|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 19, 2019 0:15:19 GMT
Neither should exist in this timeline but both are the real Annie, just not the one we've been following since year 1. To me, the definition of the "real Annie" is "the one we've been following since year 1". Well, to Kyubey Clippy it seems to be "the one who can act on Annie's behalf to sign and waive magical girl contracts"... Bureaucrats! |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Jun 19, 2019 4:26:47 GMT
I'm trying to figure out how these Annies could be Towers Of Hanoi'd, but nothing's coming to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by csj on Jun 19, 2019 4:38:49 GMT
Aha! So, Courtnie Frannie Annie or is the original D eadannie?
oh dannie girl the loup, the loup is calling |
|
|
|
Post by bedinsis on Jun 19, 2019 5:22:39 GMT
Prediction: this timeline's original Annie was killed and eaten upon meeting Loup. He pulled these two in upon realizing his mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by basser on Jun 19, 2019 5:29:23 GMT
That being said, I dont like timelines in fiction. Nor do I like them in reality, but if they exist in reality (which quantum theory insists they do)... Quantum theory doesn't insist anything about timelines. It insists that particles can be adequately modeled by means of probability distributions which collapse into real (measurable) values upon interaction with outside energy. There is a particular interpretation (many-worlds) which makes claims about timelines, but that's only because some folks just super hate the idea of jump discontinuities and came up with a convoluted way to make them not technically happen (in many-worlds every eigenstate "exists" in its own little timeline, which resolves discontinuity on measurement). However, most physicists subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that the particle really does just chill in a superposition of every state it could possibly be in and only "decides" how to be when you bounce stuff off it. This interpretation is less psychologically pleasing but seems to agree better with experimental evidence. There is of course always the possibility that we're just flat wrong about the entire structure of everything, but we've been trying to dismantle the current working theory for about a century now and all we keep managing to do is prove it harder. Most of us would really prefer to be wrong because that would mean there's a chance the real model has nicer math. Nobody likes infinite-dimensional vectors. (It's just occurred to me that when I signed up for this forum -- aka when I started reading Gunnerkrigg -- I didn't know how to do algebra. Now I'm an atomic physicist. That's kinda blowing my mind.) ANYWAY. I don't get why all y'all ain't talking about why Tony is chill with Forest Annie but still acts like a butt-stick robot around Court Annie. What makes him register Court Annie as two people but Forest Annie as just one? Is it down to who's wearing the necklace? |
|
|
|
Post by coastal on Jun 19, 2019 8:16:31 GMT
I really like basser's explanation of something about quantum physics in a way that I can almost kind of follow along with, since usually anything about that topic completely loses me immediately.
However, what I'm wondering is why y'all are all talking about alternate timelines in GK as if they are something to do with physics or as if they have always been parallel to the story. Alternate timelines in GK are created by creatures like Coyote (or Loup), who are etheric beings. These beings have nothing to do with physics. Likely as not, as some point in doing whatever it is he's trying to do, Loup decided he needed extra Annies, and etherically created alternate timelines, branching out of the main one just at the moment which he was in, only in order to grab the extra Annies out of them. For all we know, he's already etherically shut down those alternate timelines, nothing of which is ever to be seen again.
Also, basser, hang on to that question about how Tony acts around different Annies. I think the answer we'll see eventually isn't quite what people have thought. Here's a thought - what if, instead of Court Annie being two people, any Annie at all is to him still part Surma, and so only a fraction of one person? So there has to be more than one Annie to add up to even one whole person to Tony? (I'm kind of kidding with this theory, but still.)
|
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on Jun 19, 2019 11:39:12 GMT
However, what I'm wondering is why y'all are all talking about alternate timelines in GK as if they are something to do with physics or as if they have always been parallel to the story. Alternate timelines in GK are created by creatures like Coyote (or Loup), who are etheric beings. These beings have nothing to do with physics. Likely as not, as some point in doing whatever it is he's trying to do, Loup decided he needed extra Annies, and etherically created alternate timelines, branching out of the main one just at the moment which he was in, only in order to grab the extra Annies out of them. For all we know, he's already etherically shut down those alternate timelines, nothing of which is ever to be seen again. But if Loup is just creating other timelines specifically to get other Annies, it's not effectively different from him just creating duplicate Annies. I'm not sure why Clippy would have even mentioned the alternate timelines/dimensions if they only popped in and out of existence to provide more Annies.
