[2468] I do not care in the slightest.

[karp]

Okayyyy?  Like, I just signed up for the forums because of this.  Because.  Like.  What the hell is Tom doing???


Because did this whole 2 Annies plot detour solely exist... to try to make readers like Tony but for some reason without actually having him face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Why do that?  If it's so important for us to like him, why not have him actually face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Because now it looks like every single character just thinks he's great???

And also, like, "I was only able to be nice to my daughter because I could pretend she's my dead wife" is.  I mean, he said it to Jones who is probably uniquely unlikely to point out creepy Freudian implications of things.  But wowwwww.


Okay, yes, we haven't heard what Jones thinks when she sums all this up, and it's entirely possible she's going to be like "Wow, this Tony guy's ability to charm people into ignoring his awful behavior is kind of shocking; we have to do something about this."  But short of that, just.  Just what is Tom doing???

[yinglung]

May 17, 2021 18:50:50 GMT karp said:

Okayyyy?  Like, I just signed up for the forums because of this.  Because.  Like.  What the hell is Tom doing???


Because did this whole 2 Annies plot detour solely exist... to try to make readers like Tony but for some reason without actually having him face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Why do that?  If it's so important for us to like him, why not have him actually face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Because now it looks like every single character just thinks he's great???

Remember, it was Loup that doubled Annie, who keeps trying to talk to Loup's components when Loup very much wants to be recognized as a distinct individual. Her improved understanding of her father is an unintended consequence. Most characters opinions on Tony range from "He's a bad father" to "He's complicated. That doesn't excuse his actions."

As for atoning, we need to consider two things: What does Annie actually want from him, and what can he actually do to atone? He's been improving, pulling back from his overly controlling first reaction to Annie's situation, supporting her choice to go into the forest to talk with Loup, making progress in talking about his work when Court Annie showed an interest. It's frustratingly slow, and nothing like what we would expect from a neurotypical person who realized they had been a bad parent. This seems realistic to me, someone like Tony isn't going to be able to figure out and perform the perfect atonement for his actions, he's going to have to work long and hard to discern what and how he should do that. And yet, Annie still wants him in her life. I'm sure she could have chosen to live with the Donlans, but that isn't what she wants. Whether or not you can trust her desires in this case is debatable.

And also, like, "I was only able to be nice to my daughter because I could pretend she's my dead wife" is.  I mean, he said it to Jones who is probably uniquely unlikely to point out creepy Freudian implications of things.  But wowwwww.

That is the exact opposite of what he said. He was only able to be nice because he couldn't see her as his dead wife still living through his daughter. And before you go saying that that is also creepy, that double existence elicits feelings of guilt and grieving, not any sort of desire.

[saardvark]

May 17, 2021 18:50:50 GMT karp said:

Okayyyy?  Like, I just signed up for the forums because of this.  Because.  Like.  What the hell is Tom doing???


Because did this whole 2 Annies plot detour solely exist... to try to make readers like Tony but for some reason without actually having him face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Why do that?  If it's so important for us to like him, why not have him actually face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?  Because now it looks like every single character just thinks he's great???

And also, like, "I was only able to be nice to my daughter because I could pretend she's my dead wife" is.  I mean, he said it to Jones who is probably uniquely unlikely to point out creepy Freudian implications of things.  But wowwwww.


Okay, yes, we haven't heard what Jones thinks when she sums all this up, and it's entirely possible she's going to be like "Wow, this Tony guy's ability to charm people into ignoring his awful behavior is kind of shocking; we have to do something about this."  But short of that, just.  Just what is Tom doing???

welcome to the forum, Karp!

Odd, I read it exactly the opposite way - Tony can be "normal" to Forest Annie precisely because he views her as not-at-all Surma.  As I see it, Courtney is the one he has temporal continuity with, and thus represents the original Annie which (a) was indirectly responsible for Surma's demise and (b) shares a part of Surma (the elemental) within her. She also insists on wearing Surma's makeup.  So Courtney is (a) part Surma & insists on looking like her, making things awkward, and (b) sort of two-people-in-one, triggering Tony's weirdo social anxiety.  Forest Annie, on the other hand, seems like a brand-new "Annie" and is sort of a Loup creation, sans-makeup, so Tony can apparently treat her as a separate person, non-Surma related so no awkwardness or problems being a double-person.

[neonmoon]

May 17, 2021 14:14:09 GMT Daedalus said:

I still feel like Tom is saying this very pointedly at the readers.

Yeah, he is, and it was deeply uncomfortable to read. It’s never great when an artist gets into a protracted fight with their audience over what’s clearly a personal issue, but “comics writer insists abusive at worst, mentally ill at best father figure is a good person, gets into metatextual war with his commenters and general readership over it” is a particularly sad one to witness. Tom, whatever’s been going on in your personal life that’s made this a story you need to tell, I wish you well with it. But this page, even more than the rest of the Tony content, feels like someone working out some pain through art in a way I wasn’t supposed to see.

[karp]

May 17, 2021 19:14:34 GMT yinglung said:

Remember, it was Loup that doubled Annie, who keeps trying to talk to Loup's components when Loup very much wants to be recognized as a distinct individual. Her improved understanding of her father is an unintended consequence. Most characters opinions on Tony range from "He's a bad father" to "He's complicated. That doesn't excuse his actions."

This whole "doesn't excuse his actions" thing is meaningless if he never actually experiences any consequences.  Because the whole point of something not being excused is, there's a consequence for it.

And no: his own broody suffering misery sadness absolutely does not count as consequences.  (And I mentioned this in another thread, but the suggestion that it DOES count as consequences is absolutely the worst thing about this entire plotline.  The point isn't the feelings of the abuser, the point is the feelings of the abuse VICTIM, and to have that victim stare directly into the camera and say "Hey readers I'm fine, I saw him being nice some, so don't worry about me!" is extremely not a good look.)

