|
|
Post by maxptc on May 2, 2021 0:52:06 GMT
I empathize with Tony to some extent, as I too have difficulty communicating with others, but on the other hand, I've never tried to kill any of my relatives. When has Tony ever tried to kill Annie or anyone in fact? You must be thinking of Rey, he's the dude who's killed a guy and tried to kill Annie. Or maybe Coyete and/or Ysengrin. Tony seems pretty smart and I hear he's devious, so while its wild spec, I'm pretty sure if he wanted to kill someone they'd be dead. I assume you mean his magic madness and grief induced surgery, which I believe had something to do with trying to unkill a person he didn't kill who he felt responsible for killing. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 2, 2021 1:48:27 GMT
Tony's killed even fewer relatives than Kat; approximately the same amount as Smitty.
I'm not sure Jones has ever killed a relative, but she's watched them all die. And she did, in the end, nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by liminal on May 2, 2021 2:18:23 GMT
I'm not sure Jones has ever killed a relative, but she's watched them all die. And she did, in the end, nothing. This discussion resonates with me far too closely to participate in, but I couldn't help myself: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 2, 2021 2:34:23 GMT
Jones in the Archaean: "omigodnoyouweremyfirstfrienddontleavemeCEEEELLLLLLLLLL"
Jones subsequently:
|
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 3:35:30 GMT
When has Tony ever tried to kill Annie or anyone in fact? You must be thinking of Rey, he's the dude who's killed a guy and tried to kill Annie. Or maybe Coyete and/or Ysengrin. It is difficult for me to be upset with Rey for that, first killing a person by accident and then faced with being stuck inside a cage for an eternity. (For the record he's killed two, though Sivo was a soldier, not a civilian.) Tony's killed even fewer relatives than Kat; approximately the same amount as Smitty.  what Hope you are doing okay, liminal. <3 |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on May 2, 2021 4:06:03 GMT
hey, me too. i'm lucky that i had a fascination with mimicking people when i was young, just for the fun of it. it probably made me seem a lot more normal when i was older, cause i had this massive library of mannerisms i'd picked up from various decent tv shows, movies, etc., which i could string together to give the approximation of a normal personality. although when i get shaken or lose concentration, i start falling apart like a vampire in the sunlight |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 2, 2021 4:14:42 GMT
When has Tony ever tried to kill Annie or anyone in fact? You must be thinking of Rey, he's the dude who's killed a guy and tried to kill Annie. Or maybe Coyete and/or Ysengrin. It is difficult for me to be upset with Rey for that, first killing a person by accident and then faced with being stuck inside a cage for an eternity. (For the record he's killed two, though Sivo was a soldier, not a civilian.) Pretty sure he killed Hettie as well, but she's implied to be a child killer, so it's like a half murder at worst. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 6:32:49 GMT
Well there's sure a lot of... things to reply to. I am tired of folks being reductionist with Tony. It creates further stigmatisation of mental health issues, saying "some people are just straight up bad" makes those who may recognise some of their own issues within them feel like there's no point in getting help. That they were "born bad", so there's no point in trying to fix it. It could even make them double-down on behaviours they were not proud of originally, being like "if you're bad, then be bad the best" Because you don't really specify here, it's hard for me to parse exactly what point you're trying to make here, so to me this could be parsed a number of ways depending on who and what you think is "reductionist," so I'll just say that that this is of course the point; it is an unhelpful simplifcation of mental health issues that stigmatizes them further to simply say that a sufferer really can't help and can't choose to do other than cause harm. While we have moral responsibilities to the sick and the suffering, those dealing with illness have moral duties to others, just as say, someone with an infectious disease has a moral duty to avoid infecting others. ...gaslighty as Hell...
...excusing abuse...
...a shit dad...
...shit parents...
...abusive parents...
...abuse...
...emotional abuse...
...neglect...
...emotional abuse...
...child abuse...
...trauma and abuse...