"Try new Alternate DimensionsTM. Now with extra Annies!"
|
|
|
|
Post by coastal on Jun 19, 2019 12:22:14 GMT
However, what I'm wondering is why y'all are all talking about alternate timelines in GK as if they are something to do with physics or as if they have always been parallel to the story. Alternate timelines in GK are created by creatures like Coyote (or Loup), who are etheric beings. These beings have nothing to do with physics. Likely as not, as some point in doing whatever it is he's trying to do, Loup decided he needed extra Annies, and etherically created alternate timelines, branching out of the main one just at the moment which he was in, only in order to grab the extra Annies out of them. For all we know, he's already etherically shut down those alternate timelines, nothing of which is ever to be seen again. But if Loup is just creating other timelines specifically to get other Annies, it's not effectively different from him just creating duplicate Annies. I'm not sure why Clippy would have even mentioned the alternate timelines/dimensions if they only popped in and out of existence to provide more Annies.
"Try new Alternate DimensionsTM. Now with extra Annies!"
See, to me, that seems like exactly the kind of thing Loup would do. The alternate timelines simply being a mechanism for acquiring stuff he wants, not a goal. Although perhaps he still has more uses for the extra timelines... |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 19, 2019 12:45:45 GMT
Prediction: this timeline's original Annie was killed and eaten upon meeting Loup. He pulled these two in upon realizing his mistake. I hope that Tom's not taking that route, it feels too much like a cheat. If the Annie whom we've been with since Page One is now dead, she should be treated as genuinely dead and Out of the Story. Bringing in a couple of substitute Annies (even if they're the "real" Annie of another timeline) feels like cheating to me - a case of "we've still got Annie in the story, just a slightly different one than the one we began with". It blunts the impact of the loss of the original protagonist. If the "original Annie" really needed to be killed off, somehow, at this stage in the story, then I think the proper way of doing it would be to take an approach of "Antimony is dead, but the story she began continues without her" (awkward in itself, given that it started as Annie telling us about her time at the Court - which means that her death should logically conclude the story), and either promote Kat to full protagonist, or if we still need an etheric girl as a major character in the story, have it be either a brand new one with a different character design, set of traits, etc. from Annie, or give that role to someone like Paz (whose ability to talk to animals would certainly make her a good representative of the natural world). And if the story absolutely needs Annie to continue, if she's vital to its progress, then she shouldn't have been killed off in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Jun 19, 2019 13:08:12 GMT
But if Loup is just creating other timelines specifically to get other Annies, it's not effectively different from him just creating duplicate Annies. I'm not sure why Clippy would have even mentioned the alternate timelines/dimensions if they only popped in and out of existence to provide more Annies. "Try new Alternate DimensionsTM. Now with extra Annies!"
