professionally recommend re-reading Divine, especially this beautiful, beautiful, little scene. Alternatively, re-read Annie and the Fire for Tony's perspective on the same scene. Now, imagine Annie in place of Zimmy. I've found this to be very cathartic sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 12, 2018 0:01:50 GMT
Now that the Court needs to be completely evacuated Has it reached that point yet? So far, we've only seen them talking about evacuating people from the area closest to the forest. As far as I can tell, nobody's mentioned leaving the Court entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on Jun 12, 2018 0:49:10 GMT
I know it's not in Annie's character, but I do really wish the fire elemental part of her would snap and she'd roast him over a spit (verbally of course). I really hate Tony. I professionally recommend re-reading Divine, especially this beautiful, beautiful, little scene. Alternatively, re-read Annie and the Fire for Tony's perspective on the same scene. Now, imagine Annie in place of Zimmy. I've found this to be very cathartic sometimes. Beautiful. A work of true art and mastery. |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Jun 12, 2018 1:08:13 GMT
Coming from Tony, that was the equivalent of 'Annie I love you, you are the only important thing in this life and please come back safely'. Coming from Tony, it’s either what you said or literally “this could be safer.” |
|
|
|
Post by fatexx544 on Jun 12, 2018 1:15:29 GMT
(Remember his grief at being told she would be "banished from the Court and the program entirely" after she graduated. Sounds a lot like being told her 'adoptive' guardians don't care a whit about her.) I'm not sure this is entirely true given what we know. They might also have seen her as a useful pawn to force Tony to come back. Anyhow. I do still think Tony is a very shitty dad. But he's a very, very sympathetically shitty dad. I think is the crux of the issue. How sympathetic you find Tony to be depends a lot on how much sympathy you have for shitty dads. I don't have a lot, so I still find Tony rather unsympathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Aurelia Verity on Jun 12, 2018 1:45:18 GMT
Because by not having a child you're basically killing half your family tree (disregarding the grandfathers cuz they'd be probably too shocked/traumatized/suicidal/building-etheric-antennas to be decent grandpas) Yeah, but how is that worse than condemning yourself to slowly die and your daughter to watch you die? I've often wondered if there is some kind of compulsion magical or biological to have children for elementals. When Rey talks about Surma's condition first in "Fire spike" he mentions "We all knew it would happen if Surma ever had a child". But later Coyote, that trickster god of exact wording puts it differently. He says "Just as will happen when you have a child" No "If", he uses "when" as if it were a matter of time and choice does not come into it. I wouldn't harp so much at this word choice but below the comic Tom adds only one comment "when?". Making me think that the choice of words is intentional. Now there are plenty of species who die as part of reproduction so that their offspring have a better chance of survival. And many of them are often bugs, you know, that thing that Surma and Tony went to study in the jungle and hooked up as a result. Could it be that reproduction for Surma is not a choice but a compunction? Maybe biological, maybe magical but one she can't really have any power over? Could it be that Surma was a study all along, moved from Chester to Queslett and integrated with other "normal" people just to see if her abilities could be passed on and controlled? Could it also be that the Court arranged for Surma and Tony to get together counting on Tony to believe he could study and "Cure" her? Did both realize this at some point and was that why Annie was not born in the Court? I have no idea. But these are the things i think of before bed. Send help. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jun 12, 2018 2:24:06 GMT
It's a tough decision for the fire elementals. You either have a child and physically dies as your soul is slowly transfered to her or you don't have a child and let your soul die (along with your mother's, your grandma's, and your every ancestor's soul) Yeah except Tom said somewhere that they don't ever choose the second option. Well, they obviously haven't so far, or this comic would be rather different... But that doesn't mean they never will. (It's also possible that at some point the fire spirit will give up on the human side finding a mate, and spontaneously engage in parthenogenesis. In other words, the second option may not even be an option.) |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 12, 2018 2:30:33 GMT
Apart from the young male Anwyn in "Annie in the Forest", Annie's shown little interest in romance (I'd have thought her aromantic if it hadn't been for that moment).
It's possible that Annie will somehow break the cycle - though how, I won't even try to guess. (Given the problems the cycle has caused, ending it does sound like an appealing goal.)
|
|
fjodorii
Full Member
It just does, ok?