...I'm not even going to bother addressing anyone [who disagrees with me]... Oh, give it a rest. You seem to be upset that someone described and named abuse as being abuse, the inflictor as abusive. Why do you think that is? Even beyond that though like, I immediately had hackles on the back of my neck from the way this chapter opened. Yes a bunch of characters, including ones we are clearly meant to like, say Tony seems like a shit dad. But none of them express this with any gravitas. No one describes seeing Annie's pain. All of it is framed in very shallow terms, several times explicitly as hearsay and gossip. Parley: "I don't know the guy, but just hearing about how he treats Annie pisses me off." Englamore: "Tony was missing for years before deciding to waltz back into the Court. I saw what that did to Antimony." These are not shallow, and they do focus on Antimony. The shallow ones come from her classmates which are, well, both younger and teenagers. I certainly remember my own classmates having strict, attentive teachers in low esteem because they were not pleasant to deal with (lots of homework, becoming angry when kids were frolicking in class etc. Maybe not the ideal teachers but definitely trying to do their jobs well). Its clear though that a lot of characters think Tony is Not A Good Parent and that things were better when he wasn't around. I legit did a double take when I realized you were disagreeing with me, because that's maybe the most on point example. Like. She is literally just repeating hearsay. It is a shallow analysis that is literally just founded on how hearing gossip versions of events is pissing her off. It is literally just text designed to undermine Parley's credibility. And Englamore is established as a jealous/jilted lover so The problem with this of course is that "Tony is in Pain" doesn't actually contradict "Tony is a shit parent" in any way. In fact most shit parents, most abusive parents, are in pain. Their abuse is a manifestation of pain improperly healed. So what? Tony's pain is a sidenote here. He has no right and no entitlement to have his pain considered when he is directly harming his child with emotional abuse. And neglect is emotional abuse. I'm not even going to bother addressing anyone saying otherwise because they're factually wrong according to literally every expert on child abuse. I would prefer to be wrong and this just be a cheap way to trick the audience into sympathizing with Tony before Jones dresses him down, or better yet there being some organic explanation I don't see, but right now the simple and direct reading of the text as it exists is that the comic expects us to like and sympathize with Tony and see his pain as an understandable reason to inflict trauma and abuse on his daughter, to see him as a victim rather than the being with agency here. Yeah, I understand your concern for perspective swaying the audience's sympathy for an abuser. Such is the power of storytelling. But for now, I think the comic is in agreement with you that Tony's pain doesn't contradict Tony's failures in parenting. Maybe the execution will end up botched and that should be critized, but what GKC is doing is showing how Anthony's improperly healed pain drove him (If it is not something etherical or something else) to cause pain to Antimony on his return. But I understand if you are skeptic to that, and maybe you are right, maybe the comic is trying to elict sympathy for Tony's actions so we won't him hold responsible for the things he did handle badly. But I don't think that will happen. Because the comic does see him as a being with agency. We have by now seen him repeatedly exercising his agency for Annie's benefit. There is the judo training in her youth, her sending to Court (it is not perfect, but it could be depending on his circumstances very well be the best possible place he could have sent her to. Still should have gone with her, of course), returning Renard at her behest, standing up for her decision to go to the Forest, demanding an explanation of Coyote how he could guarantee her safety, asking her on her own terms whether she preferred to live with him, conceding in an argument to let Courtnie wear her make-up again, and most importantly: fought against his mind cage and made an attempt to open up to Courtnie (yeah, it was meager and rapidly shut down, but it was an effort and improvement) Also, the bojack meme you posted is true. Just feeling bad is not enough (and frankly often counter-productive) But I feel Tony is trying better and is becoming better. An abuser, I think, is one that goes to lengths to curtail the child's independency and agency. Tony did most of that on his return (erasing make-up, placing in an apart room, wanting Renard back) but all of these things he has withdrawn by now. And he is learning from his mistake. When F!Annie returned, he once again felt his old pain searing of Surma's loss that had caused him to lash out to Annie, but this time he suppressed it and tried his best to be as supportive he could for F!Annie. (Something the merged Annie probably remembers) If he is an abuser, something I do not agree with, then one that is trying to stop being one. But again, maybe the comic will stall at that and Tony won't do effort anymore, and your concerns would be true. But for now I am giving the comic the benefit of doubt. It would be nice if that were to turn out to be the case, but I am concerned that the framing here indicates an attempt to make Tony's mild progress of "merely being neglectful" instead of "being neglectful AND cruel" as sufficient. Because he's sad, and isn't that enough? Like I don't think there's too much to say here without seeing what actually happens though so, shrug. Seems like we're largely on the same page except I'm less optimistic. If Tony is incapable of providing a non toxic home where Annie isn’t subject to neglect, then he has a moral duty to move her to a home where she won’t have to deal with that problem; that’s what actually loving her would entail. He did--he sent her to the Court. Annie hasn’t been obliged to live with him since Surma died; heck, she could have had her own house once they evacuated to the coast. But she didn’t want to. Why should Tony ban her from living with him? Because she needs emotional support and validation, he's, according to his own description, incapable of giving those things, and he knows that her desire for love and validation and support and his continued lack of providing same is causing her a great deal of harm. And he's literally just explicated that he knows all this. It's like you're asking why he