|
Post by DonDueed on May 17, 2021 16:04:55 GMT
The character of Tony Carver elicits strong reactions from the commenters and forum members. Most of those reactions seem to fall into one of two camps:
Anti-Tony: He's a terrible father who has been downright abusive to Antimony her entire life, and never more so than since his return to Gunnerkrigg Court. He's emotionally distant, and he shames and humiliates his daughter. His tendency to see Surma in Annie is borderline creepy. His behavior is unforgivable and, as a character, he's irredeemable.
Pro-Tony: He's a deeply flawed and broken man who has a serious mental illness (or perhaps an etherial problem) that prevents him from interacting normally with Antimony. While his behavior to her has been bad, it hasn't reached the level of actual abuse, and he's shown remorse and is trying to make things better.
These two perspectives are quite persistent -- i.e. few commenters have shown much evolution in their attitudes. Yet we're all reading the exact same comic. So how is it that we draw such diametrically opposite conclusions?
I'm going to suggest that Tony is a kind of (fictional) human litmus test. He acts as a mirror to the soul of the reader, able to touch some aspects of our personalities on a deep level.
I don't want to go too far with this. For example, I don't want to suggest that those in the Anti-Tony camp are people who have experienced abuse in their own lives. While that may be true in some cases, I can see the opposite argument as well -- perhaps those who have led more privileged lives with loving families may tend to view Tony's actions as more shocking and unforgivable than does someone who has suffered serious real-life abuse. And, of course, IANAShrink.
Still, I would be interested in what my fellow readers think about this issue. One possible Doylean angle: Tom may be writing Tony to elicit this exact rift in his readership, for some as-yet-unclear reason.
As for my own response to Tony... well, I was as shocked as anyone by his behavior toward Annie upon his reappearance, and at first I would have been pretty Anti-Tony. But we've gotten more insight since then, so I'm willing to give the guy a chance. We'll see how things develop.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 17, 2021 16:23:12 GMT
I think that Tony is a complex character, but complexity doesn't create ambiguity as to whether or not he's abusive.
His behavior is I mean, I don't think this is or should be controversial - utterly unacceptable for a father. The court, which has time and time again shown itself to be malicious and/or extremely negligent in its "parenting" allowing this is in keeping with the character of "the court" throughout the series - they seem roughly uninterested in the children and often allow them into deadly situations with either malice or just general lack of interest, so letting Annie be abused by her dad seems very much in keeping with that.
Much less understandable is the reaction of Annie's many adult friends, particularly the Donlons who basically seemed like they really liked and cared about her. Their "not our place / not our problem" approach to Tony's unacceptable behavior really makes me question basically all of Annie's relationships. When they saw it happening, they did nothing but let it happen and look sad. Same with all of Annie's 'friends' and 'allies'. While this is not unrealistic - this happens to abused children all the time - it is a very sad, dark turn in what has up until now been a story about a plucky girl adventurer.
I don't agree with your basic thesis at all that this is because I (or other people) see "ourselves" in Tony - I think people can have a reaction to a character without it being because they identify with a character - I don't have any problem accessing my emotions or expressing them to people, and I don't think that my reaction to Tony (or that of other people who think Tony is unambiguously a pretty terrible person, even if he's a complicated one) is driven by a "deep connection" rather it's a reaction to a story I've been following literally for...over a decade taking a very weird, very dark turn and being genuinely confused as to what the writer is trying to say.
It seems like Tom is within a day or two of really letting us know what he has been trying to say with this storyline and character and hopefully it'll be something I find interesting and or compelling, but based on his ideas about this character and how he should have the people in this world react to this character to date, I'm not going to be surprised at all if the next panel is just annie saying "he's my dad and I love him, good or bad, and actually, everything he did to me was for the best, so even though to outsiders he seems cold, creepy, abusive and/or evil, he's doing his best and he's the real hero of this story and always has been".
I don't know Tom personally and TBH after following this "Tony arc" I'm not sure I really understand what he considers "good or bad" parenting or "good or bad" human behavior. Self published solo comics often become very personal and sometimes the readers can loose connection with the writer, for example the long-running indy fantasy comic Cerebus essentially became about the writer's failing marriage for a number of years. Maybe telling the story of the abused child who decided to love her abuser is very important to Tom and that would be "interesting" but not really relatable to me, or frankly IMO healthy modeling for any impressionable readers.
|
|
karp
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by karp on May 17, 2021 19:02:15 GMT
My issue certainly isn't the fact that he's portrayed as nuanced. My issue is the fact that everyone around him (including Annie, apparently) thinks he's just the bees knees. And it's especially noteworthy with Kat, who absolutely never ever ever EVER should have been portrayed as liking him just because he's apparently fun to hang out with. I think it was supposed to show that Tony has shades of grey, but it didn't. It showed that Tony either has mind control powers or Kat's a bad friend.
The most tone-deaf thing so far (and this could be swerved, so some things are still pending) is that the only consequences Tony has apparently suffered are his own wounded brooding sad feelings at just not being able to bring himself not to be shitty to his daughter. And this right here is just THE defining characteristic of fictional stories doing abuser apologia. Like, it reminds me of every terrible fanfiction dot net story where Edward comes to town and he's awful to Bella but ohhh his own awfulness just makes him suffer so muuuccchhhh and we're supposed to sympathize with him.
Writing a story about a dude who's been terrible to his daughter but hey he has a good side too and then he atones and is forgiven? That's great. But I'm getting more and more worried Tom just accidentally wrote an abuser and now is struggling to somehow pull back from that. And in the process, he's accidentally hitting a lot of tropes from much worse media than we've come to expect from Gunnerkrigg Court.
