|
|
Post by maxptc on May 2, 2021 18:04:36 GMT
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? You know, you're right. Those aren't my intentions, but because I feel your getting carried away and making bad faith comparisons, I'm escalating and doing the same, which isn't okay on my part. That's my bad. This is escalating for reasons unrelated to in comic stuff, and while I'm still cool to discuss Tony and our differences in regards to him, I'm not down to discuss how/if his stories inclusion is similar to Hitler vs double Hitler, because it feel like a bad faith slap at Toms writing. Since my responses here will all be equally slappy and in bad faith, Imma bow out. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 2, 2021 18:12:56 GMT
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? You know, you're right. Those aren't my intentions, but because I feel your getting carried away and making bad faith comparisons, I'm escalating and doing the same, which isn't okay on my part. That's my bad. This is escalating for reasons unrelated to in comic stuff, and while I'm still cool to discuss Tony and our differences in regards to him, I'm not down to discuss how/if his stories inclusion is similar to Hitler vs double Hitler, because it feel like a bad faith slap at Toms writing. Since my responses here will all be equally slappy and in bad faith, Imma bow out. That’s wasn’t a comparison, I was describing how the logic of “bad thing is okay in a story because the story provided alternatives are worse” can be used to justify anything you want through narrative contrivance, and then gave an explicitly extreme example of this principle; “sure Hitler is bad but he’s better than Super Mecha Double-Hitler.” If you’re misreading me then fine, ask for clarification, but I deeply resent the claim that I am speaking in bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 18:24:18 GMT
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. Oh, you're correct. I forgot he tried it with a rabbit first, right? I'm having trouble finding the page... |
|
|
|
Post by Per on May 2, 2021 19:28:41 GMT
He would presumably have had to kill two animals to establish a pattern, unless Coyote straight up told him what the deal was after the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by coastal on May 2, 2021 19:36:17 GMT
I'd like to say that I think Tony's relationship with Annie is unique. It's interesting to think about because of that. I still think it's one of the most important parts of the comic. Tony is a strange man, and I'm amazed that a part-fire-elemental like Surma ever ended up with him. I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear from him about what his problem is. It really helps me grasp how unusual of a person Annie is, having two such unusual parents (who were also extremely different from each other).
I'd also like to say thanks to Tom Siddell for continuing to make this great comic.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 20:57:16 GMT
He would presumably have had to kill two animals to establish a pattern, unless Coyote straight up told him what the deal was after the first time. Found it! If what's depicted here is true, then he returned directly to his own body after possessing the rabbit. |
|
|
|
Post by Per on May 2, 2021 21:51:49 GMT
He would presumably have had to kill two animals to establish a pattern, unless Coyote straight up told him what the deal was after the first time. Found it! If what's depicted here is true, then he returned directly to his own body after possessing the rabbit. Yes, the question is whether he tried it again and the same thing happened, or he didn't try it again and never really knew for sure until The Incident, or he went to Coyote and said "hey dude the power killed a hare" and Coyote was like "HAHAHAHA yeah that's how that works now also did you eat it because if not" |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 2, 2021 23:04:34 GMT
Anyone who is troubled by this thread may avert their peepers; anybody who can’t tolerate this thread will descend from on high and release their terrible swift sword unto Vibur, I’m sure. I am entirely and understandingly deletable. With that said: O Create Lasagna, you three-eyed mother f--*COUGH*...oooh, I think that might be ricott anyWAY deep breath! *kersploosh* long agoSo 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. This appears to be going in more eugenicksy directions than you...perhaps...meant? You might consider Annie’s duties to moral hygiene. And Surma’s. And then consider whether moral hygiene is a constructive framework to impose on those in your wishing well. If you are concerned about gaslighting, it’s helpful to name your own feelings, rather than those of others. I am, right now, making a statement about myself and my feelings. Will you? Is Parley on trial here? Is Eglamore? Does there need to be a trial? If so, who should be the actors, and for whose benefit? No parent is an island. Each of us, though we may Wayne, is sometimes inadequate to the task. The question is whether Tony allows others to step in. Is Annie able to get what she needs from Jones? Kat? Her other teachers and peers? Has he prevented or prohibited her from doing this? ¿y el pichón? Why are you trying to feed her? You don’t have to. Ouch. Misericcordion! If you say so. Perhaps the Court will uphold your ruling. As have I. And who, in the current story, has actual bruises and scratches? Who does not? Ah. Try to remember, you wish them well.Speaking professionally, Tony’s behavior post-Return would not be judged abusive by most care professionals I've encountered. His