shouldn't tell her she has to look for food elsewhere when she's starving to death and hanging around him expecting him to be feeding her soon but he knows he won't be able to. Like. This is just the text at this point. At the risk of being accused again of Tumblr discourse or w/e, if that's NOT the direction this storyline is taking, then it's being gaslighty as Hell. That seems like a very odd take on gaslighting. This story is fiction; interpret it as you like, fanfic if you like, but the author doesn’t have to follow your sense of narrative logic. Well no author ever has to do anything if they're not being held at gunpoint, but some things are done or not done a certain way because they do or don't work, and some writing decisions are just bad writing. See the George RR Martin about how if you write a novel planning all along that the butler did it, but near the end you're afraid the readers will guess that so just declare that the chambermaid did it so you can surprise them, you've done bad writing. Good writing is, generally speaking, organic, and generally speaking, events and themes flow from what has gone before in ways that feel verisimulitudous. If you give all these cues to the readers that something is happening and then flip it around for no reason other than surprise, then yeah that's not subverting expectations, it's just being gaslighty. Like I dislike all these textual cues that Tony is a victim and not an abuser abdicating responsibility for his own actions, but that doesn't mean they're not there or that it's strictly the readers' fault for accepting that messaging from the author. This might have relevance if we were discussing an arc about Tony seeking therapy to be less of an abusive parent. What an odd reply. I've seen actual bruises and scratches fail to result in any action. It turns out it's hard to actually do anything about child abuse in our society, not least because the kids rarely want to actually leave their abusers. But as you yourself said, this is not real life. We know Tony is abusing Annie because he has himself described a pattern of behavior that is abusive inside of the comic, and how he has taken actions that do not reduce or resolve but perpetuate this abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 2, 2021 6:34:45 GMT
what She givethed and she takethed away. although when i get shaken or lose concentration, i start falling apart like a vampire in the sunlight If it’s any comfort, so do normal humans! You just have to shake harder. That is to say. Supposedly. Pretty sure he killed Hettie as well, but she's implied to be a child killer, so it's like a half murder at worst. That woman was a saint!! The other Dreamhouse survivors still call Adam the Butcher of Barbiken. #hettiephonehome |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 6:41:26 GMT
In light of the discussion over the past several pages, I have a couple of hypothetical questions. Let's assume that Tony's conversation with Jones continues with something like, "And so, because I'm stuck in this cursed mind cage, it would be best for Antimony if I place her with someone else who can give her the attention and affection she deserves. I'll grant full custody of Antimony to the Donlans and I'll get out of her life." Would this be a better overall situation for Antimony? How would she feel about this arrangement? Assume further that the Court then says, "Tony, you broke our deal, so we're expelling Antimony from the Court effective [immediately/upon graduation/other]." How would Antimony feel about that? It is absurdly common for abused children, or abuse victims generally, to want to stay with their abusers. Often specifically because they do not see any better possibility, although of course other factors play a large part, like the abuse victim feeling love and affection towards their abusers, usually entwined with both guilt and obligation because said abuser will sometimes be kind and it's really their emotional problems and pain that "make" them act that way. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 6:47:17 GMT
The comic has explored abuse a lot, through depictions of it and of its effects. Calling the comic gaslighty (aka, abusive) is a bit much, and the snide comment about people who disagree with them was...snide, but the rest is fine. Discussions that label characters' behaviors as abusive are relevant, just like any other discussion about characters. This is a forum to discuss the comic, after all. (As an aside, the comment about not bothering to address certain people feels like it was pointed at me? Which is a little upsetting because I don't think I've been particularly unreasonable re: Tony's abuse. I don't mind Red not addressing my post, but dismissively subtweeting about it feels unwarranted.) Hell is watching otherwise thoughtful folks act snide and reductive toward actual human people, when those people express reasonable frustration with their fictional pet abuser. But of course, throwing the word "abuser" out there so casually makes me a From Tumblr, which I infer from the disdain is some kind of subhuman whose opinions aren't worth caring about. "Arguing with tumblr" wasn't thrown out after the word "abusive" was used, it was thrown out after the user said the comic is being written to show that all people with mental illness will be abusive parents. Which is an uncharitable take of an actual human (Tom). Also, it's not about worthless opinions, it's about how arguing with a hostile brick wall who will use the worst interpretation of your words against you is an exercise in frustration. Whether that applies to Red is debatable, but regardless, their opinions -- and yours -- are worthwhile, and I care about them. -- A lot of people on both sides of this topic are commenting from experience, and all of those experiences are likely to be painful ones. Please, be as kind as you can muster. Author intentionality can be murky. Does an author stop and say, "I will write an arc about how abuse is okay because sadness"? No probably not. Does an author write a character that is a shitty person and then want to explore them more and in doing so keep writing backwards to justify that character's previous shitty actions even if it has really unpleasant and horrible implications? Well that happens all the goddamn time. |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 8:15:27 GMT