As for atoning, we need to consider two things: What does Annie actually want from him, and what can he actually do to atone? He's been improving, pulling back from his overly controlling first reaction to Annie's situation, supporting her choice to go into the forest to talk with Loup, making progress in talking about his work when Court Annie showed an interest. It's frustratingly slow, and nothing like what we would expect from a neurotypical person who realized they had been a bad parent. This seems realistic to me, someone like Tony isn't going to be able to figure out and perform the perfect atonement for his actions, he's going to have to work long and hard to discern what and how he should do that. And yet, Annie still wants him in her life. I'm sure she could have chosen to live with the Donlans, but that isn't what she wants. Whether or not you can trust her desires in this case is debatable.

It kinda isn't, because she's a kid and an abuse victim and those together make it pretty darn reasonable to not completely trust her desires, here.


Part of the issue is, it apparently has occurred to no one (except Eglamore, very weakly) that maybe he should not actually have any sort of power over his daughter until he actually finishes the whole atonement thing.  And genuinely apologizes.  And actually changes.  You know: consequences.

Right now this isn't a story about a dude who was bad and then learned he shouldn't be bad and understood what he did wrong and changes and is eventually forgiven.  It's a story about a dude who was bad but it's okay because he didn't really ever want to be bad and he has a Good Heart underneath.  And that's a huge difference, and the way to portray that difference is largely in how all the other characters treat him. And no one's treating him like he needs forgiveness.   

That is the exact opposite of what he said. He was only able to be nice because he couldn't see her as his dead wife still living through his daughter. And before you go saying that that is also creepy, that double existence elicits feelings of guilt and grieving, not any sort of desire.

Hmm... okay, yes, I see what you're saying, and I think you're right that's what's intended.  But that sure could be phrased more clearly than that page phrases it.  

[flowsthead]

May 17, 2021 19:39:56 GMT karp said:

This whole "doesn't excuse his actions" thing is meaningless if he never actually experiences any consequences.  Because the whole point of something not being excused is, there's a consequence for it.

And no: his own broody suffering misery sadness absolutely does not count as consequences.  (And I mentioned this in another thread, but the suggestion that it DOES count as consequences is absolutely the worst thing about this entire plotline.  The point isn't the feelings of the abuser, the point is the feelings of the abuse VICTIM, and to have that victim stare directly into the camera and say "Hey readers I'm fine, I saw him being nice some, so don't worry about me!" is extremely not a good look.)

I don't think I would agree from an art perspective. There doesn't have to be consequences for something for it to be negatively perceived by an audience. Art isn't just morality plays. SOmetimes characters can be in a bad situation and not come out of it. If you are interpreting this scene as Annie saying she's fine with her abuser (which I don't, but you do you), then that is also fine. That doesn't mean Tom or Gunnerkrigg is saying that it is ok, but the character, Annie, is saying she is ok with the present state of things.

It kinda isn't, because she's a kid and an abuse victim and those together make it pretty darn reasonable to not completely trust her desires, here.

Part of the issue is, it apparently has occurred to no one (except Eglamore, very weakly) that maybe he should not actually have any sort of power over his daughter until he actually finishes the whole atonement thing.  And genuinely apologizes.  And actually changes.  You know: consequences.

Right now this isn't a story about a dude who was bad and then learned he shouldn't be bad and understood what he did wrong and changes and is eventually forgiven.  It's a story about a dude who was bad but it's okay because he didn't really ever want to be bad and he has a Good Heart underneath.  And that's a huge difference, and the way to portray that difference is largely in how all the other characters treat him. And no one's treating him like he needs forgiveness. 

What you're describing here is extremely unrealistic. Tony really hasn't done anything that a legal system could use as sufficient reason to separate him and Annie. And while certainly the comic isn't a legal system, I think it has some realistic aspects to itself in that separating Tony and Annie doesn't really seem to be in the interests of anyone at the Court.

I'm really not sure what you imagine would happen. Gunnerkrigg has never been the after school special type where people learn from their mistakes are suddenly "Good" (whatever that means). These are characters with flaws that are minimized or accentuated based on their interactions with other characters. Most of us are agreed that there has been some emotional abuse from Tony to Annie, but it's largely been in the form of abandonment and a lack of emotional care. But he abandoned her to a boarding school for a couple of years, and a parent not loving their kid enough or being able to show it is a very mundane and regular part of our world. 

I'm not defending or excusing Tony. I think he was a bad parent, but not really enough of one for anyone to get involved and separate him and Annie, especially over Annie's wishes.

[karp]

May 17, 2021 20:47:06 GMT flowsthead said:

I don't think I would agree from an art perspective. There doesn't have to be consequences for something for it to be negatively perceived by an audience. Art isn't just morality plays. SOmetimes characters can be in a bad situation and not come out of it. If you are interpreting this scene as Annie saying she's fine with her abuser (which I don't, but you do you), then that is also fine. That doesn't mean Tom or Gunnerkrigg is saying that it is ok, but the character, Annie, is saying she is ok with the present state of things.

But you can't take themes out of a story. Stories say things. Tom clearly knows this. Good authors have the characters act in believable, consistent ways while simultaneously the story communicates the themes.

And this is especially true when you invoke tropes. Tony's got a lot of Edward Cullen stuff going on. When the main negative consequences for Tony are his own brooding sad feelings about how much of an asshole he can't help being, that doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is a thing, where the brooding Byronic sensitive boy is awful and the only way he suffers because of it is his own brooding guilt.

Like, look. In the last few pages, we've had Tony sufffeerrrrinng and saddddd because of his miiiiiiind cagggggge, and then Annie smiles happily and says she's totally fine and really the probably was just she didn't understand all her father's complexities. If Tom isn't meaning to use those tropes, he accidentally sure hit a bullseye.

What you're describing here is extremely unrealistic. Tony really hasn't done anything that a legal system could use as sufficient reason to separate him and Annie. And while certainly the comic isn't a legal system, I think it has some realistic aspects to itself in that separating Tony and Annie doesn't really seem to be in the interests of anyone at the Court.