EDIT: Looking back at the original comment in this thread, I'm really struck with the fact that "he's irredeemable" is being put in the mouths of people who really don't like the way the story is progressing, but the people who are fine with it are all open to shades of grey and nuance. I thiiiiiink most people in the so-called "anti-Tony" camp just believe that either this redemption storyline is being done badly, or it's shockingly turning out to not be a redemption storyline after all.
|
|
|
Post by Gemminie on May 17, 2021 20:47:24 GMT
I'm going to suggest that Tony is a kind of (fictional) human litmus test. He acts as a mirror to the soul of the reader, able to touch some aspects of our personalities on a deep level. I'd say yes to the human litmus test, but no to the mirror. Some readers might see parts of themselves in Tony, but I think most don't. However, I think you're completely correct that our reactions to him must say something about ourselves – what, I'm not sure, but something. My personal response to Tony was, for 36 chapters, what's the deal with this cold distant father figure? And then he wants some medical supplies? Is he in trouble? Is this the only way he can call for help from wherever he is? And then Annie's unconscious because of something he did? Then suddenly ... he's back and destroying Annie's entire emotional support network for no apparent reason (well OK, she was cheating in class, so it's good that stopped, but the rest of it)? But over time I've come to understand why he did what he did. Not approve of it, but understand it. And in this chapter we've seen quite a lot that, frankly, could've been done a lot earlier. I mean, it didn't require Jones. He could've explained this stuff about himself firsthand to Forest Annie at any time. But he didn't. OK, maybe he feels that he doesn't deserve for her to understand him. Fine, so maybe he could've explained it to Don. Or Kat. Or Renard. Or even Jones, earlier than now. I think that I'm basically reacting as Tom intends for most readers to react – I don't see Tony as an abusive father, but I do see him as a deficient one, and I'm more sympathetic to him now that I know more about what life is like for him, but more sympathetic than zero is pretty easy to accomplish. I'm not sure whether he's going to take any steps toward actually atoning for what he's done – maybe he will, maybe not – but he certainly hasn't so far. In fact, I'm not sure he realizes even now how horribly devastating his actions were to Annie after he returned, or what she felt she had to do to herself to cope with those actions. I'm not going to feel right about him until I know that he knows that Annie carved a piece out of her soul for him, that it was a result of what he did to her, and that he wants to make up for that rather than just giving up. But wanting to see that and feeling hope that it might eventually happen are part of what keeps me reading. However, I do see Tony as a fascinating character and a worthy part of the GC cast. Villains who do Bad Things because they're Evil (tm) are boring, flat, and one-dimensional. Characters who have motivations, feelings, and flaws who cause Bad Things to happen by accident or by not considering the consequences of their actions make stories far more interesting. There is tragedy in harming those you love. Tragedy makes stories richer. This isn't to say that I condone any of what Tony's done or think that it would be good if it happened in real life. Tragedy is a valid dramatic element in a story.
|
|
|
Post by exterminatecake on May 17, 2021 21:20:10 GMT
As someone who describes myself as a "certified Tony hater," I still think dividing up opinions on his character into "anti-Tony" and "pro-Tony" is quite reductive.
For one thing, Gunnerkrigg isn't exactly a morality play. I don't believe Tom is writing this with the intention of teaching his audience about good vs. bad parenting, or trying to convince anyone what Tony does is or is not abuse. On a metatextual level, Tom seems to want as little to do with the reader interpretation of his work as possible (he seems to avoid reader interaction like the plague)--this isn't the kind of comic where an author soapboxes or pushes a moral or POV. I'm not saying no comic like that can exist, but as someone who's been reading the comic for ten years, I've always had the impression that Gunnerkrigg Court isn't here to pass moral judgements on its characters--even the ones who hurt other people.
Child abuse is a touchy topic for many people, and for good reason--it's entirely normalized in most of the world. I think what this comic is trying to do with the character of Tony isn't necessarily to try to provoke any reaction from any particular camp of audience members; I genuinely think it's just... a fictional story portraying human behavior.
We can argue all day about what character's opinion of Tony is correct, and whether certain characters should like Tony or not, but at the end of the day, it's realistic. People who abuse their children are, by and large, not irredeemable unlikable monsters (obligatory Tumblr-style caveat "I come from an abusive family who I 100% cut off contact with years ago for my own safety and I am not speaking on any topics I do not have personal experience with" here). They can have good relationships with other adults in their lives. Those adults may not feel as though they have the power to entirely remove the child from the situation, even if they acknowledge the abuse and try to help in other ways. Often, people who abuse their children love their kids, and don't want to hurt them. Sometimes, these people can make improvements to their relationship with their kids, and the children hurt by their actions can process both their abusive actions and their improvements in any myriad number of ways.
Did Tony abuse Annie? Yes. Do I hate Tony? Also yeah. But Annie isn't me, or any other audience member; Annie's character is such that the way she deals with Tony's presence in her life and former abuse makes perfect sense. This latest chapter shows her trying to engage with Tony as a flawed equal to herself, rather than an authority figure, and that's a pretty normal (and, often, very useful!) way to navigate relationships that have had abuse in the past. Maybe it's not the morally perfect way to navigate the situation, but GKC is full of morally imperfect situations and characters--I'd be surprised if this particular situation was handled in a 100% morally perfect way.
Also, as a tangent, it's a pet peeve of mine when people discuss the portrayal of why a character chose to take abusive actions as an "excuse." Abuse doesn't happen in a vacuum, it's a result of material circumstances. Exploring the material circumstances that lead to abuse isn't excusing the actions; frankly, from my perspective, if you expect to write a realistic narrative where that abuse no longer happens, it's necessary to explore that reality in order to show how it changes. I wouldn't find a behavior change in Tony believable if I didn't know why he made the choices he did to begin with. This isn't to say that narrative wouldn't resonate with someone else; for me personally, it would come across as trite and poor writing.