Author intentionality can be murky. Does an author stop and say, "I will write an arc about how abuse is okay because sadness"? No probably not. Does an author write a character that is a shitty person and then want to explore them more and in doing so keep writing backwards to justify that character's previous shitty actions even if it has really unpleasant and horrible implications? Well that happens all the goddamn time. Yeah, I agree. And that isn't gaslighting, and it isn't saying every other person will act like Tony. If there were multiple Tony-likes in the comic and they all were abusive to their children, you could say that the author is implying that all people with Tony's problems will be abusive. Otherwise, it's unreasonable to extrapolate that as a representation of everyone with mental illness. You can say it's misleading, you can say it's unrealistic, you can say it's bad writing, you can say it's advocating sympathy for active abusers and that's immoral. But it's not prescribing a fate to everyone with mental illness and it sure as hell isn't gaslighting. Gaslighting is a specific kind of abuse wherein the perpetrator tries to make the victim doubt their own mind, perception, and memory. And incorrectly signaling themes in a story isn't that.Edited to add: I've been gaslit. Not to try and pull rank or whatever, you might've been too. But for me, it's really triggering to have that word come up out of nowhere, because then I think about what the word means and that makes me remember how it feels and it's just all really unpleasant, so please, can you just say misleading or whatever unless you actually think Tom is trying to abuse his readers? Also. Here is a way you could have worded your first post that I wouldn't have had any problems with: "It is very hard to overstate how much it sucks to have an arc about how having mental health problems means it's okay to be an emotionally abusive parent." That is a reasonable critique of the comic. I don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable interpretation without accusing Tom of thinking everyone with mental health problems is an abuser. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 8:28:29 GMT
Author intentionality can be murky. Does an author stop and say, "I will write an arc about how abuse is okay because sadness"? No probably not. Does an author write a character that is a shitty person and then want to explore them more and in doing so keep writing backwards to justify that character's previous shitty actions even if it has really unpleasant and horrible implications? Well that happens all the goddamn time. Yeah, I agree. And that isn't gaslighting, and it isn't saying every other person will act like Tony. If there were multiple Tony-likes in the comic and they all were abusive to their children, you could say that the author is implying that all people with Tony's problems will be abusive. Otherwise, it's unreasonable to extrapolate that as a representation of everyone with mental illness. You can say it's misleading, you can say it's unrealistic, you can say it's bad writing, you can say it's advocating sympathy for active abusers and that's immoral. But it's not prescribing a fate to everyone with mental illness and it sure as hell isn't gaslighting. Gaslighting is a specific kind of abuse wherein the perpetrator tries to make the victim doubt their own mind, perception, and memory. And incorrectly signaling themes in a story isn't that.Look. Here is a way you could have worded your first post: "It is very hard to overstate how much it sucks to have an arc about how having mental health problems means it's okay to be an emotionally abusive parent." That is a reasonable critique of the comic. I don't agree with it, but it's a reasonable interpretation and it's not accusing Tom of thinking everyone with mental health problems is an abuser. 1) A message being sent doesn't require that the author explicate "this scenario is true all the time in all cases" in the footnotes to be harmful. 2) I didn't say that would be gaslighty, what I said would be gaslighty would be rewinding the sympathy building being basically thrust on unaware readers by the power of narrative perspective management to say, "Nah, but that was wrong, actually Tony is responsible for his actions and not just a victim." I also said that while that would be some bullshit writing it would be a lot better than the alternative which is just. Playing that straight. And no frankly I don't think I could just say it's bad writing etc.; I think this complaint is pretty arbitrary and it's the underlying criticism that wrankles you, and my phrasing it differently wouldn't avoid that. As a point of fact I've taken significant pains to phrase everything I've said here very carefully and, really about as charitably as possible given the context. |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 8:42:14 GMT
1) A message being sent doesn't require that the author explicate "this scenario is true all the time in all cases" in the footnotes to be harmful. 2) I didn't say that would be gaslighty, what I said would be gaslighty would be rewinding the sympathy building being basically thrust on unaware readers by the power of narrative perspective management to say, "Nah, but that was wrong, actually Tony is responsible for his actions and not just a victim." I also said that while that would be some bullshit writing it would be a lot better than the alternative which is just. Playing that straight. And no frankly I don't think I could just say it's bad writing etc.; I think this complaint is pretty arbitrary and it's the underlying criticism that wrankles you, and my phrasing it differently wouldn't avoid that. As a point of fact I've taken significant pains to phrase everything I've said here very carefully and, really about as charitably as possible given the context. 1. I know. 2. Sure, whatever. That's not gaslighting. I added the reason why gaslight is a word that I am uncomfortable with being used when it's not describing abuse in my previous post. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to edit after you'd responded. I don't care about your criticism. People saying Tony is abusive and horrible and should go die in a ditch doesn't bother me. I am bowing out of this conversation with you, though. |
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 2, 2021 10:47:24 GMT