Like... then make that a plot point? If people recognize she's being hurt by him and try to intervene but can't, then that'd be an interesting thing to have happen, but as it is, everyone's either shrugging or okay with him. (There's also the very weird fact that Tony is CHARMING, which is causing people like Annie and Kat to forgive him MORALLY. And... well, certainly no one to this point has mentioned that doesn't make a lot of sense. This "charming abuser who gets away with it because he's charming" thing is ALSO a trope, and if Tom was aware of that, he's sure biding his sweet time acknowledging it.)

Also, as someone else said, if this is the case, then it's a MUCH darker storyline than anything we've encountered before, and it'd be a shocking change in tone. Tom absolutely HAS shown he can hendle tone-shifts much better than this, so I don't think it's intentional.

I'm really not sure what you imagine would happen. Gunnerkrigg has never been the after school special type where people learn from their mistakes are suddenly "Good" (whatever that means). These are characters with flaws that are minimized or accentuated based on their interactions with other characters. Most of us are agreed that there has been some emotional abuse from Tony to Annie, but it's largely been in the form of abandonment and a lack of emotional care. But he abandoned her to a boarding school for a couple of years, and a parent not loving their kid enough or being able to show it is a very mundane and regular part of our world. 

I'm not defending or excusing Tony. I think he was a bad parent, but not really enough of one for anyone to get involved and separate him and Annie, especially over Annie's wishes.

One thing I'm always really confused by is people saying "I'm not defending Tony..." (or "it doesn't excuse his behavior...") specifically as a way of saying that his behavior should not cause him to face consequences. Because, as I said, inserting those consequences is probably the easiest way to narratively create a meaningful difference between "he's atoning and changing and maybe he'll be forgiven" and "he acted bad but he always had a good heart so it's okay."


And I think the thing I'm MOST bemused by is the insistence people have in characterizing the view "Tony sucks and this redemption storyline is not being done well and actually potentially exposing creepy themes" as "I refuse to be open to characters' nuance." No one thinks characters shouldn't be flawed, so please don't suggest that's what's going on.

Instead, people are justifiably reacting badly when a character faces the camera and very clearly voices the author's perspective that the abusive character shouldn't be thought of as anything but good despite his flaws. And hey: it's possible that very soon I'll be proven wrong. It could happen that Jones (who plausibly would be immune to Tony's charm, unlike, say, Kat) steps in like "Yeah, this is screwed up." It could literally happen in the very next page.

But. If it doesn't happen in the next page, or in the next couple of pages? Then... like. Yeah, Annie's probably just chiding the audience for not getting on board the Tony train, and no, it's not supposed to be some kind of ambivalent thing.

Look, I really think the most likely thing is that Tom accidentally wrote Tony to be way more awful than he intended, and now he's trying to pull back from that. Readers then pointed out how it was really weird everyone was treating him as if he wasn't terrible, and then Tom got defensive about it, and it's built up to the last couple of pages, where things have gone off the rails.

[Polyhymnia]

I am quite pleased with how the Annie-Tony plot line has developed, and I look forward to seeing how they react to future events. I suspect there will be more collaboration between them. I am interested to see how things heal, and even if I don’t know what form Tony’s communication will take, I and satisfied with how he and Annie have grown.

[flowsthead]

May 17, 2021 21:26:45 GMT karp said:

One thing I'm always really confused by is people saying "I'm not defending Tony..." (or "it doesn't excuse his behavior...") specifically as a way of saying that his behavior should not cause him to face consequences. Because, as I said, inserting those consequences is probably the easiest way to narratively create a meaningful difference between "he's atoning and changing and maybe he'll be forgiven" and "he acted bad but he always had a good heart so it's okay."


And I think the thing I'm MOST bemused by is the insistence people have in characterizing the view "Tony sucks and this redemption storyline is not being done well and actually potentially exposing creepy themes" as "I refuse to be open to characters' nuance." No one thinks characters shouldn't be flawed, so please don't suggest that's what's going on.

Instead, people are justifiably reacting badly when a character faces the camera and very clearly voices the author's perspective that the abusive character shouldn't be thought of as anything but good despite his flaws. And hey: it's possible that very soon I'll be proven wrong. It could happen that Jones (who plausibly would be immune to Tony's charm, unlike, say, Kat) steps in like "Yeah, this is screwed up." It could literally happen in the very next page.

But. If it doesn't happen in the next page, or in the next couple of pages? Then... like. Yeah, Annie's probably just chiding the audience for not getting on board the Tony train, and no, it's not supposed to be some kind of ambivalent thing.

Look, I really think the most likely thing is that Tom accidentally wrote Tony to be way more awful than he intended, and now he's trying to pull back from that. Readers then pointed out how it was really weird everyone was treating him as if he wasn't terrible, and then Tom got defensive about it, and it's built up to the last couple of pages, where things have gone off the rails.

Probably the difference we are finding here is that I don't interpret the comic the same as you. I don't think Annie, or the comic, or other characters, are saying "he has a good heart so it's ok" nor that the comic is saying that Tony should only be thought of as good. I genuinely do not see what you see. I just don't see any train. I don't see Tom asking us to accept Tony. I don't think the comic is asking us to be ok with Tony. What the comic is showing us is that Annie is ok with Tony. That's a reflection on Annie and no one else.

Also, I wasn't saying Tony shouldn't face consequences. What I was saying was whether he faces consequences or not is irrelevant. It doesn't make the story better or worse. There are some stories in which a character like Tony will face consequences and some stories in which they won't. The existence of one does not make it better than the other. You're making a lot of assumptions about how I think the story would go from an argument that has nothing to do with that. I am not making any prescriptive arguments. There are no "should" statements in my comment.

Your focus on consequences to me is misplaced. There are plenty of other things that this storyline is about that there don't have to be consequences for it to be meaningful. 

[Fishy]

I remember back in the day when the most Annie had to worry about was not being killed by a demonic body-snatching fox. Or the insane tree-controlling wolf. Or whatever kind of dog Loup is. Oh how the time flies. You’d think such issues would dwarf the current ones, but a look on here and you’d be lead to believe otherwise.