All of this is my personal opinion! Media interpretation is a personal experience. If someone reads GKC and truly thinks it's trying to push a moral stance and that stance is pro-child-abuse, that's their business. I may not think it's correct, objectively speaking, but it's also not worth arguing about on the internet, LAUGHING ON LINE. I think my stance in the matter boils down to, not pro-Tony or anti-Tony, but rather "Tony is a fictional character and this fictional story is an interesting reflection of reality," and I wouldn't be surprised if other lurkers had a similar view.
|
|
karp
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by karp on May 17, 2021 22:21:57 GMT
As someone who describes myself as a "certified Tony hater," I still think dividing up opinions on his character into "anti-Tony" and "pro-Tony" is quite reductive. For one thing, Gunnerkrigg isn't exactly a morality play. I don't believe Tom is writing this with the intention of teaching his audience about good vs. bad parenting, or trying to convince anyone what Tony does is or is not abuse. On a metatextual level, Tom seems to want as little to do with the reader interpretation of his work as possible (he seems to avoid reader interaction like the plague)--this isn't the kind of comic where an author soapboxes or pushes a moral or POV. I'm not saying no comic like that can exist, but as someone who's been reading the comic for ten years, I've always had the impression that Gunnerkrigg Court isn't here to pass moral judgements on its characters--even the ones who hurt other people.
I think your problem here is mistaking "not passing judgment on bad actions" with "not portraying anyone as completely 100% evil." Lots of times people have done things and it's clear we're supposed to think their behavior was bad. (Including Tony.) The problem isn't that Tony has shades of grey, it's that he's worse than it really seems like the author is working hard to portray him, and the other characters are treating him. Gunnerkrigg is not a documentary (and even DOCUMENTARIES are put together to tell clear narratives with clear narrative themes). A good storyteller, which Tom is, knows you have to BOTH portray things realistically in terms of your characters and setting AND communicate clear (if complicated) themes. But a storyline about an abused girl who is placed in the hands of her abuser because of a heartless bureauocracy? And where her best friend stops sympathizing with her because of how charming he is? And all the adult authority figures in her life dither instead of getting her away from him? And then she starts to like him because she convinces herself the problem was always just that she never had a chance to see him express his good side with her own eyes? Like. Realistic, sure! But yikes, that looks like a terrifying, sad story to me. And authors make choices about the way they portray things. Tom writes and designs every single panel to communicate something both narratively and emotionally. If this was supposed to be scary or sad, we'd know it. If Tony's pining mind cage bullshit was supposed to have manipulative or self-deceptive elements, we'd know it. In other words, Tom's too good a writer to just portray something because *shrug* it's realistic. He's saying something. (My speculation is that he never attempted to make Tony as awful as he actually did, and now he's struggling to get us to the next plot point, where Tony and Annie are a team.) It is TOTALLY FINE in theory to have him trying to say "you should forgive people who hurt you." But the thing about touchy subjects is, it's easy to accidentally say something creepy or problematic, and he has fallen off that particular tightrope. (Like I said elsewhere, it could be revealed LITERALLY ON THE NEXT PAGE that I'm wrong. This COULD be building to a twist. But a whole lot of people have been saying this about "the next page" for a long time now.)
Is it less trite and bad writing to just invoke the trope of the Byronic Sad Sensitive Man who broods and pines because of his own difficulty at not treating the women in his life terribly?
At heart, Tony's reasons for abuse are (I think) both directly and in magic-narrative-metaphor that he resents Annie for still being alive when Surma died, and he can't emotionally handle the way Annie reminds him of Surma. I think his motivations here are interesting and realistic for his character. The problem was never that he had those motivations, or that the comic wanted to explore them. It's that you gotta communicate that his actions truly are bad anyway, in a way that matters. And having Annie outright, explicitly say "It doesn't excuse him, but I don't care what anyone else thinks, I love him anyway".... well. At best, it's an awkward and counterproductive way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by exterminatecake on May 17, 2021 22:42:46 GMT
As someone who describes myself as a "certified Tony hater," I still think dividing up opinions on his character into "anti-Tony" and "pro-Tony" is quite reductive. For one thing, Gunnerkrigg isn't exactly a morality play. I don't believe Tom is writing this with the intention of teaching his audience about good vs. bad parenting, or trying to convince anyone what Tony does is or is not abuse. On a metatextual level, Tom seems to want as little to do with the reader interpretation of his work as possible (he seems to avoid reader interaction like the plague)--this isn't the kind of comic where an author soapboxes or pushes a moral or POV. I'm not saying no comic like that can exist, but as someone who's been reading the comic for ten years, I've always had the impression that Gunnerkrigg Court isn't here to pass moral judgements on its characters--even the ones who hurt other people.
I think your problem here is mistaking "not passing judgment on bad actions" with "not portraying anyone as completely 100% evil." [...] I mean, I said all of that is my opinion. I don't read the comic the same way you do, and I don't see it as a morality metaphor or see any of the author intent that you do. I just see it as an interesting piece of fiction. If you read it differently, like I said, that's fair, but I don't really see the themes or intent you're reading into the narrative. I genuinely perceive the narrative as portraying an interesting situation from multiple perspectives without excusing the characters who have done bad things.
I don't want to argue with people on the internet about fictional characters. At the end of the day, it's just a story--nothing more and nothing less. We can have different interpretations, but that's all they are--interpretations. And interpreting fiction should be about having fun, not about arguing with strangers online who have different interpretations!
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 18, 2021 0:25:17 GMT
The character of Tony Carver elicits strong reactions from the commenters and forum members. Most of those reactions seem to fall into one of two camps [...]
To be honest, I think it's like all the political stuff, only those with a strong opinion feel the need to voice it and argue. The others just withdraw as long as the arguments are hot.