disciplinary style is not out of the norm for a Western parent, he does not isolate his daughter from her other teachers and peers, he shows a high level of interest in her activities, he praises her and provides opportunities for regular family interaction, and he takes care of all her material and financial needs. In response, as this chapter has summarized, Annie has maintained or improved in pretty much every facet of her welfare. She’s doing better in school; she’s taking her medium duties more seriously; she's in less frequent conflict with authorities; she’s more confident around her friends; she’s less emotionally volatile; and her psychic powers are stronger. She’s also more willing to challenge and analyze her father. And, critically, she’s far less likely to face exile in a year or two. Annie is thriving, and that’s all the more impressive considering that Annie just lost Coyote, Ysengrin, and access to the Forest that was her second home. Of course there may be all kinds of troubles beneath her surface, but no child welfare expert would disrupt this sort of global improvement just because her father can’t smile on cue. (run-berrie-run) end prof. And this illustrates the problem with your approach. For the past six pages, to the great tedium and annoyance of people who don’t care about him, Tony has described his feelings and thoughts. He has not described his behavior towards Antimony. He has not presumed to describe its effects on Antimony. Antimony has not volunteered her opinion, in the last six pages, though we’ve heard it in the past. Where is this pattern of behavior that you describe Tony as describing? Chapter and verse, please. Or, turn back the pages, this pattern of behavior that you describe Antimony as experiencing? Or close the book if you like. It is! It really, really Ys.Trouble is, it’s absurdly common for non-abused children too. Children just attach, for many reasons. Detach with care, if at all! But you don’t have to be an Echthros about it. and nowsurfacing*breathe* “It’s oddly warm down there.” 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. A-yup. The Court discovers everything it can, about everyone it can, and places them in opposition to one another. (If it please yer honor.) I think some readers forget that the Court--- according to Tony--gives NO hot fudge sundaes about Annie’s cheating. That’s just their pretext. The Court is angry, because Annie keeps choosing the Forest. The Court feels betrayed. And, you know, the Court can fudge off and diet for all we care, but Annie currently needs it. Tony didn’t come back to make her do her homework, he came back to rehabilitate her reputation so that she can reach adulthood and go where she likes. Horrible as it is, Tony’s task re: Annie’s academics is to help her please the Court.I teach K-12, American style, and we’ve probably had enough 3rd-party trauma in this thread already, but I have worked with many families, teachers and administrators who would look at Tony’s classroom debut and say “Well, it’s a pity it had to be that way, but it was for the best. Hopefully it will help her straighten herself out!” That’s a very common attitude when you’ve grown up in, or grown up oppressed by, an authoritarian society. I don’t agree with it, and to the degree that it matters, I don’t think Tony does either. But I think the Court does. ...and since I feel like condemning him for a while, let me just add that I think Tony's makeup shiftfit was all him and he’s entirely to blame. I doubt the Court cared about that particular point, and there was no need to browbeat an Annie who had always treated him with excessive deference. Tony’s brain just seized up, and he lashed out to reestablish control of his world, and he fucked up. For a Bat-Dad who compensates for his emotional inadequacies through overplanning and determination, that’s his second-worst sin. It’s cool that they moved past it, and I suspect that Annie’s “demanding” to make herself up again went almost exactly like “The Breakout"-- “I have a right to wear this, and if you don” “‘kay.” and they never discussed it again--but it was still his error and he should acknowledge it. Non-judgmentally. Somehow. The worst sin, to me, is not giving Annie any account or warning that he was leaving the hospital. I will accept that he had an important secret Bat-Mission and could not bring Annie or explain it to her; I will not accept that Mr. Brave Stoic Genius could not construct an alibi for her. He simply allowed himself not to, because he had sunken so far into self-loathing that he saw his daughter’s love as part of their mutual disease. Something to cut her off from before it destroyed her. And you can tell that it was his worst mistake, because he still doesn’t really get it. Tony is extravagantly, bitterly remorseful about so many things--failing to save Surma, endangering Annie, failing to feel and say and emote the right things at her--but he’s not remorseful about leaving her. He simply justifies it and moves on, in most un-Tonious fashion. Despair is the worst sin, because you don't see. (selective mutism, was it?) |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 2, 2021 23:18:38 GMT
Lots of those links were broken, at least on my end, silicondream. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbot on May 2, 2021 23:53:13 GMT