Cant complain though. This is also the comic where I once watched three girls go get haircuts, and once saw Jones recount her path through all of human history and found both to be equally enjoyable. The back and forth in all available comment sections is a bit tiring though. For a change of pace...

I wonder if her father’s issue is one Annie could solve. I know, many would say it’s not her duty to solve it, but she’s solved a great many issues she had less stake in than her own family. It’s something that takes patience no doubt, but perhaps there’s an appropriate conversation that could get a nice jumpstart. Nothing ever improves without coming to terms with its flaws, after all. I wonder if the right words could possibly exist for her to have such a talk with Tony that his mind could be put at ease. No doubt it won’t be something so fantastical as a single conversation changing it all, but it’s interesting to think about.

Maybe if she said she didn’t blame him for Surma dying? Or would he feel more guilty about it from hearing that? I feel like it’d only worry me more to specifically hear such a thing. Honestly, I think the most calming thing I could hear from Annie, were I in Tony’s position, would be that she’s aware of his condition, and doesn’t mind him taking his time. Back when I was seeing a therapist, it was largely because my self-loathing spiraled. If I didn’t behave how I wanted, I’d only hate my behavior more, which is a cycle that never stops. Perhaps the most helpful thing would be to know that there are no expectations, or that it’s not disappointing to not be perfect right away. To know that Annie is content with their life, but happy for every little improvement he tries to make? I think that’d help the most.

[karp]

May 17, 2021 21:53:40 GMT flowsthead said:

Probably the difference we are finding here is that I don't interpret the comic the same as you. I don't think Annie, or the comic, or other characters, are saying "he has a good heart so it's ok" nor that the comic is saying that Tony should only be thought of as good. I genuinely do not see what you see. I just don't see any train. I don't see Tom asking us to accept Tony. I don't think the comic is asking us to be ok with Tony. What the comic is showing us is that Annie is ok with Tony. That's a reflection on Annie and no one else.

Also, I wasn't saying Tony shouldn't face consequences. What I was saying was whether he faces consequences or not is irrelevant. It doesn't make the story better or worse. There are some stories in which a character like Tony will face consequences and some stories in which they won't. The existence of one does not make it better than the other. You're making a lot of assumptions about how I think the story would go from an argument that has nothing to do with that. I am not making any prescriptive arguments. There are no "should" statements in my comment.

Well, but your desire to sidestep the "should" is kinda half my point. Good writers have stories with shoulds. Tom knows this; Gunnerkrigg Court has had a kabillion shoulds. So with this Tony thing, he's definitely trying to say SOMETHING. My speculation is, it's something like "you should acknowledge the good parts of even the people who have hurt you." I think this is very reasonable, given the fact that Annie's looked directly out at the reader and stated that outright.  

But the issue isn't with this theme.  That's great.  The issue is acknowledging the OTHER part of it.  The "the fact that people who hurt you have good things about them does not mean the hurtful parts aren't way more important."

If the comic isn't asking us to be okay with Tony, then why is every character at least partly okay with him, given his awful behavior? Why the focus on his sadness and frustration and pining guilt about being abusive, given that's exactly a trope that pops up in terrible media about abuse with problematic messages, like for instance in the Twilight series? Why does Annie tell us so blatantly and weirdly that she likes her father now and anyone else who interprets things differently is wrong? Why have we spend several pages now outright stating that the problem wasn't Tony's abuse, but rather that Annie just didn't get to see his good side, and now that she knows about it she's fine? These are all clear decisions Tom made. They're saying SOMETHING, thematically.


And I've said this a couple of times: I'm focusing on external consequences because that's an easy way to communicate the difference between a story where the theme is "this person is going to atone and be forgiven and redeemed" and "this person doesn't actually really need to be forgiven." There's other ways to do it, but that's a big one. Because as I said before, the way it sure seems to be played now is the only consequences he's suffered and will suffer are his own wounded sadness. And that's a TROPE. That's Edward Cullen. You're writing about abuse, you want to sidestep exactly that, and focusing on real external consequences is a way to do it.

[flowsthead]

May 17, 2021 22:40:00 GMT karp said:

Well, but your desire to sidestep the "should" is kinda half my point. Good writers have stories with shoulds. Tom knows this; Gunnerkrigg Court has had a kabillion shoulds. So with this Tony thing, he's definitely trying to say SOMETHING. My speculation is, it's something like "you should acknowledge the good parts of even the people who have hurt you." I think this is very reasonable, given the fact that Annie's looked directly out at the reader and stated that outright.  

But the issue isn't with this theme.  That's great.  The issue is acknowledging the OTHER part of it.  The "the fact that people who hurt you have good things about them does not mean the hurtful parts aren't way more important."

If the comic isn't asking us to be okay with Tony, then why is every character at least partly okay with him, given his awful behavior? Why the focus on his sadness and frustration and pining guilt about being abusive, given that's exactly a trope that pops up in terrible media about abuse with problematic messages, like for instance in the Twilight series? Why does Annie tell us so blatantly and weirdly that she likes her father now and anyone else who interprets things differently is wrong? Why have we spend several pages now outright stating that the problem wasn't Tony's abuse, but rather that Annie just didn't get to see his good side, and now that she knows about it she's fine? These are all clear decisions Tom made. They're saying SOMETHING, thematically.

All of your "why" questions are answered by the idea that that is what Annie needs. She wants and needs her dad, and other people trying to get in the way of that are not helping. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. It might be more complicated, and maybe it will be more complicated down the road. But there is also an answer rooted in character, and I don't think ignoring that is helpful.

And I've said this a couple of times: I'm focusing on external consequences because that's an easy way to communicate the difference between a story where the theme is "this person is going to atone and be forgiven and redeemed" and "this person doesn't actually really need to be forgiven." There's other ways to do it, but that's a big one. Because as I said before, the way it sure seems to be played now is the only consequences he's suffered and will suffer are his own wounded sadness. And that's a TROPE. That's Edward Cullen. You're writing about abuse, you want to sidestep exactly that, and focusing on real external consequences is a way to do it.