But didn't Tom also say in the retrospective of "The Tree" that he intended to write Tony as a polarizing character? In that case he has succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 18, 2021 0:43:52 GMT
And interpreting fiction should be about having fun, not about arguing with strangers online who have different interpretations! Whaaaat?!?! That's crazy talk. No, but for real, I agree, even if I don't always act on it.
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 18, 2021 1:03:50 GMT
His behavior is I mean, I don't think this is or should be controversial - utterly unacceptable for a father. The court, which has time and time again shown itself to be malicious and/or extremely negligent in its "parenting" allowing this is in keeping with the character of "the court" throughout the series - they seem roughly uninterested in the children and often allow them into deadly situations with either malice or just general lack of interest, so letting Annie be abused by her dad seems very much in keeping with that. This is shifting away from Antony to the Court but - as I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that the Court's questionable practices stem from the fact that they see the children as the next generation of "mad scientists" who must be molded into the correct mind-set that will lead to their continuing the Court's work. (Since the evidence we've seen suggests that the Court is on the brink of achieving its goal, this is no longer necessary, that this goal will be achieved in the Court leadership's lifetime - but I suspect that the Court has been doing this for so long that they'd continue doing it even if they no longer needed to, out of habit.) The goal is to ensure that their successors will have the correct mind-set - obsessively working on an attempt to scientifically explain the ether, ready to sacrifice moral principles when they conflict with the path towards that goal (or with whatever the Court believes it has to do to keep the forest-folk out), and not once asking "Should we be doing this? Maybe this isn't a good idea." This leads to the disadvantage that the children are likely to go about poking and prying into things that they ought to be leaving alone - but that's just what the grown-ups in the Court are doing. If they tried teaching the children to take a more "safety and prudence" approach, they might decide, when they grew up, that the Omega Device seemed dangerous and inadvisable as well, and decide not to work on it. It might result in the children getting themselves into dangerous situations that might get them injured or worse, but the Court must see that as the necessary price to pay to ensure that they've well-trained successors who will think the same way as they do and will continue with the Court's big project. In Annie's case, the Court had clearly seen her style of adventuring as too dangerous, since it involved making friends with the Forest, in a way that could undermine the Court's plans to keep the forest-folk in their place - enough so that they saw Antony as the means of keeping Annie from involving herself any further with them. If it caused Annie emotional pain - that was a price they were willing to pay to keep her from interfering, just as their predecessors saw the murder of two people as a price they were willing to pay to keep the forest-folk from attacking them. But I don't think that the Court were thinking about Annie's emotional response; they were thinking simply about the fact that she wouldn't be spending time with the forest-folk any further, about the restriction on her physical movements. (And if they did give thought to her emotional pain, it might have been "That'll mean that she'll be too busy mulling over that to consider sneaking out and meeting with those creatures in Gilltie Wood. The door will be locked and bolted on the inside as well as on the outside.") (I've sometimes thought - though I doubt we'll actually see it in the story - that it would be appropriate if the Court finally switch the Omega Device on and all it does is spit a small pile of dust - or the equivalent to it - at their feet, leaving them to ponder that all their scheming and manipulating was for this.)
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on May 18, 2021 1:38:26 GMT
As for my own response to Tony... well, I was as shocked as anyone by his behavior toward Annie upon his reappearance, and at first I would have been pretty Anti-Tony. But we've gotten more insight since then, so I'm willing to give the guy a chance. We'll see how things develop.
In fairness I do enjoy stories of forgiveness and redemption, this one doing well enough to a point. But the reason why some can understandably get tired of such whether it's a person equal to Tony or worse is that it feels like the story is telling you that forgiveness is the only option or you'll be like say a James Eglamore. As a compromise of sorts, look at Katara when she found her mom's killer in Avatar the Last Airbender. She chooses in the end to spare and not pursue him again, while remaining unforgiving even if she say forgives her teammate. And one could argue that it wouldn't be bad, even good to have stories that take the character being able to abstain from forgiveness while still not consumed with hate or obsession.
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 18, 2021 6:59:12 GMT
Sure I can always ramble about that jerk Tony.
I like the character of Tony and what he brings to the story. He creates a dramatic, realistic and compelling personal conflict for the main character which, along side robots, are the things I enjoy most in a fantasy story. I also know that flawed and bad parent characters risk bringing up certain issues (especially if you are doing a shades of grey work) by being included in a story. People have complicated histories, and parents are a common difficulty. What is seen as a jerk move to one person is an abusive action to another. Morality is tricky, arguably subjective and our understanding of it shifts with time. Tony is a detached parent who has done terrible things, can't expresses regrets, grief or love properly, and has caused damage to Annie, with the specific implementation of his good intentions also being questionable at best. He is bound to bring up strong feelings in a large group of people. Tony reads as being intentionally written to walk the line of abusive behavior, which will always be at least one step over the line of abuse to some, (even if written by a perfect author, a rare breed indeed). We connect characters and situations in stories to real people and experiences we have had, have seen or just empathize strongly with, so I get that Tony hits a real world nerve with a lot a people. In the real world I'd be worried about Annie and Tony's relationship as well. You know what I'd be more worried about in that real world situation? Her almost being eaten by a tree wolf or having her soul taken by a fox in a dragon who is now her toy (also the ethical implications of Paz's power from a research standpoint, but that's unrelated to Annie). If I'm putting a situation from the court into a real world comparison, I have to include the other stuff from the story that is less real world or close to home. If I don't, I feel I'm judging a situation off a fragment of the whole, and that's never worked for me.
What I mean is that Annie is a character, the situations she is placed in are dramatic and emotional by design and that's the way I like it. It's a tough line to walk, but I think Tom has done excellent. If Tom has hit a nerve with Tony or you don't like the situations caused by Tony, fair enough. I like the tension, but I don't feel like Annie is a victim or being manipulated or repressing her real feelings(anymore), or that everyone is letting Tony off. Or that she is being abused. I feel like it's a complex relationship with a dark history of neglect playing out in a coming of age story. But its no more complex then her relationship with the Rey or Loup or Kat. Just a different type of complex, a very touchy complex.