See, to me, that seems like exactly the kind of thing Loup would do. The alternate timelines simply being a mechanism for acquiring stuff he wants, not a goal. Although perhaps he still has more uses for the extra timelines... What if just the act of pulling Annie out of it and leaving the rest as it it merges the timelines back together? I mean, no one saw him do it since the forest was frozen, Jones in space and the Court in their shield so removing Annie had 0% effect in the timeline with the only difference being that the Annies were moved a few meters away from each other and one of them was turned back. So Loup could have magically created an alternate timeline, displaced one Annie and merged it back to the original with minor conflict. The worst thing that could happen is a git push --force origin masterPS: now we know he probably did it twice actually, once upon Annie entering the forest and once upon leaving PPS: it's also possible that no single Annie should exist in this timeline since the fall from the bridge, if we assume the Tic Tocs are an interference from the future (angelical or not) |
|
|
|
Post by mturtle7 on Jun 19, 2019 21:26:18 GMT
ANYWAY. I don't get why all y'all ain't talking about why Tony is chill with Forest Annie but still acts like a butt-stick robot around Court Annie. What makes him register Court Annie as two people but Forest Annie as just one? Is it down to who's wearing the necklace? The way you mention the necklace immediately got me thinking about the make-up, and Courtnie's explanation of the last six months. With all that considered, I think there's actually some surprisingly mundane reasoning behind Tony's apparent change. I don't even mean mundane as in "non-magical", I just mean it's simple and fairly understandable even to the average person who has not just abandoned their daughter for 3 years after their wife's death and suddenly come back at the behest of a shadowy scientific organization.
So, imagine you're a dad. You're a pretty terrible dad, and are painfully aware of it. For a long time, you have essentially no contact with your teenage daughter. Recently, though, you've learned a bit more about what her life is actually like, which changed the way you saw her. You also got an opportunity to be closer together, and made it clear to her that you wanted to take that opportunity. You and her both try to reconnect, but things go south, you make some bad mistakes, and things get said which (you think) can't possibly be unsaid. Now imagine that, all of a sudden, they can be unsaid! You now have a chance to literally go back in time and talk to a version of your daughter who never went through the past 6 months, and only remembers starting to get closer to you, not any of what happened afterwards. Naturally, you're going to be in a rush to fix all your regrets, and present your better self to her! You've had 6 months, after all, to slowly and agonizingly go over everything you should have said and done, but didn't; now's the time to actually do and say all of that! Maybe this time, she won't get mad at you and say any of those hurtful things and demand her awful makeup back and put up this whole awkward barrier between you...no, this time, you can make sure everything's perfect. That's pretty much what Tony is going through right now. It's not really that crazy, even though it's had pretty crazy effects, because it's the result of a classic fantasy of regret suddenly coming true for him. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jun 19, 2019 22:20:23 GMT
Something to watch for next comic (besides Art's new bod) is if Kat, Renard, and the Antimonies are in the same positions as before the arbitrator and friend visited, and if not then if anyone else notices. Presumably the Antimonies will argue for Kat not being jailed which will cause an impromptu hearing to occur regarding Kat's fate. I'd call it a trial but the arbiter will be interpreting the rules and interests of the bureaucracy instead of upholding laws or notions of justice. I still think that would have happened if Kat hadn't surrendered. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemini Jim on Jun 19, 2019 23:52:31 GMT
Something to watch for next comic (besides Art's new bod) is if Kat, Renard, and the Antimonies are in the same positions as before the arbitrator and friend visited, and if not then if anyone else notices. Ha, good question. At the bottom of 2147, the order is Rey, Purple Court, Kat and Green Forest. On Wednesday's page, the order is Rey, Purple, Green and Kat. Presumably time didn't pass for the frozen trio, or else why freeze them? Also, did they hear Kat yell "you can't just leave it like that!" before they unfroze? EDIT: The difference between the bottom of 2146 and 2147 is Rey appears to have moved from the right of Purple, and over to the left. So if they froze before that, it would be Purple, Rey, Kat, Green. Either way, the order shifted. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 20, 2019 16:04:59 GMT