Posts: 134
|
Post by fjodorii on Jun 12, 2018 7:45:00 GMT
Maybe the fire elemental part in her family line will 'dilute' to a point where the mother doesn't have to die anymore? Annie has a a lot of her father's awkwardness, especially in the beginning of the story so the human part in her blood is very significant. She develops her mother's fiery traits as she grows up though so maybe Annie's fate is much her mother's.
|
|
|
|
Post by philman on Jun 12, 2018 9:32:15 GMT
There are plenty of species where the mother has children and dies. Heck, there is a (fairly common) species of spider that probably lives in your garden right now who literally sits and purposely waits for her children to eat her alive after they hatch from their eggs so that they have a food source as babies. fire elementals are not human, even if they can mate with us. The mother dying is a normal part of their reproduction. You may say it's cruel, but it's just the way it is, the world is often cruel.
|
|
Anthony
Full Member
No, not THAT guy.
Posts: 112
|
Post by Anthony on Jun 12, 2018 10:16:04 GMT
Actually...  |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 12, 2018 11:34:32 GMT
Or it's because of some new kickass biotechnology he's cooked up with Kat.  |
|
fjodorii
Full Member
It just does, ok?
Posts: 134
|
Post by fjodorii on Jun 12, 2018 14:17:31 GMT
That is awesome, Anthony, made me SOL (Smile Out Loud)
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jun 12, 2018 14:18:56 GMT
There are plenty of species where the mother has children and dies. Heck, there is a (fairly common) species of spider that probably lives in your garden right now who literally sits and purposely waits for her children to eat her alive after they hatch from their eggs so that they have a food source as babies. fire elementals are not human, even if they can mate with us. The mother dying is a normal part of their reproduction. You may say it's cruel, but it's just the way it is, the world is often cruel. But having one child and dying is distinctly abnormal. It means there is a maximum of one individual of the species - and if anything happens to that one individual, the species is extinct. |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 12, 2018 14:53:36 GMT
There are plenty of species where the mother has children and dies. Heck, there is a (fairly common) species of spider that probably lives in your garden right now who literally sits and purposely waits for her children to eat her alive after they hatch from their eggs so that they have a food source as babies. fire elementals are not human, even if they can mate with us. The mother dying is a normal part of their reproduction. You may say it's cruel, but it's just the way it is, the world is often cruel. But having one child and dying is distinctly abnormal. It means there is a maximum of one individual of the species - and if anything happens to that one individual, the species is extinct. That's why I was speculating about what would happen if an elemental died before giving birth (or decided not to bear a child) (...) or they can live indefinitely through a failsafe reincarnation mechanism inherent to their species (e.g. fire elementals, at the cost of their physical lives). (...) While writing about it I was thinking about how would fire elementals multiply (i.e. how do their species grow in number or if it is a stagnant number and they're an endangered species fated to die off). My assumption is that there's a hidden mechanic in their reincarnation cycle that involve the individual in question not having an offspring and resulting in their circumstantial death (by accident, old age, murder, disease, etc) and subsequent release of all accumulated souls of previous incarnations in a big wild fire (like the ones in hot summers) as newborn fire elementals and the one that triggered the "event" (the one that died) will follow their way into the ether PS: I hope I haven't spoiled the end of Gunnerkrigg Court I basically think they just spread their accumulated souls in a big fire, an eruption, a tsunami/flood, a hurricane, an earthquake, etc. PS: I'm sure there are some holes in my theory but I'm not a writer so that's not my job to fix them  |
|
|
|
Post by gillyc on Jun 12, 2018 16:39:02 GMT
Changing tone for a minute, can I just say: I spent days wondering what Tony would say to Annie, and none of my predictions were correct! Somehow Tony's tone was still exactly in 'Tony hasn't changed much' land while also being just a fraction more expressive and warm than he has been capable of toward Annie in the past. It's really something. The language is so ambiguous: he could be a huge arsehole who can't manage to say simple kind sentences in an open honest way, or just a terrified human with no social graces and tons of self-loathing, but also love for his only daughter. Tom is a great writer. He should get paid a bajillion dollars for writing comics. A different note though: so I feel like for me there are some cultural gaps here that help to keep in mind. I'm from Mexico and live in the US, and in both places boarding schools are relatively uncommon. Kids generally live with their parents their whole childhood. But in the UK, the boarding school thing is common –– and a lot of, if not all, kids spend loads of time each year away from their families, like GC kids do.
I think you might have been reading too much Harry Potter. Very few children in the UK attend boarding school; it's extremely expensive and can usually only be afforded by very well-off people. I checked Wikipedia, and the actual figure is 1% of all children; it's more than in the US, where it's about 0.5% (again according to Wikipedia). I think it's a common trope because 'kids away from their parents' is a good trope - they are more likely to get up to shenanigans! |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Jun 12, 2018 18:02:50 GMT
Apart from the young male Anwyn in "Annie in the Forest", Annie's shown little interest in romance (I'd have thought her aromantic if it hadn't been for that moment). And also this moment. |
|