For a long enough story, like Gunnerkrigg, there isn't just one theme, but let's say you're focusing on just the Tony aspect. I really don't think this story is about whether Tony needs to be forgiven or not. I think in the Tony story, Annie is still the main character. Tony is an important supporting character, but it's not his story. Edward, in Twilight, is as important to the story as Bella. It's not the same situation, and I don't think Tony is Edward. The emotional through-line of the story is Annie's reaction to all of these events and how she deals growing up with that kind of father. Or to put it another way, Tony is the Dursleys and Annie is Harry Potter. The fact that Harry reconciled with Dudley doesn't negate all of the terrible things that were done to him, and it's largely because that was Harry's story. In the same way, this is Annie's story, and Annie being accepting doesn't negate anything Tony has done.

Good writers have stories with shoulds.

I mean, no. I completely disagree with this. Good stories are good stories. There is no universal thing that a good story has. Before Sunrise is one of the best films I've ever seen, and it doesn't have any should statement. It's just two people falling in love while strolling through a European city. The Princess Bride and My Cousin Vinny are two of the funniest films I've ever seen and I don't think either has any should statements. They might have themes, but certainly not in the way you're proposing, and definitely not as prescriptive should statements.

There are many stories that focus on the way things are rather than the way they should be. And there are stories that develop a mood as their main purpose. And stories that develop characters as their main purpose. And yes, there are stories that focus on the way things should be, but that's not the only type of story that exists.

[pyradonis]

May 17, 2021 19:30:50 GMT neonmoon said:

Yeah, he is, and it was deeply uncomfortable to read. It’s never great when an artist gets into a protracted fight with their audience over what’s clearly a personal issue, but “comics writer insists abusive at worst, mentally ill at best father figure is a good person, gets into metatextual war with his commenters and general readership over it” is a particularly sad one to witness. Tom, whatever’s been going on in your personal life that’s made this a story you need to tell, I wish you well with it. But this page, even more than the rest of the Tony content, feels like someone working out some pain through art in a way I wasn’t supposed to see.

Tom got into a fight with his audience? I must have slept through this.

May 17, 2021 22:40:00 GMT karp said:

If the comic isn't asking us to be okay with Tony, then why is every character at least partly okay with him, given his awful behavior?

Where do you see "every" character being okay with Tony? Kat, Don and Annie like him, but who else does? We were just shown Eglamore, Parley and Winsbury being everything but okay with Tony. I know for some people it seemed as if Idra was defending him, but she wasn't defending him or his character (and how could she, not having met him once), she was only defending a father's general right to be involved with his child's life. Really, the only character who has changed their opinion about Tony fundamentally is Kat (and I admit it was jarring that she seemingly forgot all the problems she'd had with him beforehand). Annie stated more than once that basically everyone else hates her father, and while "hate" might be too strong, when Coyote met Tony, he realized and affirmed as well that if Tony was gone, nobody besides Annie would be sad.

Why does Annie tell us so blatantly and weirdly that she likes her father now and anyone else who interprets things differently is wrong?

No, she did not say the others are wrong, she said that she does not care.

By the way, I would also like to see Tony atone for the crap he's put Annie through. But it's also a fact that in this comic no other character besides Renard has faced consequences, thought about atoning or even expressed a guilty conscience for their past abuse, if they even stopped it at all. Red, Parley, and especially Coyote and Zimmy have done or experienced none of this and three of those four are still voted among the top ten beloved characters, so... kind of a running theme here?

[Bandolute]

May 17, 2021 19:30:50 GMT neonmoon said:

May 17, 2021 14:14:09 GMT Daedalus said:

I still feel like Tom is saying this very pointedly at the readers.

Yeah, he is, and it was deeply uncomfortable to read. It’s never great when an artist gets into a protracted fight with their audience over what’s clearly a personal issue, but “comics writer insists abusive at worst, mentally ill at best father figure is a good person, gets into metatextual war with his commenters and general readership over it” is a particularly sad one to witness. Tom, whatever’s been going on in your personal life that’s made this a story you need to tell, I wish you well with it. But this page, even more than the rest of the Tony content, feels like someone working out some pain through art in a way I wasn’t supposed to see.

I'm glad you put this so gracefully, because I agree completely but the only ways I could think to phrase were plain bastardly and I didn't want to go there.

Not super thrilled with the author going out of his way to say that what a considerable chunk of his audience thinks, the experiences that they bring to the table, don't matter, when the scenario is so clearly not cut-and-dry. Obviously, I understand it's his story to tell, he'll tell it how he wants, but at this point, I've seen plenty of people agree with my perspective. Enough that I know my feelings on the matter aren't unfounded. It all just hits too close to home, it's keyed into some fundamental experiences of mine, so when everyone says over and over that I'm full of shit... jeez.

It's wild to me. Everything in the comic is up to personal interpretation, shades of grey, except this one dad that Tom is very, very invested in, and his bad treatment of his kid. 

I guess hope I'm wrong and it's a fake out. I hope Jones says something. 

[SilverbackRon]

Annie says "I know the way he acts makes people dislike him.
In fact, I know that everyone hates my father.
I know how badly they talk about him.
And I know that I do not care in the slightest"

I honestly don't think this is Tom trying to force anyone to like Tony. Look at the flow. 100% acknowledgment that Tony is as big of a jerk as most of us think.

No, I think the most alarming thing about this page is how it shows Annie has NOT grown as a character in this one regard. She has this uncontrolled blind spot when it comes to her father. Yes, she had that one momentary freak-out when she discovered Kat had made friends with him (which still doesn't make much sense to me). But really she is still defending and deflecting, the same as she been doing for 80 chapters now.

So far this chapter hasn't really told us anything new. In a way, it feels like one of those re-cap episodes of a TV series.

When all is said and done, I agree with Coyote. Anthony Carver could die right now and no-one would care except Annie. I personally would feel relieved, and the story could move on to anything else.

[todd]

I've wondered whether the Antony element may have originated something like this.