Found it! If what's depicted here is true, then he returned directly to his own body after possessing the rabbit. Yes, the question is whether he tried it again and the same thing happened, or he didn't try it again and never really knew for sure until The Incident, or he went to Coyote and said "hey dude the power killed a hare" and Coyote was like "HAHAHAHA yeah that's how that works now also did you eat it because if not" Renard's statement " But if I take his body... he could die!" (is this The Incident referenced above?) strongly suggests that Renard still didn't know for sure what would happen. Coyote, being Coyote, didn't give Renard a straight answer. Instead, he basically goaded him into possessing Daniel. But in the page linked above, Coyote's statement "any body he took that was not his own would die when it was used up" implies that he knew Renard's use of the body-snatching power would always kill the possessed. I suspect that Coyote was well aware of the limitations of Renard's power and Renard was not, and he didn't take the time to experiment extensively to find out. Per Coyote, Renard took over Daniel's body " soon" after he was given the power. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 3, 2021 0:05:44 GMT
That will be always my favorite Coyote joke. "Imagine you're...a rabbit! Oops, too late, ahahaha." "Okay, now imagine you're...Daniel... ... ...wait for it... ..." Renard is the best of audiences. |
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbot on May 3, 2021 0:36:12 GMT
Speaking professionally, Tony’s behavior post-Return would not be judged abusive by most care professionals I've encountered. His disciplinary style is not out of the norm for a Western parent, he does not isolate his daughter from her other teachers and peers, he shows a high level of interest in her activities, he praises her and provides opportunities for regular family interaction, and he takes care of all her material and financial needs. In response, as this chapter has summarized, Annie has maintained or improved in pretty much every facet of her welfare. She’s doing better in school; she’s taking her medium duties more seriously; she's in less frequent conflict with authorities; she’s more confident around her friends; she’s less emotionally volatile; and her psychic powers are stronger. She’s also more willing to challenge and analyze her father. And, critically, she’s far less likely to face exile in a year or two. Annie is thriving, and that’s all the more impressive considering that Annie just lost Coyote, Ysengrin, and access to the Forest that was her second home. Of course there may be all kinds of troubles beneath her surface, but no child welfare expert would disrupt this sort of global improvement just because her father can’t smile on cue. Well said. Antimony's current situation with respect to her father is certainly less than ideal, but I feel she is doing reasonably well overall considering her experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on May 3, 2021 2:37:43 GMT
Renard's statement " But if I take his body... he could die!" (is this The Incident referenced above?) strongly suggests that Renard still didn't know for sure what would happen. Coyote, being Coyote, didn't give Renard a straight answer. Instead, he basically goaded him into possessing Daniel. But in the page linked above, Coyote's statement "any body he took that was not his own would die when it was used up" implies that he knew Renard's use of the body-snatching power would always kill the possessed. I suspect that Coyote was well aware of the limitations of Renard's power and Renard was not, and he didn't take the time to experiment extensively to find out. Per Coyote, Renard took over Daniel's body " soon" after he was given the power. More relevant links! Coyote once again shows the danger in never telling a lie. "You can't be sure" implies "...and neither can I", but it doesn't state it. Mind that Coyote being immortal, him saying "soon" doesn't necessarily mean anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Gemminie on May 3, 2021 5:07:06 GMT
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. Yes, Hettie admits killing the child who used to own her doll body (we have little information about how that came to be so), and she's plotting to kill that child's brother (who now owns her body, because of how ethereal ownership contracts work, but is unaware that he owns it), but Renard kills her before she can do it. Oh, and Hettie was also urging Renard to kill Annie. I think Hettie (or the entity within the Hettie doll, whatever its name may truly be) is portrayed as a clearly evil being undeserving of sympathy. One wonders how long Renard has known Hettie without knowing what she's truly like. |
|
|
|
Post by red4bestgirl on May 3, 2021 5:56:53 GMT
So 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. This appears to be going in more eugenicksy directions than you...perhaps...meant? It's funny because this is actually Godwin's Law, but Dunning and Kruger have obviously long since taken over this particular forum. Y'all have fun rationalizing child abusers or w/e you do with your free time. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on May 3, 2021 6:05:06 GMT
Yes, the question is whether he tried it again and the same thing happened, or he didn't try it again and never really knew for sure until The Incident, or he went to Coyote and said "hey dude the power killed a hare" and Coyote was like "HAHAHAHA yeah that's how that works now also did you eat it because if not" Renard's statement " But if I take his body... he could die!" (is this The Incident referenced above?) strongly suggests that Renard still didn't know for sure what would happen. Coyote, being Coyote, didn't give Renard a straight answer. Instead, he basically goaded him into possessing Daniel. But in the page linked above, Coyote's statement "any body he took that was not his own would die when it was used up" implies that he knew Renard's use of the body-snatching power would always kill the possessed. I suspect that Coyote was well aware of the limitations of Renard's power and Renard was not, and he didn't take the time to experiment extensively to find out. Per Coyote, Renard took over Daniel's body " soon" after he was given the power. Entirely agreed, just adding he still knowingly gambled with Schiff's life. Goaded and manipulated by Coyote, yes, but ultimately it was Renard who wielded that power. |