Everyone gets to read the comic the way they want to, in fact we have to read it that way. If the story reads to you as condoning abuse, fair enough. I don't see it. If you think Tony or his actions are way worse then I belive him or them to be, I completely get that as well. You're probably right. Still, Tony doesn't seem all bad to me, and that opinion probably won't change. I read him as a flawed father who has made major and unforgivable errors, and has been granted forgiveness without really doing anything to earn it. I also think he cares deeply and wants to do better. I respect that's not worth much to some, and that in the real world forgiving people who hurt you but care and want to do better(or say they do) is a mistake. Annies forgiveness might be a mistake. For all I know Tony could be evil and planing to destroy the world with the omega device. I still personally think he's just a bad Dad that loves his daughter and that Annie is going to end up being one of the many people who live with that situation. She seems to be doing that, and loves him anyways. Not the dramatic or relationship changing ending some are hoping for, but I think thats the deal. But I'm still confident a robot apocalypse is the true ending of this whole story, so I wouldn't worry about my interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on May 18, 2021 7:33:03 GMT
I read him as a flawed father who has made major and unforgivable errors, and has been granted forgiveness without really doing anything to earn it. I also think he cares deeply and wants to do better. I respect that's not worth much to some, and that in the real world forgiving people who hurt you but care and want to do better(or say they do) is a mistake. Annies forgiveness might be a mistake. It's her right to be frank which is why I don't let the over saturations of forgiveness/redemption get to me. People arguably need a reminder that cutting a potentially toxic person from your life is okay, but telling someone not to be forgiving if that is their own choice would be equally dubious. But my point stands too. Aside from Katara and all but the titular character from say Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, how many stories let someone maintain the non-forgiveness without say coming off as irrational like James Eglamore? Edit: Ok, Peter Parker from The Spectacular Spider-Man. Not saying anything else for spoiler reasons, so PM me if any of you are curious.
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 18, 2021 13:22:39 GMT
A few more thoughts on Anthony and his role/depiction - ones which I've given before in other threads, but will share here again.
1. Antony's entrance, I think, does a lot to unsettle the readers. He walks into a story which has been about Annie having adventures in a weird school, exploring it and its secrets, and immediately puts a stop to it - under his new rules, she'll be spending all her time on studying and homework to make up for all the cheating she did in her first three years, no more adventures, to be separated from her friends, etc. This makes him come across almost as the "fantasy-disapproving parent" - all that Anthony needed to do to complete it was to pull Annie out of the Court altogether and enroll her in an ordinary school far away, without any ghosts, robots, mythical creatures, or other etheric elements on the grounds - or, failing that, a "Reality Check" camp (viewers of "The Owl House" will understand what I'm talking about). He threw up a dramatic level of hurdles to keep the story from continuing in the way we were familiar with - and to add to that, Annie was so shaken up by those events that she didn't have the will to defy him. Anthony had seemingly jeopardized "Gunnerkrigg Court" as we knew it - short of dropping Annie and shifting the focus to other characters like Kat (and Kat herself was equally focused, in a different way, on this upset).
(We later learn that these events were more connected to the familiar side of "Gunnerkrigg Court" than they first seemed; Anthony was acting under the orders of the Court as a way of stopping Annie from interfering in its business - particularly its relations with the Forest - as a response to Coyote making her the Forest Medium in "Changes" - with the "grounded for cheating" being just the cover story as part of the Court's cover-up plan, to hide the true motives. Not to mention, also, that the real reason why Anthony was so severe - beyond just the Court's instructions - was that Annie's resemblance to Surma unsettled him. After Coyote's visit, Anthony lifted the more "story-restricting" forbiddances; he let Annie visit the Forest again and returned Reynardine to her. But I think that the manner of his arrival in "The Tree" gave a sort of "first impression" of him as almost a personification of "No more of this webcomic for you until your schoolwork improves".)
2. Anthony's arrival came as Annie was getting older, moving into ages 14-15, where she'd been around 12 at the start. In the early days, she was the age of a protagonist in middle grade fantasy; now she's young adult age. The upheaval may have been intended, in part, to reflect this; a case of "Annie's growing up, and the story's growing up with her" - thus, moving into a phase where a major element is Annie coming to understand why her father is the way he is.
3. Anthony was prepared for, as early as Chapter Six; whenever he's brought up in his offstage moments in the first three "years" of the comic (Books One to Five of the printed version), it's always as a remote figure whom Annie has complex feelings over, who's not good at socializing with other people, and thus distant, etc. (Annie's cheating, featured briefly in "The Medium Beginning" and more prominently in "Fire Spike" - where it becomes the catalyst for the confrontation between Annie and Rey that leads to the revelation of why Surma died - was also clearly part of that "setting the stage" - as an instrument for Anthony's "surface reason" for acting towards his daughter as he did. The "copying off Kat" seems to exist in the story largely for this reason; it never gets explored on the same level as Annie's other faults, such as a (literally) fiery temper, a tendency to do things herself rather than going to the grown-ups for help, the rebellious tone she displayed after her summer in the Forest, etc. But I'll say more about that elsewhere, if anyone's interested.) Which indicates that, whatever led Tom to take the story in the direction it took from "The Tree" onwards wasn't some crisis in his life just after "The Torn Sea" that shook up his plans for "Gunnerkrigg Court".
|
|
|
Post by migrantworker on May 18, 2021 15:13:33 GMT
But didn't Tom also say in the retrospective of "The Tree" that he intended to write Tony as a polarizing character? In that case he has succeeded.