Tom comes up with the character of Antimony as the main character of "Gunnerkrigg Court" and that she's asocial, withdrawn. He then wants to work out why she's that way, and from that her backstory develops about Surma and the hospital and Antony, with Antony's emotional distance being a major part of it - and even producing a "like father like daughter" tone. Next, he wants to work out why *Antony* is this way, why he's so remote towards his daughter, and his characterization emerged from that.

[warrl]

[quoteWhen Kamlin said Ys wasn't right in the head Antimony did say Ys was her friend... Not quite defending him[/quote]

... but implying that talking about him like that is not a good way to please or impress her.

[Runningflame]

May 17, 2021 7:08:53 GMT madjack said:

Title should read [2468]

2-4-6-8
Who do we appreciate?
Tony! Tony! Anthony Carver!



(Jones, panel 2: "Incorrect, Antimony. Not everyone hates your father. I, for example, am incapable of feeling hatred.")

[silicondream]

May 17, 2021 7:18:59 GMT flowsthead said:

May 17, 2021 7:17:55 GMT aline said:

I think she means what she said. Not just that she loves him anyway, but that she has no time to waste on the opinions of other people, even people she likes like Parley. Good for her. Running after the rumor mill can get exhausting quickly. And her relationship with her dad is her business.

That would be very in character considering her friendships with Ysengrin and Renard and Zimmy.

And considering her mediumhood. If you're a bridge between hostile communities, you're always going to have friends and relatives who hate each other. At some point you just have to shrug and get on with things.

May 17, 2021 10:20:12 GMT guntherkrieg said:

In which Annie tells, not shows, her character development.

The telling is the showing in this case, no? She used to charbroil people who dissed her loved ones; now she just Destroys them with Facts and Logic. She showed the same evolution when defending Ysengrin to Loup, from Round 1 to Round 2.

May 17, 2021 18:50:50 GMT karp said:

Because did this whole 2 Annies plot detour solely exist... to try to make readers like Tony but for some reason without actually having him face consequences for his obviously abusive behavior and genuinely atone and change?

Pretty sure the 2 Annies plot mostly existed to explore Annie's ongoing issues with identity and acceptance, and to have some fun with time travel and alternative hairstyles and Paz & Kat melting down and whatnot. Not everything is about Tony.

Because now it looks like every single character just thinks he's great???

I can think of three characters ever who have expressed approval of any of Tony's parenting decisions: Annie herself, Ysengrin, and Idra. And I can think of maybe four characters who have ever expressed affection for Tony. Six, if you count Juliette & Arthur. Everyone else's opinion ranges from "awful" to "surprisingly not that awful!"

In this chapter alone, Parley, Winsbury, Paz and Eglamore all condemned him.  Don't worry, Tony's unpopularity within the Court is almost inalterable.

May 17, 2021 19:39:56 GMT karp said:

The point isn't the feelings of the abuser, the point is the feelings of the abuse VICTIM, and to have that victim stare directly into the camera and say "Hey readers I'm fine, I saw him being nice some, so don't worry about me!" is extremely not a good look.)

So the point is the feelings of the victim...as long as the victim only has the feelings you approve of?  There are many people who have experienced Tony-ish parenting and come to terms with it. They deserve representation as much as anyone else.

It kinda isn't, because she's a kid and an abuse victim and those together make it pretty darn reasonable to not completely trust her desires, here.

Then who or what should we trust? Which authority, or what evidence, tells us that Tony's not safe for her?

Part of the issue is, it apparently has occurred to no one (except Eglamore, very weakly) that maybe he should not actually have any sort of power over his daughter until he actually finishes the whole atonement thing. 

I don't think most Court personnel particularly care about "atonement;" they tend toward utilitarian reasoning. For instance, the Court has a ton of issues with Annie's behavior, but IIRC it's never levied a punishment on her or demanded an apology. If she changes her behavior, great; if she doesn't, they write her off.

As long as Tony's influence keeps improving Annie's personal and professional conduct, academics, emotional stability and social skills, punishing him for past sins is not a high priority. They can chop off his other hand once she becomes independent.

Aside from that, what power does Tony have over his daughter? Annie stays with him at her pleasure, and could leave at her pleasure, with or without setting his face on fire. Tony's disabled and baseline human, has exactly one friend, and if he's ever forced anyone to do anything we haven't seen it.

May 17, 2021 21:26:45 GMT karp said:

And this is especially true when you invoke tropes. Tony's got a lot of Edward Cullen stuff going on.

What?? Edward Cullen's a beautiful, immortal superhuman with an uncontrollable temper, a loyal found family of fellow superhumans, and a penchant for violence. Tony's a disfigured, crippled, pacifist recluse who spends all his free time doing research on behalf of friends and loved ones. What do they have in common, aside from sometimes being sad?

(There's also the very weird fact that Tony is CHARMING, which is causing people like Annie and Kat to forgive him MORALLY.

That would be weird, if it had ever happened. But it didn't.

Annie forgave Tony because she thought he was morally justified--"he had his reasons," as she said. "Charm" had nothing to do with it; prior to Loup's Trick, Annie had never even experienced Tony in non-awkward mode. She likes him because she thinks he's a good guy and he cares for her. You can disagree with her, but this is perfectly consistent with her take on Ysengrin and on her own actions.

Kat never talked about what led her to forgive Tony, but it was probably some combination of knowing that he'd returned Renard, knowing that Annie had cut her hair and changed her clothes on her own, processing the fact of Annie's cheating, seeing that Annie was still getting along with him, and seeing that he was helping Juliette and Arthur. She only brought up Tony's being "kinda funny and really smart" when she noticed that Annie thought everyone else found him repulsive; it wasn't some sort of global justification of his behavior. Because Annie, again, never asked for one.

Tony is, like, the least likely person in the comic to ever get away with anything based on charm. Boxbot could charm his way through more situations than Tony could.