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 3, 2021 7:44:48 GMT
That’s wasn’t a comparison, I was describing how the logic of “bad thing is okay in a story because the story provided alternatives are worse” can be used to justify anything you want through narrative contrivance, and then gave an explicitly extreme example of this principle; “sure Hitler is bad but he’s better than Super Mecha Double-Hitler.” If you’re misreading me then fine, ask for clarification, but I deeply resent the claim that I am speaking in bad faith. Nobody is using that logic , as far as I can tell. My logic in this case is purely watsonian, I am saying that inside the universe of the comic Annie remaining with her father is, while far from ideal, the best possible solution. Anything else would be much worse for her. |
|
laaaa
Full Member
Posts: 247
|
Post by laaaa on May 3, 2021 9:24:39 GMT
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 Haha, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one! I felt both their opinions were both legit and on point. I value Englamore's opinion. I know he's meant to be presented as a jealous ex, but as everything else in this comic, he's actually a more complicated character. As far as I can tell, he's presented as a jealous ex because the comic is largely from the point of view of Antimony, same as she thought Renard would still be bawling over Surma. We're not shown his aspirations, dreams, opinion on the court, etc. (like how when we were shown that he hooked up with cool-elf-girl I was kinda surprised that he apparently got over Surma, but then I remembered: "Oh hey! Right! He's a Person, not an Ex-Lover! He has lots of feelings and thoughts that we're not privy to!") However, we are shown that he does care for Annie, and part of him thinks she should have been his daughter and that he would have been a better father than Tony. But just because someone is jealous and bitter doesn't mean that he's wrong. His opinion is quite valid, and he probably would have been a better father. And when Tony returned, it was a huge shock to Antimony. As for Parley, well, she's not in the same class with Antimony. Of course she doesn't have a first-hand experience about what happened. But she's neither vain nor shallow, and we can surmise she heard the same things we saw when Tony first came: that Tony appeared out of the blue in Antimony's classroom (in stead of, I don't know, ACTUALLY MEETING HER PRIVATELY AT FIRST?! What the heck) and called her out for her makeup in front of everyone (which might have been a legit concern for a parent/teacher but, again, do it privately FIRST, explain the reasons why you think makeup might be inappropriate during class for a teenager that age, and maybe not go any further). I completely omit the repeat-school-year (necessary)/live-separately (also necessary)/stop-being-forest-medium (weird, possibly dangerous)/gimme-me-Renard (also possibly dangerous) things because they were kinda understandable; however the two things I mentioned first are quite unacceptable. Also, it becomes apparent that it's well known Tony doesn't actually... speak to his daughter AND that he had gone no-contact for a very long time. Those are also concerning. And they're true. Parley would have known. It's not like everything Tony did felt under "strict parenting" umbrella. Some of it fell under "lame parenting" umbrella. And just as we readers know it, the characters know it as well. The ones that know Tony a little better (the Donlans) understand that there's also a good side to Tony, but that he still does unacceptable things. They are also correct. So, I understand your point, but I think Parley's and Eggers's opinions were extremely accurate and valid and I didn't feel like overlooking them. The one I STILL can't wrap my mind around is freaking Kat. Kat, you hated Tony because he had neglected Annie. Because he humiliated her in front of class. You thought Annie's excuses for him were just lame excuses. Unlike the Donlans, you were not familiar at all with his (well-hidden) loving side. Why on earth would Tony's jokes and brilliant mind change that?! I would understand it if she said "Annie, what you told me you saw through the blinker stone explains some things. If you want to forgive him and give him another chance I'll support you and do the same, and I'll try to understand where he's coming from. [Later:] I asked my mum and dad about your dad and they told me some pretty heart-warming things, so there's good in him. [Later:] And yeah, it turns out he's trying everything he can for you, and that he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" But what she actually said was: "he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" WHAT THE HECK KAT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. I'm still waiting for an explanation for this one. |
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 3, 2021 9:53:17 GMT