In light of the discussion over the past several pages, I have a couple of hypothetical questions. Let's assume that Tony's conversation with Jones continues with something like, "And so, because I'm stuck in this cursed mind cage, it would be best for Antimony if I place her with someone else who can give her the attention and affection she deserves. I'll grant full custody of Antimony to the Donlans and I'll get out of her life." Would this be a better overall situation for Antimony? How would she feel about this arrangement? Assume further that the Court then says, "Tony, you broke our deal, so we're expelling Antimony from the Court effective [immediately/upon graduation/other]." How would Antimony feel about that? you, sir, stole my thoughts, but I don't mind. I can make others. Antony can be a bad parent (debatable and debated) but at moment he is the only thing that can keep the Court from expelling Antimony, or worse. Because Annie is in big trouble now. The Loup thing happened because Annie freed Jennie and i strongly doubt the Court don't know that. They didn't acted on it because that is not what the Court does. Now there is seems to be a possibility for her to fix things, or ameliorate them, but the moment it is over I'd bet they'll try to use it against her. Of course she has been in pain. My parents caused me pain on multiple occasions and they aren't abusive. What he did when he came back was bullshit and unexcusable. Doesn't mean it's the constant or that Annie has to base her relationship with her Dad around that incident. Doesn't mean he has be causing her constant pain since then. Doesnt mean he's abusive or neglecting Annie, I don't think he is. I don't think she is in constant pain, hiding some deep suffering and excusing him because of trauma and despite constant mistreatment. I think there was a horrible incident and they are both trying to move forward the best they know how. If you read this as condoning abuse, or as an abusive relationship, I respectfully disagree. I don't read it that way, despite all that has happened. Actually, I think that what he did then was a good thing to do. Granted, he did it in the worst possible way, and for some of the wrong reasons, but what he did was mostly right Consider, Antimony cheated on her homework for years, to the point that she risked to be expelled and at least she had to repeat one year. she went to the Forest (a dangerous place) sometime without permission as if she owned the place. she skipped on detention ("what they are gonna do? Tell my parents" Yes, Annie, that exactly what they did) she own a doll possessed by a killer demon that, as far as you know, already killed two persons. (the same demon who was in love with your wife and was tricked by her to be captured. no way he could have a grudge on you/your whole family) And that just on the top of my mind. Probably she did other things that I don't remember. If I had a daughter that did these things (and I'd lack the partial omniscience that being a reader of a comic give) I'd want to put my foot down and set some rules. -no make-up. (harsh and done for the wrong reason, but a good visual reminder that you are in charge) -you are grounded (hard to ground someone when she live with her best friend and in the same building with her classmates so she had to move in a place that (i am sure, totally by chance) was also harder to bug. -I'd keep the killer demon doll, thank you. Sure, he could have been less of an asshole in doing so (or maybe he could not because, you know, mind cage) but still I can't find faults in what he did. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on May 2, 2021 10:50:59 GMT
You seem to be upset that someone described and named abuse as being abuse, the inflictor as abusive. Why do you think that is? I think I might be able to guess why you think it is, but I can't be sure- your perspective is pretty warped.
As it stands, I think your perception of reality is flawed to the point you can't accurately interpret the interpersonal relationships between fictional characters, or even keep your own thoughts on the situation clear and consistent.
You claim neglect and abuse, but recommend the exact course of action our supposed abuser took as the solution.
Tony provided her with a home away from his supposedly toxic presence where she would have the opportunity to learn about her abilities and grow as her own person - and only returned to her life when forced to do so by the court. This was because he - like you - mistakenly came to the assessment that he would be more harm than good, and specifically that Annie would hate him for presiding over Surma's declining health and eventual demise. I say mistakenly because he appears to be a positive influence in her life and Annie uses her agency to repeatedly demonstrate love and empathy for a person who (like her) often has difficulty expressing their true emotions.
|
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 2, 2021 10:59:49 GMT
When has Tony ever tried to kill Annie or anyone in fact? You must be thinking of Rey, he's the dude who's killed a guy and tried to kill Annie. Or maybe Coyete and/or Ysengrin. It is difficult for me to be upset with Rey for that, first killing a person by accident and then faced with being stuck inside a cage for an eternity. (For the record he's killed two, though Sivo was a soldier, not a civilian.) It was not an accident. He knew that possessing somebody would have caused the death of the possessed. |
|
yinglung
Full Member
It's only a tatter of mime.
Posts: 190
|
Post by yinglung on May 2, 2021 11:16:31 GMT
I find it odd that people are trying to say that the comic it trying to excuse Tony's actions when it deliberately and explicitly does not excuse Tony's actions. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 11:21:29 GMT
You seem to be upset that someone described and named abuse as being abuse, the inflictor as abusive. Why do you think that is? I think I might be able to guess why you think it is, but I can't be sure- your perspective is pretty warped.
As it stands, I think your perception of reality is flawed to the point you can't accurately interpret the interpersonal relationships between fictional characters, or even keep your own thoughts on the situation clear and consistent.
You claim neglect and abuse, but recommend the exact course of action our supposed abuser took as the solution.
Tony provided her with a home away from his supposedly toxic presence where she would have the opportunity to learn about her abilities and grow as her own person - and only returned to her life when forced to do so by the court. This was because he - like you - mistakenly came to the assessment that he would be more harm than good, and specifically that Annie would hate him for presiding over Surma's declining health and eventual demise. I say mistakenly because he appears to be a positive influence in her life and Annie uses her agency to repeatedly demonstrate love and empathy for a person who (like her) often has difficulty expressing their true emotions.
