|
|
Post by mturtle7 on Jul 24, 2019 4:33:58 GMT
Mr. Eglamore is very chivalrous, kind of a jock, and tends to encourage people to see rule-breaking as a competetion ("It's only a problem if you get caught! wink wink nudge nudge"), and that would seem to rub Annie the wrong way, Surma or not. Which is funny in a way, seeing as she is breaking rules all the time. The only thing that changes over time is whether she cares about being caught or not. Yes, yes, exactly! The more I thought about it when writing that comment, the more I liked it, because i never quite realized what a switch it is over the old by-the-book/loose-cannon trope! My theory is that, with these two, it's not about slavishly obeying the rules or wildly rebelling with them, it's more a matter of...whether they think rules are about you (the person subject to rules) or about them (the people making/enforcing rules). Eglamore sees it like there's the fragile people who really need rules for their own good, and then there's the strong people who can cleverly bypass the rules without getting caught. Meanwhile, Annie sees rules as having mostly to do with the people making them - if the Court doesn't care enough about a rule to really enforce it, then it must be ok to just ignore it. It's an unusual sort of perspective for both of them, and it makes their relationship really interesting!
Actually I do not see him at fault of anything on that page. Wearing a
clip-on instead of a regular tie in the forest is very sensible. Jones'
weird comment is the only problem here (she probably wanted to try out
something she heard somewhere).Well, like rimwolf said, it's more about her personal space than the tie itself. Plus, Annie and Eglamore both clearly react to it like Eglamore's the one who messed up, not just Jones. Although I guess Jones might have exaggerated her response just to get Eglamore out of the room so she could have a private talk with Annie...still, Eggers and Annie's reactions sold it for me. He's pretty embarrassed there, regardless of whether Jones might have deliberately made it worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by alevice on Jul 24, 2019 7:30:26 GMT
Did nobody else notice that Eggers just got the two Annies mixed up? I'm pretty sure she did. What do you mean |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jul 24, 2019 11:00:37 GMT
Actually I do not see him at fault of anything on that page. Wearing a clip-on instead of a regular tie in the forest is very sensible. Jones' weird comment is the only problem here (she probably wanted to try out something she heard somewhere). He could have said "Here, take off that necktie and put on this clip-on", instead of invading her personal space. That's what's wrong with what he did, and what Jones is calling him out on. Jones' comment is an exaggeration, yet that's literally what he did with the tie. To me it was totally unnecessary to act as if he was sexually harassing Annie, when it was clearly just an act of concern about her safety. But I understand what you mean; he should have just handed Annie the clip-on. And now I wonder if this improper familiarity was meant to convey that Eglamore has a big problem accepting that Annie is not Surma.
|
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jul 24, 2019 12:47:11 GMT
There are really only two in-universe Watsonian explanations for the "very hush hush" and other obvious "secret" signs we've seen. 1) We are seeing the Court through Annie's eyes, and whenever a sign gets snarky, she's showing us what she's thinking when she sees a normal "do not enter" sign. 2) the Court is giving subtle clues to the curious, and the one who follows the clue is following "Court policy." Of course, there is a third, Doylist explanation - Tom is just being silly - but the second explanation would fit the above theory. I don't think there's any link between those signs and the Court policy; the evidence suggests the signs are all the work of the robots, and the human administration isn't involved with them. |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Jul 24, 2019 19:53:44 GMT
Which is funny in a way, seeing as she is breaking rules all the time. The only thing that changes over time is whether she cares about being caught or not. Yes, yes, exactly! The more I thought about it when writing that comment, the more I liked it, because i never quite realized what a switch it is over the old by-the-book/loose-cannon trope! My theory is that, with these two, it's not about slavishly obeying the rules or wildly rebelling with them, it's more a matter of...whether they think rules are about you (the person subject to rules) or about them (the people making/enforcing rules). Eglamore sees it like there's the fragile people who really need rules for their own good, and then there's the strong people who can cleverly bypass the rules without getting caught. Meanwhile, Annie sees rules as having mostly to do with the people making them - if the Court doesn't care enough about a rule to really enforce it, then it must be ok to just ignore it. It's an unusual sort of perspective for both of them, and it makes their relationship really interesting! I wonder if Annie also sees Eglamore as a bit hypocritical: he gives her the standard " we have rules for a reason" speech but then immediately contradicts himself with "it's okay to break them as long as you don't get caught." He switches from "I'm a teacher and I have to say this" to "--But here's what I really think." It's the same way when she throws Winsbury on his back. Annie seems to expect Eglamore, as an authority figure, to say the responsible authority-figure thing and keep his personal thoughts to himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Aug 8, 2019 2:53:38 GMT
Did nobody else notice that Eggers just got the two Annies mixed up? I'm pretty sure she did. What do you mean When he says "I guess it's a not such a bad thing you came along after all", that could be interpreted as "it's not a bad thing you came along and gave us a second Annie". But the Annie he's talking to is the Court Annie. On a second read though, he's probably just referring to Annie coming along on this particular expedition. |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Aug 8, 2019 6:08:41 GMT
(you can be plural)
|
|