I'm not convinced it's a full success. I have this suspicion that the abuse/not abuse debate isn't the point. In my own view, it is about redemption, with the abuse only used as a device to create a need for redemption. And that leads to a whole bunch of questions: Are Tony's past actions redeemable at all? If they are redeemable, what would it take for him to redeem himself? Should he try to redeem himself, or rely on others to grant redemption to him? Who gets to say that he has done enough? Why that person and not somebody else? Can the then withdraw the redemption if he does the same terrible thing again, or indeed some other totally unrelated terrible thing? Should he be encouraged to seek redemption, or at least to see it as possible to achieve? Tl;dr it's not about whether or not to put him in jail; it's about what to do when he comes out.
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 18, 2021 15:17:08 GMT
I read him as a flawed father who has made major and unforgivable errors, and has been granted forgiveness without really doing anything to earn it. I also think he cares deeply and wants to do better. I respect that's not worth much to some, and that in the real world forgiving people who hurt you but care and want to do better(or say they do) is a mistake. Annies forgiveness might be a mistake. It's her right to be frank which is why I don't let the over saturations of forgiveness/redemption get to me. People arguably need a reminder that cutting a potentially toxic person from your life is okay, but telling someone not to be forgiving if that is their own choice would be equally dubious. But my point stands too. Aside from Katara and all but the titular character from say Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts, how many stories let someone maintain the non-forgiveness without say coming off as irrational like James Eglamore? Edit: Ok, Peter Parker from The Spectacular Spider-Man. Not saying anything else for spoiler reasons, so PM me if any of you are curious. Lots of stories? From live media Breaking Bad, from books The Series of Unfortunate events, and from comics Invincible and that's just examples off the top of my head that touch on the non-forgiveness theme in a parental figure. Its not an unexplored topic. But I also don't feel like Tom or the world of media needs to explore or expand on that unforgiveness lesson. If that's what the story is gonna do, cool. But I'm also in the "this is not a morality play" camp, so each characters handling of, well anything, doesn't need to be a lesson or an interaction that we should learn a positive lesson from. One of the lessons life has taught me is that not every difficult situation or person is a thing you can fix or learn from, that sometimes things just suck and are hard to deal with in a positive healthy way so you do your best and grow from it anyways. I dunno if that's what the story is going to go for, but I'm cool with that to.
|
|
|
Post by mitten on May 18, 2021 15:54:35 GMT
But didn't Tom also say in the retrospective of "The Tree" that he intended to write Tony as a polarizing character? In that case he has succeeded.
I'm not convinced it's a full success. I have this suspicion that the abuse/not abuse debate isn't the point. In my own view, it is about redemption, with the abuse only used as a device to create a need for redemption. And that leads to a whole bunch of questions: Are Tony's past actions redeemable at all? If they are redeemable, what would it take for him to redeem himself? Should he try to redeem himself, or rely on others to grant redemption to him? Who gets to say that he has done enough? Why that person and not somebody else? Can the then withdraw the redemption if he does the same terrible thing again, or indeed some other totally unrelated terrible thing? Should he be encouraged to seek redemption, or at least to see it as possible to achieve? Tl;dr it's not about whether or not to put him in jail; it's about what to do when he comes out. Well, whether Tony is redeemable and what it would take for his character to be redeemed is for each and every reader to decide for themselves, and we don't have to all agree on it. Speaking for myself only, for a redemption arc to work in a story I need to both see that the character is aware of what they did wrong in the past, and to see them actively trying to make amends for it and do better in the future. That is me speaking of characters in general. When it comes to Tony specifically, he has been shown to be aware of his past cruel actions and that they were wrong. That is the first step. I still want to see him admit this to Annie, be it in writing, by way of speaking to Jones, hieroglyphics written in the clouds by robots or whatever, because I simply don't buy that face to face direct chats is the only way for him to communicate and that nothing else will work. I also want to see him move forward and progress as a character, and do better in the future. He doesn't have to become a raging extrovert (I'm not one myself), but he does need to get past his hangup on seeing Annie as Surma. He is the adult in the family, he needs to act like it and do more to improve himself.
|
|
|
Post by exterminatecake on May 18, 2021 16:11:36 GMT
I'm not convinced it's a full success. I have this suspicion that the abuse/not abuse debate isn't the point. In my own view, it is about redemption, with the abuse only used as a device to create a need for redemption. And that leads to a whole bunch of questions: Are Tony's past actions redeemable at all? If they are redeemable, what would it take for him to redeem himself? Should he try to redeem himself, or rely on others to grant redemption to him? Who gets to say that he has done enough? Why that person and not somebody else? Can the then withdraw the redemption if he does the same terrible thing again, or indeed some other totally unrelated terrible thing? Should he be encouraged to seek redemption, or at least to see it as possible to achieve? Tl;dr it's not about whether or not to put him in jail; it's about what to do when he comes out. Well, whether Tony is redeemable and what it would take for his character to be redeemed is for each and every reader to decide for themselves, and we don't have to all agree on it. Speaking for myself only, for a redemption arc to work in a story I need to both see that the character is aware of what they did wrong in the past, and to see them actively trying to make amends for it and do better in the future. That is me speaking of characters in general. When it comes to Tony specifically, he has been shown to be aware of his past cruel actions and that they were wrong. That is the first step. I still want to see him admit this to Annie, be it in writing, by way of speaking to Jones, hieroglyphics written in the clouds by robots or whatever, because I simply don't buy that face to face direct chats is the only way for him to communicate and that nothing else will work. I also want to see him move forward and progress as a character, and do better in the future. He doesn't have to become a raging extrovert (I'm not one myself), but he does need to get past his hangup on seeing Annie as Surma. He is the adult in the family, he needs to act like it and do more to improve himself. This is my opinion, as well. A redemption arc, from my view as both a reader and author, is the act of a character recognizing their actions as wrong and bettering themself--it has nothing to do with whether the other characters accept them or not. An arc where a character becomes a better person, but is still hated and shunned by everyone they've ever hurt, is still a redemption arc (which honestly makes the question of "deserving" redemption rather moot to me--it's not something that can be given to a character, it's a choice the character makes themself, and it's pointless to argue whether a character "deserves" to make a decision).