It is in fact consistent and not warped to not judge or treat parents and children the same way hth |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 11:25:22 GMT
I find it odd that people are trying to say that the comic it trying to excuse Tony's actions when it deliberately and explicitly does not excuse Tony's actions.You’re literally linking to more stuff trying to excuse Tony’s actions by making him appear as a tragic victim and emphasizing that he’s sad Sometimes in life people say something, and then add a “but,” and then add something that completely negates the first thing they said The important thing you might notice here also is that his sadness in that previous arc doesn’t motivate any substantive change in his behavior. Which is why we’re back to doing the same damn thing. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 11:35:33 GMT
In light of the discussion over the past several pages, I have a couple of hypothetical questions. Let's assume that Tony's conversation with Jones continues with something like, "And so, because I'm stuck in this cursed mind cage, it would be best for Antimony if I place her with someone else who can give her the attention and affection she deserves. I'll grant full custody of Antimony to the Donlans and I'll get out of her life." Would this be a better overall situation for Antimony? How would she feel about this arrangement? Assume further that the Court then says, "Tony, you broke our deal, so we're expelling Antimony from the Court effective [immediately/upon graduation/other]." How would Antimony feel about that? you, sir, stole my thoughts, but I don't mind. I can make others. Antony can be a bad parent (debatable and debated) but at moment he is the only thing that can keep the Court from expelling Antimony, or worse. Because Annie is in big trouble now. The Loup thing happened because Annie freed Jennie and i strongly doubt the Court don't know that. They didn't acted on it because that is not what the Court does. Now there is seems to be a possibility for her to fix things, or ameliorate them, but the moment it is over I'd bet they'll try to use it against her. Of course she has been in pain. My parents caused me pain on multiple occasions and they aren't abusive. What he did when he came back was bullshit and unexcusable. Doesn't mean it's the constant or that Annie has to base her relationship with her Dad around that incident. Doesn't mean he has be causing her constant pain since then. Doesnt mean he's abusive or neglecting Annie, I don't think he is. I don't think she is in constant pain, hiding some deep suffering and excusing him because of trauma and despite constant mistreatment. I think there was a horrible incident and they are both trying to move forward the best they know how. If you read this as condoning abuse, or as an abusive relationship, I respectfully disagree. I don't read it that way, despite all that has happened. Actually, I think that what he did then was a good thing to do. Granted, he did it in the worst possible way, and for some of the wrong reasons, but what he did was mostly right Consider, Antimony cheated on her homework for years, to the point that she risked to be expelled and at least she had to repeat one year. she went to the Forest (a dangerous place) sometime without permission as if she owned the place. she skipped on detention ("what they are gonna do? Tell my parents" Yes, Annie, that exactly what they did) she own a doll possessed by a killer demon that, as far as you know, already killed two persons. (the same demon who was in love with your wife and was tricked by her to be captured. no way he could have a grudge on you/your whole family) And that just on the top of my mind. Probably she did other things that I don't remember. If I had a daughter that did these things (and I'd lack the partial omniscience that being a reader of a comic give) I'd want to put my foot down and set some rules. -no make-up. (harsh and done for the wrong reason, but a good visual reminder that you are in charge) -you are grounded (hard to ground someone when she live with her best friend and in the same building with her classmates so she had to move in a place that (i am sure, totally by chance) was also harder to bug. -I'd keep the killer demon doll, thank you. Sure, he could have been less of an asshole in doing so (or maybe he could not because, you know, mind cage) but still I can't find faults in what he did. I think Annie has a profound sense of entitlement and I don’t think he did a single thing to help address that problem and is in fact just making it worse by refusing to provide or being unable to provide emotional support and validation. As for your first point it’s just not. Good? Charitably, we can imagine and create narrative explanations for why any bad or horrific thing is actually good because it’s better than the described fictional alternatives. Maybe we have to resurrect Hitler because according to prophecy, he’s the only one who can stop Super Mecha Double-Hitler. Such contrivance may get the characters off the hook for bringing Hitler back from the dead in-text, but it still leaves us with the question of why the writer wants to tell a story where Hitler is good actually |
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli33 on May 2, 2021 11:50:09 GMT
Whoa.
An honest-to-goodness by-the-textbook incidence of Godwin's Law. I haven't seen that in a very, very long time. For a good, long while people on the internet were self-aware enough to not let themselves come to that point.
Time makes fools of us all, huh.
Oh well. I don't think any of us had any illusions that some parts of this discussion were going to go anywhere reasonable anyways.
I'm gonna go ahead and stop reading this thread, to wait to see how this page-by-page-updated-comic-that-will-eventually-become-a-proper-coherent-story shapes up in the next tiny one page increment.
|
|
blackouthart
New Member
Avatar drawn by Shelby Cragg!
Posts: 49
|
Post by blackouthart on May 2, 2021 11:51:41 GMT
I’m just gonna pause on my popcorn eating to point out: conflating mental illness with the automatic assumption that it will cause you to be abusive, or that it excuses abuse, isn’t actually doing mentally ill people any favors. Yes, mentally ill people can act in ways that cause harm. That’s everybody.