Prediction: this timeline's original Annie was killed and eaten upon meeting Loup. He pulled these two in upon realizing his mistake. I hope that Tom's not taking that route, it feels too much like a cheat. If the Annie whom we've been with since Page One is now dead, she should be treated as genuinely dead and Out of the Story. Bringing in a couple of substitute Annies (even if they're the "real" Annie of another timeline) feels like cheating to me - a case of "we've still got Annie in the story, just a slightly different one than the one we began with". It blunts the impact of the loss of the original protagonist. Isn't Schlock Mercenary doing exactly that all the time?  |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Jun 20, 2019 20:37:32 GMT
I hope that Tom's not taking that route, it feels too much like a cheat. If the Annie whom we've been with since Page One is now dead, she should be treated as genuinely dead and Out of the Story. Bringing in a couple of substitute Annies (even if they're the "real" Annie of another timeline) feels like cheating to me - a case of "we've still got Annie in the story, just a slightly different one than the one we began with". It blunts the impact of the loss of the original protagonist. Isn't Schlock Mercenary doing exactly that all the time? More or less, except 1) that's become one of the focal points of the story, and 2) there's still a sense of loss involved. Whereas I think todd is worried that in Gunnerkrigg it's going to be a gimmick whose ramifications won't be explored much. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 20, 2019 20:52:21 GMT
Isn't Schlock Mercenary doing exactly that all the time? More or less, except 1) that's become one of the focal points of the story, and 2) there's still a sense of loss involved. Whereas I think todd is worried that in Gunnerkrigg it's going to be a gimmick whose ramifications won't be explored much. I admit I have not read this far yet (starting with book 12 now). But when Kevyn died for the first time, everyone seemed to be happily ignoring that the Kevyn they were now travelling with was a gate-clone, and the real Kevyn was dead. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Jun 20, 2019 23:06:28 GMT
Oh for Pete's sake... How about we just have nine or ten Annies while we're at it? Or, better still, we can just split the timeline a couple hundred times and get a whole tribe of Annie's going! This is why I hate all-powerful omnipotent characters like Loup invading a story. They can just throw this curveball shit at you out of nowhere with no reason or explaination. I'm done. *walks out and slams door* Magic, gods, "many world theories" and time-travel in fiction all have the danger that the author can get away with anything. On the other hand most Fantasy and SF are based on them. Maybe the challenge is setting clear rules without giving too much away. But, yeah, I fully understand where you are coming from. Maybe Tom Siddell will soon be explainaring that we should have seen this coming with the double slit experiment in "The Medium Beginning", but I feel like a little holiday too. (For the record: the last thing Siddell should do is listen to readers complainering. If Dickens had done that, Little Nell still wouldn't be dead.) Temporal affairs being appointment only is hilarious somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 21, 2019 2:47:18 GMT
(For the record: the last thing Siddell should do is listen to readers complainering. If Dickens had done that, Little Nell still wouldn't be dead.) True - though Dickens didn't follow up Little Nell's death by bringing in a lookalike from an alternate world to replace her. |
|
|
|
Post by bedinsis on Jun 21, 2019 13:34:31 GMT
Prediction: this timeline's original Annie was killed and eaten upon meeting Loup. He pulled these two in upon realizing his mistake. I hope that Tom's not taking that route, it feels too much like a cheat. If the Annie whom we've been with since Page One is now dead, she should be treated as genuinely dead and Out of the Story. Bringing in a couple of substitute Annies (even if they're the "real" Annie of another timeline) feels like cheating to me - a case of "we've still got Annie in the story, just a slightly different one than the one we began with". It blunts the impact of the loss of the original protagonist. If the "original Annie" really needed to be killed off, somehow, at this stage in the story, then I think the proper way of doing it would be to take an approach of "Antimony is dead, but the story she began continues without her" (awkward in itself, given that it started as Annie telling us about her time at the Court - which means that her death should logically conclude the story), and either promote Kat to full protagonist, or if we still need an etheric girl as a major character in the story, have it be either a brand new one with a different character design, set of traits, etc. from Annie, or give that role to someone like Paz (whose ability to talk to animals would certainly make her a good representative of the natural world). And if the story absolutely needs Annie to