[laaaa]

If I may add my two cents on this whole matter:
Different people deal with things differently when they are wronged.
A) Some want to exact revenge.
B) Some don't want to personally exact revenge, but still want the wrong-doer to face punishment or consequences (karma or justice or whatever you call it).
C) Some people cut ties completely with the wrong-doer.
D) Some want the wrong-doer to apologize and accept responsibility.
E) Some don't need the wrong-doer to state any apologies, but need them to improve.
G) For some, even the wrong-doer's perceived ATTEMPT at improving is enough.
H) Some people forgive but not forget. They don't need the wrong-doer to do anything specific, but place boundaries themselves and maintain these boundaries.
I) Some people forgive AND forget. They give the wrong-doer many, many chances to fix themselves.
J) Some people just... forget. They don't care. Period. They have more important things to worry about about the X nasty thing that Y said to Z.
K) Any combination of the above.

The same person can have different approaches towards different people, for different reasons:
1. The relationship between victim and wrong-doer matters (it's easier to e.g. ignore your rude neighbor than your abusive mother).
2. The duration of the problematic behavior (did the cruel behavior last a month or decades?)
3. If it's a repeated thing or a one-time thing.
4. The wrong doer's saying they're sorry and asking for forgiveness
5. The wrong-doer's remorse or lack of remorse, which is not the same as saying sorry (personally, I feel a lot more at ease that Annie spied her dad cry with remorse and guilt (unprompted by Donny, too!) than I would feel if he had come up to her and told her "sorry" to her face. People can do fake apologies to get you off their back, I trust what she spied a lot more).
6. The wrong-doer's acceptance or not of responsibility.
7. The wrong doer's willingness or not to improve.
8. The wrong doer's overall behavior. Are they kind and honest and only have x troubling behavior, or are they complete pain in the behind?
9. The victim's attachment to the wrong-doer. Is the victim dependent to the wrong-doer (emotionally/physically/is the wrong-doer their boss/etc) and have no choice but to comply to everything?
10. The victim's own strength. Are they sure of themselves and of the fact they can get away at any moment, and therefore don't really mind giving the wrong-doer another chance?
11. A myriad of other things that I can't think of right now.

I don't think there's a single RIGHT way for a victim to deal with their wrong-doer. It all depends on the victim and their circumstances. Some may need to be vengeful to regain self-confidence. Some may need to see consequences enforced to regain trust with the rest of society. Some may need to forgive to let go of their hate. Whatever. They're all valid.

The only case when they wouldn't be valid, is if they were forced. If, the victim, for whatever reason, didn't really have a choice (due to power unbalance, manipulation, lack of external support, dependency on the wrong-doer, being 9 years old and not understanding what's happening, etc)
Annie is none of the above. She understood what happened. She was angry. She, for whatever reason, got over it to some extent. She already had a place to live, friends, mentors, a support system. She's not a tiny child. She's not being manipulated by false promises or cold apologies. She expects her father never to improve, and accepts that. That is HER CHOICE. HER choice. Another in her place might not want to do it, and it'd be fine. Denying the victim the choice to forgive their wrong-doer is not cool.

NONE of this means that the wrong-doer is ENTITLED to second (third/fifth/hundredth) chances.
NONE of this means that "the victim and the wrong-doer are okay now"
NONE of this means that the wrong-doer doesn't need to do anything else.
NONE of this means that the victim HAS to (or will) forgive their wrong-doer.
NONE of this means that the victim is the one who MUST (or will) go the extra mile to make amends.
NONE of this means that the victim SHOULD (or will) accept everything that happens and not place boundaries.
But it also doesn't mean that a victim who chooses to give their wrong-doer another chance is stupid/unrealistic/falling deeper into the trap/unsettling/insulting/whatever.

Considering Annie forgave and got over the fact that BOTH REYNARD AND YSEGRINE TRIED TO KILL HER, one in cold blood, the other in rage (both of them were kinda glossed over too, I'd be trumatized), I'd say it's pretty much in character for her.

[laaaa]

To be honest, I place some of the blame about Tony's and Annie's relationship on Surma. SHE knew her husband had trouble connecting with their daughter. SHE knew about his issues. She might not have foreseen his disappearance, but it doesn't take a huge logical leap to guess that he might react badly after her death. He apparently had no other family, and there was none from her side either. That's exactly ZERO support for a mourning husband. What if he started drinking? What if he had a mental breakdown? Shouldn't she have encouraged him to return to the Court, where he at least had some friends? Should she have encouraged him to at least contact Donny and Anja? Didn't they discuss what he'd do after her death? Had he not decided yet? Because if he told her "hey I'm thinking of wondering around in the world until I find an etherical cure, it might be too late for you but it might benefit our daughter" she should have told him "how about you postpone that until Annie's at least 18, you're going to be needing each other"
She should also have pushed for a more intimate behavior between them while she was still alive. Why didn't they connect at all before now? Did he work literally non-stop? (I can see that happening though, and that'd be kinda out of her hands)

[0o0f]

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Annie talking about how much she "doesn't care" what people say... whenever someone says that sort of thing it comes off to me like they doth protest too much, but I don't know if that's what Tom's going for. She always has been defensive when it comes to her dad, though. I don't know if this is meant to show how she's matured because she's calmer now or she's still rationalizing things away... maybe if we get to see Jones response to any of this before the chapter's end. Annie looks really cute in the last panel, though. More childlike than usual.

[pyradonis]

May 18, 2021 16:31:29 GMT laaaa said:

If I may add my two cents on this whole matter:
Different people deal with things differently when they are wronged.
A) Some want to exact revenge.
B) Some don't want to personally exact revenge, but still want the wrong-doer to face punishment or consequences (karma or justice or whatever you call it).
C) Some people cut ties completely with the wrong-doer.
D) Some want the wrong-doer to apologize and accept responsibility.
E) Some don't need the wrong-doer to state any apologies, but need them to improve.
G) For some, even the wrong-doer's perceived ATTEMPT at improving is enough.
H) Some people forgive but not forget. They don't need the wrong-doer to do anything specific, but place boundaries themselves and maintain these boundaries.
I) Some people forgive AND forget. They give the wrong-doer many, many chances to fix themselves.
J) Some people just... forget. They don't care. Period. They have more important things to worry about about the X nasty thing that Y said to Z.
K) Any combination of the above.