The one I STILL can't wrap my mind around is freaking Kat. Kat, you hated Tony because he had neglected Annie. Because he humiliated her in front of class. You thought Annie's excuses for him were just lame excuses. Unlike the Donlans, you were not familiar at all with his (well-hidden) loving side. Why on earth would Tony's jokes and brilliant mind change that?! I would understand it if she said "Annie, what you told me you saw through the blinker stone explains some things. If you want to forgive him and give him another chance I'll support you and do the same, and I'll try to understand where he's coming from. [Later:] I asked my mum and dad about your dad and they told me some pretty heart-warming things, so there's good in him. [Later:] And yeah, it turns out he's trying everything he can for you, and that he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" But what she actually said was: "he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" WHAT THE HECK KAT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. I'm still waiting for an explanation for this one. That could have been a case of reversed expectations (I am not sure I am using the right words). It is like when you watch a movie/serie/read a book that you expect to be really bad and then you find it is actually good and end liking it much more than if you had started expecting it to be a great movie/book. She met him expecting him to be a combination of a evil robot and Adolf Hitler and then he came out being really funny, charming (I don't know if it is a problem with the medium that don't show it well, but I think the idea is that when he is alone, Tony crank the charm up to eleven) and really good at his job, and she was caught of balance. |
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on May 3, 2021 11:18:01 GMT
It's funny because this is actually Godwin's Law, but Dunning and Kruger have obviously long since taken over this particular forum. Y'all have fun rationalizing child abusers or w/e you do with your free time. Oh, I get it now. I think you're right to call us all stupid, because it took me this long to realise you're constantly projecting as an homage to your favourite character - who's most herself when doing the same.
Ha! Good one.
|
|
laaaa
Full Member
Posts: 247
|
Post by laaaa on May 3, 2021 12:14:39 GMT
The one I STILL can't wrap my mind around is freaking Kat. Kat, you hated Tony because he had neglected Annie. Because he humiliated her in front of class. You thought Annie's excuses for him were just lame excuses. Unlike the Donlans, you were not familiar at all with his (well-hidden) loving side. Why on earth would Tony's jokes and brilliant mind change that?! I would understand it if she said "Annie, what you told me you saw through the blinker stone explains some things. If you want to forgive him and give him another chance I'll support you and do the same, and I'll try to understand where he's coming from. [Later:] I asked my mum and dad about your dad and they told me some pretty heart-warming things, so there's good in him. [Later:] And yeah, it turns out he's trying everything he can for you, and that he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" But what she actually said was: "he's smart and funny, so I like him now!" WHAT THE HECK KAT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU. I'm still waiting for an explanation for this one. That could have been a case of reversed expectations (I am not sure I am using the right words). It is like when you watch a movie/serie/read a book that you expect to be really bad and then you find it is actually good and end liking it much more than if you had started expecting it to be a great movie/book. She met him expecting him to be a combination of a evil robot and Adolf Hitler and then he came out being really funny, charming (I don't know if it is a problem with the medium that don't show it well, but I think the idea is that when he is alone, Tony crank the charm up to eleven) and really good at his job, and she was caught of balance. I suppose this could make sense (also the things I mentioned could still go in in Kat's mind, subconsciously, and we were just never shown them), but I still don't feel like it's an adequate explanation. Basically I feel like every aspect of Tony's life, relationships and impressions is realistic and humane, except for Kat's behavior. She had personal grievances against him. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 3, 2021 13:34:08 GMT
"And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days." Hate to tell you, but all your links in this post are broken. :x 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. Let's say the forum has very little moderation, but fortunately it usually also has very little need for moderation. Renard's statement " But if I take his body... he could die!" (is this The Incident referenced above?) strongly suggests that Renard still didn't know for sure what would happen. Coyote, being Coyote, didn't give Renard a straight answer. Instead, he basically goaded him into possessing Daniel. But in the page linked above, Coyote's statement "any body he took that was not his own would die when it was used up" implies that he knew Renard's use of the body-snatching power would always kill the possessed. I suspect that Coyote was well aware of the limitations of Renard's power and Renard was not, and he didn't take the time to experiment extensively to find out. Per Coyote, Renard took over Daniel's body " soon" after he was given the power. Entirely agreed, just adding he still knowingly gambled with Schiff's life. Goaded and manipulated by Coyote, yes, but ultimately it was Renard who wielded that power. It was basically:
"But if I shoot him with this gun...he could die!" "Oh, Renard, you cannot be sure that will happen!"