continue, if she's vital to its progress, then she shouldn't have been killed off in the first place. Thinking about it, I pretty much disagree with you entirely. Imagine if you will that the comic had explicitly spelled out which of the two Annies were the original one. What would the emotional effect be on the cast? The Annie deemed alternate would have a black-on-white answer who the original was and behave accordingly, feeling herself lesser and like she's a construct. The rest of the cast would also subconsciously treat her that way as well. In other words it would in Annie's mind reinforce the notion that she is not good enough, something she already has been forced to deal with when it comes to her mother dying because of her and she having to repeat a year. This is despite the fact that both Annies ARE the real Annie as far as I'm concerned and the way they ought to be treated. They have the same history(save six months), the same memories, the same appearance the same genetic and brain make-up; who gives a toss if they happened to come about through unconventional means? I don't think there's a real life equivalent, but if the scenario played out in real life, that is the conclusion they'd reach eventually, that who the original is doesn't matter. So when you call at least one of these "substitute Annie" that is a view that ultimately wouldn't be helpful for either of them and we're better of not thinking of them in that way. If my prediction turns out to be true(though I'm more in favor of the theory saardvark put forth in [2163]'s discussion thread) and the original Annie is dead? Yeah, when they figure that out that is the time for mourning and the time to treat Loup the way someone who killed a close friend of the cast ought to be treated. But it is not the time to be thinking of the substitute Annies as substitutes. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 21, 2019 14:24:16 GMT
(For the record: the last thing Siddell should do is listen to readers complainering. If Dickens had done that, Little Nell still wouldn't be dead.) True - though Dickens didn't follow up Little Nell's death by bringing in a lookalike from an alternate world to replace her. And until we know IF there is another Annie, and IF she is dead, and IF these two Annies are meant to replace her we do not know at all IF Siddell did it. |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Jun 22, 2019 3:10:10 GMT
More or less, except 1) that's become one of the focal points of the story, and 2) there's still a sense of loss involved. Whereas I think todd is worried that in Gunnerkrigg it's going to be a gimmick whose ramifications won't be explored much. I admit I have not read this far yet (starting with book 12 now). But when Kevyn died for the first time, everyone seemed to be happily ignoring that the Kevyn they were now travelling with was a gate-clone, and the real Kevyn was dead. Ah, true. I think around book 13 is the first time I remember somebody dying, being copied and revived, and getting philosophical about it afterwards. Sorry if there were unwanted spoilers in my link. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on Jun 22, 2019 19:24:57 GMT
While we're talking webcomics which go weird once they introduce multiple timelines, there's Demon by Jason Shiga (which technically stopped being a webcomic since he took most of it offline after it concluded, though it's archived in the Wayback Engine):
The two protagonists - a couple of despicables that arguably don't even rise to the level of antiheroes - figure out how to get multiples of themselves by shifting into parallel timelines. (This is based on the comic's special metaphysics - panned by the main protagonist as not making any sense - though the exact practical details are handwaved.) They do this in order to launch a massive suicide attack against the antagonist, an antivillain who plans to secretly take control of the world. One copy of each protagonist survives by not participating in the attack. The problem here is that even if you accept the surviving copies as the real protagonists, there are now millions of timelines created during the comic's run, all but one of which would be, as far as we know, a) entirely divergent, or b) similar to the last one shown, but where the antagonist's plan presumably cannot be stopped. What makes the one we're shown at the end special?
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jun 23, 2019 10:35:22 GMT
I admit I have not read this far yet (starting with book 12 now). But when Kevyn died for the first time, everyone seemed to be happily ignoring that the Kevyn they were now travelling with was a gate-clone, and the real Kevyn was dead. Ah, true. I think around book 13 is the first time I remember somebody dying, being copied and revived, and getting philosophical about it afterwards. Sorry if there were unwanted spoilers in my link. Don't worry, when I first found the comic I read the then-newest pages and already saw that bringing back dead people with a memory backup was a thing in the world of Schlock. |
|