If Tony views his actions as wrong and tries to act better towards Annie going forward, I'd say that's still a redemption arc, even if everyone else in the Court continues to dislike him for the rest of the comic and he can't make up for his past choices in their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on May 18, 2021 17:28:35 GMT
I think it probably boils down to one thing, really.
People who get childishly, irrationally furious about not being able to wear make-up in school are anti-Tony.
People who sensibly accept that institutional dress codes exist for a reason are pro-Tony.
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 18, 2021 17:30:27 GMT
I think it probably boils down to one thing, really. People who get childishly, irrationally furious about not being able to wear make-up in school are anti-Tony. People who sensibly accept that institutional dress codes exist for a reason are pro-Tony. Yes. The answer is so simple.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 18, 2021 18:47:54 GMT
Well, whether Tony is redeemable and what it would take for his character to be redeemed is for each and every reader to decide for themselves, and we don't have to all agree on it. Speaking for myself only, for a redemption arc to work in a story I need to both see that the character is aware of what they did wrong in the past, and to see them actively trying to make amends for it and do better in the future. That is me speaking of characters in general. When it comes to Tony specifically, he has been shown to be aware of his past cruel actions and that they were wrong. That is the first step. I still want to see him admit this to Annie, be it in writing, by way of speaking to Jones, hieroglyphics written in the clouds by robots or whatever, because I simply don't buy that face to face direct chats is the only way for him to communicate and that nothing else will work. I also want to see him move forward and progress as a character, and do better in the future. He doesn't have to become a raging extrovert (I'm not one myself), but he does need to get past his hangup on seeing Annie as Surma. He is the adult in the family, he needs to act like it and do more to improve himself. This is my opinion, as well. A redemption arc, from my view as both a reader and author, is the act of a character recognizing their actions as wrong and bettering themself--it has nothing to do with whether the other characters accept them or not. An arc where a character becomes a better person, but is still hated and shunned by everyone they've ever hurt, is still a redemption arc (which honestly makes the question of "deserving" redemption rather moot to me--it's not something that can be given to a character, it's a choice the character makes themself, and it's pointless to argue whether a character "deserves" to make a decision). If Tony views his actions as wrong and tries to act better towards Annie going forward, I'd say that's still a redemption arc, even if everyone else in the Court continues to dislike him for the rest of the comic and he can't make up for his past choices in their eyes.
I think the issue I have with this framing is that I really don't think Tom is writing a "redemption arc" in that Tony expresses only regret, as in "oh it's sad a bad thing is happening to me (and I guess my daughter too)" not remorse as in "I am doing a bad thing and I am going to either stop doing that bad thing or remove myself from my daughter's life so at least the harm will stop." The framing of this chapter, the "mind cage" is a bit ambiguous but I think we are supposed to accept that this isn't just an excuse Tony is giving or a "hang up" which Tony can overcome, it is the literal truth - he wants to be a good dad, he wants to engage with Annie, but he simply cannot, he's just filled with fury and even when the fury fades, she's like an alien to him who he cannot communicate with. I think this is, to be frank, nonsense. Tony is a fictional character, but if Tony were a real person, a real person makes choices as to how he or she behaves. Saying over and over "I WANT TO BUT I CAN'T" and "I HAVE NO CHOICE I'M IN A PRISON" to yourself or to others doesn't make it true, correct or excusable. Tony makes a choice to open his mouth and for sounds to come out of that mouth. It might be very, very hard for him to make those sounds be "words of love and support" because of his innate nature, but considering that he can choose to do so many things, it seems extremely unrealistic that he cannot do that thing. That said, lets accept that he cannot stop being a horrible father. Clearly he can choose to leave the situation - after all he made that choice literally for a decade. Tony chooses neither thing. He chooses daily to be a bad father, and the story we are getting (though it's not complete and of course I could be wrong) does not appear to be "Tony struggling with being a bad father and eventually deserving redemption" but rather "Tony was actually always a very complicated man who was actually always doing his best and deserves love from his daughter who, although she's a child, should take emotional responsibility for helping this abusive adult to heal". While some of the complaints about the story "promoting abuse" etc., have been overblown, I honestly at this point would not recommend this series to children, simply because I do not think it models healthy behavior and healthy reactions to abusive behavior. Naturally, not every book is "for kids" but up until the Tony arc, I thought this book was.
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on May 18, 2021 19:10:04 GMT
I think it probably boils down to one thing, really. People who get childishly, irrationally furious about not being able to wear make-up in school are anti-Tony. People who sensibly accept that institutional dress codes exist for a reason are pro-Tony. But wasn't Anne only called out on it because of her resemblance to Surma? If it's class policy overall the he'd be in the right sure. Lots of stories? From live media Breaking Bad, from books The Series of Unfortunate events, and from comics Invincible and that's just examples off the top of my head that touch on the non-forgiveness theme in a parental figure. Its not an unexplored topic. But I also don't feel like Tom or the world of media needs to explore or expand on that unforgiveness lesson. If that's what the story is gonna do, cool. But I'm also in the "this is not a morality play" camp, so each characters handling of, well anything, doesn't need to be a lesson or an interaction that we should learn a positive lesson from. One of the lessons life has taught me is that not every difficult situation or person is a thing you can fix or learn from, that sometimes things just suck and are hard to deal with in a positive healthy way so you do your best and grow from it anyways. I dunno if that's what the story is going to go for, but I'm cool with that to. I guess I felt the need to repeat my question cause it's hard to also read where posters stand themselves on the topic. When Anne is being praised for being so mature about forgiving him is it merely cause she has the patience of a saint or perhaps cause the only mature option is forgiveness to some people? If her over response was say less loving would readers give her some understanding or call her a brat, wench, witch or some colorful phrases for it I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by exterminatecake on May 18, 2021 19:14:07 GMT
While some of the complaints about the story "promoting abuse" etc., have been overblown, I honestly at this point would not recommend this series to children, simply because I do not think it models healthy behavior and healthy reactions to abusive behavior. Naturally, not every book is "for kids" but up until the Tony arc, I thought this book was. Yeah, honestly, I've never thought of this series as targeted towards children. It seems like a YA series to me, typically targeted towards teenagers and 20somethings, but with crossover appeal for many older adults as well. P.S. Sorry for any formatting mistakes, first time using the mobile text editor!