Obviously there is a need in some situations to have different standards, but I think we can all agree that Tony giving Antimony no notice of his return, blindsiding her and then immediately publicly humiliating her was vastly inconsiderate at the least, if not harmful. I’m not going to argue the point that he should’ve never come back, because he did do it to prevent her expulsion, but the manner in which he returned and instant treatment was horrible for Annie.
I’m not going to co-sign how some people have been saying how his tough love made her stronger, because it clearly has not. I’m not going to say he’s an evil dictator and his mental illness isn’t a factor. I’m not going to say his mental illness explains away everything perfectly because you’re feeding into the idea and anxiety that a lot of mentally ill people have that they are inherently toxic, which they are not.
There needs to be some moderation here, and unfortunately nuance in discussions like this are not really a forum’s overall forte.
Okay, carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisanela on May 2, 2021 12:11:58 GMT
[not replying to anything above]
I wonder what Jones might say to all this. Like why is this character in particular listening to this confession? She came to know more about Annie's well being but with her incredible knowledge on humanity (although she can't quite connect to it) she might have seen this situation a hundred times and offer a helpful perspective on it (maybe she even knows his parents). I always feel Renard, Zimmy, and Jones are the most interesting characters to ask questions to because they have such unique point of view on everything. Jones also makes quite a good therapist because she reflects so little judgement - and Tony is definitely someone who feels the gaze of other people more than others.
Or maybe she's just thinking about sitting on a chair and reading a book right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 2, 2021 17:01:45 GMT
In light of the discussion over the past several pages, I have a couple of hypothetical questions. Let's assume that Tony's conversation with Jones continues with something like, "And so, because I'm stuck in this cursed mind cage, it would be best for Antimony if I place her with someone else who can give her the attention and affection she deserves. I'll grant full custody of Antimony to the Donlans and I'll get out of her life." Would this be a better overall situation for Antimony? How would she feel about this arrangement? Assume further that the Court then says, "Tony, you broke our deal, so we're expelling Antimony from the Court effective [immediately/upon graduation/other]." How would Antimony feel about that? you, sir, stole my thoughts, but I don't mind. I can make others. Antony can be a bad parent (debatable and debated) but at moment he is the only thing that can keep the Court from expelling Antimony, or worse. Because Annie is in big trouble now. The Loup thing happened because Annie freed Jennie and i strongly doubt the Court don't know that. They didn't acted on it because that is not what the Court does. Now there is seems to be a possibility for her to fix things, or ameliorate them, but the moment it is over I'd bet they'll try to use it against her. Of course she has been in pain. My parents caused me pain on multiple occasions and they aren't abusive. What he did when he came back was bullshit and unexcusable. Doesn't mean it's the constant or that Annie has to base her relationship with her Dad around that incident. Doesn't mean he has be causing her constant pain since then. Doesnt mean he's abusive or neglecting Annie, I don't think he is. I don't think she is in constant pain, hiding some deep suffering and excusing him because of trauma and despite constant mistreatment. I think there was a horrible incident and they are both trying to move forward the best they know how. If you read this as condoning abuse, or as an abusive relationship, I respectfully disagree. I don't read it that way, despite all that has happened. Actually, I think that what he did then was a good thing to do. Granted, he did it in the worst possible way, and for some of the wrong reasons, but what he did was mostly right Consider, Antimony cheated on her homework for years, to the point that she risked to be expelled and at least she had to repeat one year. she went to the Forest (a dangerous place) sometime without permission as if she owned the place. she skipped on detention ("what they are gonna do? Tell my parents" Yes, Annie, that exactly what they did) she own a doll possessed by a killer demon that, as far as you know, already killed two persons. (the same demon who was in love with your wife and was tricked by her to be captured. no way he could have a grudge on you/your whole family) And that just on the top of my mind. Probably she did other things that I don't remember. If I had a daughter that did these things (and I'd lack the partial omniscience that being a reader of a comic give) I'd want to put my foot down and set some rules. -no make-up. (harsh and done for the wrong reason, but a good visual reminder that you are in charge) -you are grounded (hard to ground someone when she live with her best friend and in the same building with her classmates so she had to move in a place that (i am sure, totally by chance) was also harder to bug. -I'd keep the killer demon doll, thank you. Sure, he could have been less of an asshole in doing so (or maybe he could not because, you know, mind cage) but still I can't find faults in what he did. I agree with a lot of this, most in fact, if I considered/judged in this way I would also have very little issue with what he did, but I personally do consider how someone does something a big part of what he they are doing. Like, a really big part. Ends typically don't justify the means imo, thats how we get wars. I also don't think the make up things was acceptable, particularly when you describe it as a smart powerplay/way of showing who's boss by Tony. If he had done it for that reason I'd be even more upset with him, but thankfully it was just because it reminded him of his dead wife. What an odd sentence. I still stand by my statement, the way he handled his return was unacceptable, even if the actions taken weren't unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 2, 2021 17:26:32 GMT
Maybe we have to resurrect Hitler because according to prophecy, he’s the only one who can stop Super Mecha Double-Hitler. Such contrivance may get the characters off the hook for bringing Hitler back from the dead in-text, but it still leaves us with the question of why the writer wants to tell a story where Hitler is good actually You do know you just turned your entire argument into a literal joke for a lot of internet people right? Which is a shame because underneath all your anger you had a lot of valid points, but now you just go all "I'll compare it to Hitler, that'll show the emotional relevance." It doesn't, it makes you look like your comparing a character in a fictional girls coming of age story to Hitler, which is not a strong look and weakens your argument. Like now all anyone has to do to attack any point you make is go "I know you think Tony doing _____ is equal to reviving Hitler, but that's unreasonable so your whole argument is flawed". Shooting yourself in the foot trying to explain the evils of guns is a bold tactic, but trust me people are just going think you don't have a reasonable understanding of guns. I know you like your hyperbole, but it does have drawbacks. |
|
|
|
Post by beaukm on May 2, 2021 17:50:52 GMT
I would recommend, with some trepidation, quarantining this thread and discussion that has gone wayyyyy away from discussion of the current page of the comic, and seems to involve some completely separate open season argumentation that some might find frankly discomforting. Then again, I'm new and perhaps that's not how the forum operates.