The same person can have different approaches towards different people, for different reasons:
1. The relationship between victim and wrong-doer matters (it's easier to e.g. ignore your rude neighbor than your abusive mother).
2. The duration of the problematic behavior (did the cruel behavior last a month or decades?)
3. If it's a repeated thing or a one-time thing.
4. The wrong doer's saying they're sorry and asking for forgiveness
5. The wrong-doer's remorse or lack of remorse, which is not the same as saying sorry (personally, I feel a lot more at ease that Annie spied her dad cry with remorse and guilt (unprompted by Donny, too!) than I would feel if he had come up to her and told her "sorry" to her face. People can do fake apologies to get you off their back, I trust what she spied a lot more).
6. The wrong-doer's acceptance or not of responsibility.
7. The wrong doer's willingness or not to improve.
8. The wrong doer's overall behavior. Are they kind and honest and only have x troubling behavior, or are they complete pain in the behind?
9. The victim's attachment to the wrong-doer. Is the victim dependent to the wrong-doer (emotionally/physically/is the wrong-doer their boss/etc) and have no choice but to comply to everything?
10. The victim's own strength. Are they sure of themselves and of the fact they can get away at any moment, and therefore don't really mind giving the wrong-doer another chance?
11. A myriad of other things that I can't think of right now.

I don't think there's a single RIGHT way for a victim to deal with their wrong-doer. It all depends on the victim and their circumstances. Some may need to be vengeful to regain self-confidence. Some may need to see consequences enforced to regain trust with the rest of society. Some may need to forgive to let go of their hate. Whatever. They're all valid.

The only case when they wouldn't be valid, is if they were forced. If, the victim, for whatever reason, didn't really have a choice (due to power unbalance, manipulation, lack of external support, dependency on the wrong-doer, being 9 years old and not understanding what's happening, etc)
Annie is none of the above. She understood what happened. She was angry. She, for whatever reason, got over it to some extent. She already had a place to live, friends, mentors, a support system. She's not a tiny child. She's not being manipulated by false promises or cold apologies. She expects her father never to improve, and accepts that. That is HER CHOICE. HER choice. Another in her place might not want to do it, and it'd be fine. Denying the victim the choice to forgive their wrong-doer is not cool.

NONE of this means that the wrong-doer is ENTITLED to second (third/fifth/hundredth) chances.
NONE of this means that "the victim and the wrong-doer are okay now"
NONE of this means that the wrong-doer doesn't need to do anything else.
NONE of this means that the victim HAS to (or will) forgive their wrong-doer.
NONE of this means that the victim is the one who MUST (or will) go the extra mile to make amends.
NONE of this means that the victim SHOULD (or will) accept everything that happens and not place boundaries.
But it also doesn't mean that a victim who chooses to give their wrong-doer another chance is stupid/unrealistic/falling deeper into the trap/unsettling/insulting/whatever.

Considering Annie forgave and got over the fact that BOTH REYNARD AND YSEGRINE TRIED TO KILL HER, one in cold blood, the other in rage (both of them were kinda glossed over too, I'd be trumatized), I'd say it's pretty much in character for her.

Thank you. If you are okay with it I might link to this post in future discussion threads, because I don't think I could write a better one.

[heraldofexius]

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has brought up what Coyote said about Tony in chapter 54. Coyote claimed that the only person who would be sad if he ate Tony would be Annie, which Annie more or less affirms on this page. But a few pages after Coyote says that is when we get Annie complaining about Tony's return to Ysengrin. Annie's feelings about Tony are more complicated than a simple choice between whether he's good or bad.

[greggorievich]

May 17, 2021 10:45:30 GMT lisanela said:

I love the art in the last panel! What a change from this too.

I don't think I've been on this board in years and I logged in just to come here and blather on about how absolutely magnificent that last panel is. After a little while of looking at it, I got a flashback to the really, really early days and it's mind blowing how much the art has changed. For the record I think the old look was great too, but dang Antimony is looking good lately.

[pyradonis]

May 18, 2021 22:17:17 GMT heraldofexius said:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has brought up what Coyote said about Tony in chapter 54. Coyote claimed that the only person who would be sad if he ate Tony would be Annie, which Annie more or less affirms on this page. But a few pages after Coyote says that is when we get Annie complaining about Tony's return to Ysengrin. Annie's feelings about Tony are more complicated than a simple choice between whether he's good or bad.

Welcome to the forum!

Actually it was brought up on this very page. Not very prominently, though.

[silicondream]

May 19, 2021 1:49:30 GMT pyradonis said:

May 18, 2021 22:17:17 GMT heraldofexius said:

I'm a bit surprised that nobody has brought up what Coyote said about Tony in chapter 54. Coyote claimed that the only person who would be sad if he ate Tony would be Annie, which Annie more or less affirms on this page. But a few pages after Coyote says that is when we get Annie complaining about Tony's return to Ysengrin. Annie's feelings about Tony are more complicated than a simple choice between whether he's good or bad.

Welcome to the forum!

Actually it was brought up on this very page. Not very prominently, though.

I always thought it was interesting that Coyote was essentially paying Tony a compliment there, in his usual backhanded fashion, while posing him a dilemma.

Tony seems to follow a Dhammapada saying, familiar to Ghost in the Shell fans: "Let one walk alone, committing no sin, with few wishes, like an elephant in the forest."  He doesn't want to be missed when he dies, because that's just causing others more pain.  It's easy to see his disappearance and world-traveling quest as a form of ritual suicide, analogous to those in South Asian religions:  Sallekhana for Jains, Sokushinbutsu and Thödgal for Buddhists, Prayopavesa for Hindus.  

Coyote's saying: Good job, you're 99% of the way to your ideal!  But the other 1% is your daughter, and detachment is not an option for her.  So will you force her away from you, hurting her in the process?  Or will you restore your intimacy with her, thereby hurting her when she tries to conform to your desires or mourns your eventual death? Choose your sin, buddy!

IMO.