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 18, 2021 19:28:06 GMT
I guess I felt the need to repeat my question cause it's hard to also read where posters stand themselves on the topic. When Anne is being praised for being so mature about forgiving him is it merely cause she has the patience of a saint or perhaps cause the only mature option is forgiveness to some people? Did I miss something? Who said the only mature option for Annie was forgiveness? God I hope it wasn't me, because that is silly. I don't see the comic as saying that, but we each read into it differently. She is being praised because she is the main character and people either praise or lambasted everything the main character does, unless they don't care which is worse. If she had decided to cut her dad out and it was treated as a positive moment, I'm sure she would get praise and hate for that as well. Some people probably think forgiveness is the only answer and support her because of that, others that she is being mature. I dunno if the reaction most people have is that nuanced homie. I for one am just reading a story. I dunno, would she be acting like a brat, wench or witch when she does this or is she acting in an understandable but less loving way in this hypothetical? I can only answer that hypothetical with a "well it depends on how she handled it." I haven't seen anyone suggest that forgiveness was the only acceptable option, in or out of the comic. I don't think Annie would be treated any different by the fourm if she made a different decision, just analyzed in a different way.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 18, 2021 20:53:03 GMT
I think it probably boils down to one thing, really. People who get childishly, irrationally furious about not being able to wear make-up in school are anti-Tony. People who sensibly accept that institutional dress codes exist for a reason are pro-Tony. Institutional dress codes can be pretty misogynistic and racist, though. Wear make-up! Fight the power!
|
|
|
Post by frogspawned on May 18, 2021 21:26:56 GMT
Institutional dress codes can be pretty misogynistic Misogyny my bum, girls got the choice of skirts or pants while boys were forced, forced into trousers. If that's not clear pro-female bias I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 18, 2021 21:38:35 GMT
I'm going to suggest that Tony is a kind of (fictional) human litmus test. He acts as a mirror to the soul of the reader, able to touch some aspects of our personalities on a deep level. At this point, I think what divides the readership is more about the expectations from the story. Whether or not you name it abuse or neglect, or whatever, most of us agree Tony has done some really shitty things and caused harm to his daughter. Now one part of the readership wants cosmic justice for those wrongs. The argument being that unless Tony is made to suffer consequences, the story is validating the bad things he did. The fact that the other characters haven't cut him off is to them equivalent to a thumbs up of his every decision. Another part of the readership is reading without these expectations of cosmic justice, and isn't waiting for him to be punished but to change. Because of that, hints of change and reconciliation are seen by group 1 as "getting away with it" and by group 2 as "progress". For what it's worth, I think the story has done a great job of consistently presenting Tony's behavior as A Fucking Big Issue. Some characters are more understanding of him than others but nobody approves, not even his closest friends. I'm not interested in the slightest in reading a story where every morally dubious act gets its comeuppance like in an 18th century novel where the hardworking boy who goes to mass becomes most successful and the lazy one ends in prison and gets struck by lightning. It's boring. I want messy humans messily working things out.
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 18, 2021 22:16:25 GMT
While some of the complaints about the story "promoting abuse" etc., have been overblown, I honestly at this point would not recommend this series to children, simply because I do not think it models healthy behavior and healthy reactions to abusive behavior. Naturally, not every book is "for kids" but up until the Tony arc, I thought this book was. Really? I mean, Annie became best friends with a dude who tried to kill her and occasionally made inappropriate sexual jokes when she was like eleven. Then she became best friends with an homicidal maniac who is a xenophobe and also tried to kill her! (but she forgave him after sulking for maybe ten minutes. It's ok, he didn't mean it.) Then she spent years planning how to free the murderous ghost of rage who also tried to kill her, without stopping to ask any adult for help or advice. But Jeanne was really angry and in love so of course she stabs people, especially children, I'm sure that's not a reason to be mad at her. I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that GC was ever about modeling safe behaviour or healthy relationships.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 18, 2021 22:46:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 18, 2021 22:49:15 GMT
While some of the complaints about the story "promoting abuse" etc., have been overblown, I honestly at this point would not recommend this series to children, simply because I do not think it models healthy behavior and healthy reactions to abusive behavior. Naturally, not every book is "for kids" but up until the Tony arc, I thought this book was. Really? I mean, Annie became best friends with a dude who tried to kill her and occasionally made inappropriate sexual jokes when she was like eleven. Then she became best friends with an homicidal maniac who is a xenophobe and also tried to kill her! (but she forgave him after sulking for maybe ten minutes. It's ok, he didn't mean it.) Then she spent years planning how to free the murderous ghost of rage who also tried to kill her, without stopping to ask any adult for help or advice. But Jeanne was really angry and in love so of course she stabs people, especially children, I'm sure that's not a reason to be mad at her. I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that GC was ever about modeling safe behaviour or healthy relationships. I'll buy into the first two, but freeing Jeanne was never about being ok with it, that's kind of a weird way to put it. Freeing Jeanne was about letting the ghost stop being a ghost, and the by product of that is less murdered people.
|
|