|
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 3, 2021 13:35:25 GMT
One wonders how long Renard has known Hettie without knowing what she's truly like. Always hard to tell with ethereals; perhaps this is the sort of thing you discover on the third date. Alternatively, perhaps they’d known each other forever, or at least since the Carboniferous, but Hettie seemed more quirky and less psychopathic back when Renard was still seeing humans like this. This appears to be going in more eugenicksy directions than you...perhaps...meant? It's funny because this is actually Godwin's Law, It’s...it’s literally not? The social hygiene movement was-- --ah. No hope then. It’s no “pffffffffffft,” but I’ll take it. Be well. The one I STILL can't wrap my mind around is freaking Kat. Kat, you hated Tony because he had neglected Annie. Because he humiliated her in front of class. You thought Annie's excuses for him were just lame excuses. Unlike the Donlans, you were not familiar at all with his (well-hidden) loving side. Why on earth would Tony's jokes and brilliant mind change that?! Possible answers, neither exhaustive nor exclusive, not ordered by plausibility: - Kat is a very agreeable person; she gushes over or crushes on almost everyone she gets to know, at least for a little while. And determined silent types with hidden depths are like--er--silvervine to her.
- Kat hated Tony before because she thought he didn’t care about Annie. Once she learned that he’s just a very odd duck, she found his actions more understandable even if she still didn’t agree with them. Kat can forgive mistakes, but not malice or indifference.
- When she saw Antimony’s response to Tony’s return, Kat realized that a) they were way more similar than she’d thought and b) Annie was true as steel to him. Tony wasn’t going anywhere, and it obviously pained Annie that Kat was so hostile toward him, so she started actively trying to get along with the guy.
- Kat found a kindred spirit. She and Tony are very different in many ways, but they’re both classic comic book superscientists: obsessive omni-researchers who can master everything except magic and who value everything except their own safety. And of course they’re both ferociously protective of their pet firebird. (Consider Tony’s “MS. DONLAN IF YOU’VE LED MY DAUGHTER INTO ACADEMIC SIN” line as the moment when they became Honorable Rivals.)
- Kat may have appreciated Tony’s intervention with Annie, upon reflection. After all, she was the person most endangered by Annie’s cheating, and while she was super-understanding about it in the moment because Annie was in crisis, she probably still felt pretty violated. Academic types take that stuff seriously. We’ve also seen Kat worrying about Annie’s “unruliness” before.
Well, Kat simplifies and self-censors a lot when talking to Antimony. Annie’s smart, but she’s notoriously terrible at comprehending certain emotional dynamics, and sometimes Kat needs to give her information in bite-sized chunks. |
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 3, 2021 13:43:46 GMT
Hate to tell you, but all your links in this post are broken. :x Really? They all seem to be working for me on other browsers and anonymously and such. Oh well. Thanks (to you and others) for letting me know! |
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on May 3, 2021 14:02:11 GMT
It's funny because this is actually Godwin's Law, but Dunning and Kruger have obviously long since taken over this particular forum. Y'all have fun rationalizing child abusers or w/e you do with your free time. Oh, I get it now. I think you're right to call us all stupid, because it took me this long to realise you're constantly projecting as an homage to your favourite character - who's most herself when doing the same.
Ha! Good one.
Not sure I agree here, though it's a fascinating possibility. But if they were really channeling Red, wouldn't they be praising Tony for treating horrible nasty Annie the way she deserves? |
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 3, 2021 17:34:19 GMT
A couple of thoughts on the "Antony argument".
1. All the evidence points to the Antony arc being something that Tom had been planning for a long time. All the information we got about Antony before his return established that he was distant, had difficulties with social interaction, etc. Annie's cheating (the ostensible reason for Antony's intervention - I say "ostensible", since the evidence suggests that the real reason for the Court's sending Antony in was to neutralize Antimony's activities that might benefit the Forest, and Antony treated her the way he did because of her reminding him too much of Surma, which he found painful) was established as early as Chapter Seventeen. With this in mind, it's difficult to see how Antony's return and its consequences could have been written differently.