I guess I might also recommend directly messaging Tom if you feel subjects such as abuse and mental health aren't being treated with proper respect and care in this comic. Raising and discussing those concerns in the forum is fine, but I feel like this thread has gone beyond just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 17:53:24 GMT
Maybe we have to resurrect Hitler because according to prophecy, he’s the only one who can stop Super Mecha Double-Hitler. Such contrivance may get the characters off the hook for bringing Hitler back from the dead in-text, but it still leaves us with the question of why the writer wants to tell a story where Hitler is good actually You do know you just turned your entire argument into a literal joke for a lot of internet people right? Which is a shame because underneath all your anger you had a lot of valid points, but now you just go all "I'll compare it to Hitler, that'll show the emotional relevance." It doesn't, it makes you look like your comparing a character in a fictional girls coming of age story to Hitler, which is not a strong look and weakens your argument. Like now all anyone has to do to attack any point you make is go "I know you think Tony doing _____ is equal to reviving Hitler, but that's unreasonable so your whole argument is flawed". Shooting yourself in the foot trying to explain the evils of guns is a bold tactic, but trust me people are just going think you don't have a reasonable understanding of guns. I know you like your hyperbole, but it does have drawbacks. Anyone who wants to always could dismiss my arguments by making bad, inaccurate, and bad faith claims about what I said, what Godwin’s Law says, how argumentation works at a basic level etc. if they wanted, and this would be true no matter what I said or how I phrased it. Why, are you announcing your intentions? |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 17:55:43 GMT
Whoa. An honest-to-goodness by-the-textbook incidence of Godwin's Law. I haven't seen that in a very, very long time. For a good, long while people on the internet were self-aware enough to not let themselves come to that point. Time makes fools of us all, huh. Oh well. I don't think any of us had any illusions that some parts of this discussion were going to go anywhere reasonable anyways. I'm gonna go ahead and stop reading this thread, to wait to see how this page-by-page-updated-comic-that-will-eventually-become-a-proper-coherent-story shapes up in the next tiny one page increment. That’s not what Godwin’s Law is. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 18:04:08 GMT
I’m just gonna pause on my popcorn eating to point out: conflating mental illness with the automatic assumption that it will cause you to be abusive, or that it excuses abuse, isn’t actually doing mentally ill people any favors. Yes, mentally ill people can act in ways that cause harm. That’s everybody. Obviously there is a need in some situations to have different standards, but I think we can all agree that Tony giving Antimony no notice of his return, blindsiding her and then immediately publicly humiliating her was vastly inconsiderate at the least, if not harmful. I’m not going to argue the point that he should’ve never come back, because he did do it to prevent her expulsion, but the manner in which he returned and instant treatment was horrible for Annie. I’m not going to co-sign how some people have been saying how his tough love made her stronger, because it clearly has not. I’m not going to say he’s an evil dictator and his mental illness isn’t a factor. I’m not going to say his mental illness explains away everything perfectly because you’re feeding into the idea and anxiety that a lot of mentally ill people have that they are inherently toxic, which they are not. There needs to be some moderation here, and unfortunately nuance in discussions like this are not really a forum’s overall forte. Okay, carry on. You’re positioning this as some kind off “middle ground” stance which I’m gathering I’m supposed to represent one un-nuanced extreme of, but nothing you actually said contradicted anything I said. In fact you seem to be making the same points but with a bit of throwing me under the bus, “oh but not like THAT guy.” Like to be clear my position is not that Tony is a secretly purely evil being motivated only by malevolence. Because basically no one is that. (Not even Hitler, in fact.) |
|