2. Tom's writing this on his own; webcomics are self-published. Thus, he'd have had no editors or beta-readers to point out to him what those posters in this thread who disapprove of the arc's direction have been saying, that the treatment of Antony might come across as justifying or excusing being an abusive parent. (Though even if one had done that, I'm not sure how he could have solved that problem and still kept the arc in harmony with the ground-laying mentioned above.)
|
|
laaaa
Full Member
Posts: 247
|
Post by laaaa on May 3, 2021 18:08:22 GMT
The one I STILL can't wrap my mind around is freaking Kat. Kat, you hated Tony because he had neglected Annie. Because he humiliated her in front of class. You thought Annie's excuses for him were just lame excuses. Unlike the Donlans, you were not familiar at all with his (well-hidden) loving side. Why on earth would Tony's jokes and brilliant mind change that?! Possible answers, neither exhaustive nor exclusive, not ordered by plausibility: - Kat is a very agreeable person; she gushes over or crushes on almost everyone she gets to know, at least for a little while. And determined silent types with hidden depths are like--er--silvervine to her.
- Kat hated Tony before because she thought he didn’t care about Annie. Once she learned that he’s just a very odd duck, she found his actions more understandable even if she still didn’t agree with them. Kat can forgive mistakes, but not malice or indifference.
- When she saw Antimony’s response to Tony’s return, Kat realized that a) they were way more similar than she’d thought and b) Annie was true as steel to him. Tony wasn’t going anywhere, and it obviously pained Annie that Kat was so hostile toward him, so she started actively trying to get along with the guy.
- Kat found a kindred spirit. She and Tony are very different in many ways, but they’re both classic comic book superscientists: obsessive omni-researchers who can master everything except magic and who value everything except their own safety. And of course they’re both ferociously protective of their pet firebird. (Consider Tony’s “MS. DONLAN IF YOU’VE LED MY DAUGHTER INTO ACADEMIC SIN” line as the moment when they became Honorable Rivals.)
- Kat may have appreciated Tony’s intervention with Annie, upon reflection. After all, she was the person most endangered by Annie’s cheating, and while she was super-understanding about it in the moment because Annie was in crisis, she probably still felt pretty violated. Academic types take that stuff seriously. We’ve also seen Kat worrying about Annie’s “unruliness” before.
Well, Kat simplifies and self-censors a lot when talking to Antimony. Annie’s smart, but she’s notoriously terrible at comprehending certain emotional dynamics, and sometimes Kat needs to give her information in bite-sized chunks. Ah, thanks for your help. The combination of all these helped me see the bigger picture. Particularly the last one, since it's quite likely we'd be shown very little of Kat's thought process, which could include any and all of the above. I'd still like it if it was mentioned/explained in-comic, but now Kat's change of heart seems plausible. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 3, 2021 18:25:13 GMT
Tony and Kat are really similiar in some things, like (from memory):
Reynardine:But it did explain enough, didn't it?
Kat: That is terrible ethic!
Donald: If you like her you like her.
Tony That is just not an acceptable answer, Donald!
|
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 3, 2021 18:32:14 GMT
Tony and Kat are really similiar in some things, like (from memory): Reynardine:But it did explain enough, didn't it? Kat: That is terrible ethic! Donald: If you like her you like her. Tony That is just not an acceptable answer, Donald! Almost related, I dunno if I still begrudge Tony for the Brinnie situation now. If he knew her exact nature or even suspected it, it does sorta warrant his reaction. "But what if I kiss her and then her dad smites me. Stop laughing Donald, it's a legitimate concern." |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on May 3, 2021 19:34:03 GMT
Going outside of Tony himself, and barring the intensity of the discussion, I am autistic and I can attest that holding back on critique can be fairly disrespectful even if it comes from a place of trying to be tactful.
You know it can be dismissive of the efforts that some of the disabled have made, and even then some argue Annie to be in the same boat while not giving her the same exact slack.
I mean I do agree that being a kid doesn't absolve one of needing to be critiqued, but it seems at times those who share that belief will still go easy of a fellow adult.
Heck the writer behind the Miraculous Ladybug treats the title character's school foil as the absolute worst and beyond the ability to change/grow, but tries to make the parent of a main character to be sympathetic.
Just sometimes seems like a symptom of the whole "Damn kids and their wrap music or Pokeyman Goes" eltism.
|
|
