|
Post by aline on May 18, 2021 23:22:11 GMT
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. Annie didn't free Jeanne because she was worried for her future victims. She did it because she had compassion for the homicidal ghost who really really wanted Parley to die because that's how much she hates happiness. Any sane person would at the very least have stayed the fuck away from Jeanne after the first encounter never mind the second, but instead Annie made it a group project to get almost killed righting a wrong that wasn't really any of her business. And I know what I say sounds like a dig but it's Annie's greatest quality that she sees things in people nobody else does and is able to get psychopathic demi-gods to sit down and have a conversation. That's why she's a medium. That's why her dad let her walk into the forest after Ysengrin / Loup started blowing the place up. It works because it's a fantasy comic and befriending the people who tried to cut your throat in the previous chapter is kinda part of the fun. I'm okay with that. I was sarcastically pointing out that GC has never been a model for healthy relationship aimed at children. It's really disingenuous to imply it was a cute comic modeling normal, healthy friendships for little kids before Tony's character showed up.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 18, 2021 23:52:44 GMT
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. Annie didn't free Jeanne because she was worried for her future victims. She did it because she had compassion for the homicidal ghost who really really wanted Parley to die because that's how much she hates happiness. Any sane person would at the very least have stayed the fuck away from Jeanne after the first encounter never mind the second, but instead Annie made it a group project to get almost killed righting a wrong that wasn't really any of her business. And I know what I say sounds like a dig but it's Annie's greatest quality that she sees things in people nobody else does and is able to get psychopathic demi-gods to sit down and have a conversation. That's why she's a medium. That's why her dad let her walk into the forest after Ysengrin / Loup started blowing the place up. It works because it's a fantasy comic and befriending the people who tried to cut your throat in the previous chapter is kinda part of the fun. I'm okay with that. I was sarcastically pointing out that GC has never been a model for healthy relationship aimed at children. It's really disingenuous to imply it was a cute comic modeling normal, healthy friendships for little kids before Tony's character showed up. That's fair and all, but I think it can be argued that she's not in her right mind in ghost form. And if we're just talking about righting a wrong, I think that has nothing to do with judgement. I'm fine with the idea that Annie was trying to right a wrong by helping a murderous ghost. I think framing it as "not a reason to be mad at her" seems weird. It doesn't make much sense to be mad at a tornado for wrecking your house. The other two paragraphs I agree with you. I just think the Jeanne situation is different than the other situations. Annie wasn't really trying to understand Jeanne. She just wanted to set her free, and those are very different motivations.
|
|
|
Post by todd on May 18, 2021 23:56:02 GMT
Just because Annie's around 12 at the start of "Gunnerkrigg Court" doesn't mean that it's intended as a children's story. I've seen other works of adult fiction with child leads - the Flavia de Luce series, for example, which are in the adult mystery section in libraries and bookstores, but whose main character is 11-12 years old.
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 19, 2021 0:16:27 GMT
Just because Annie's around 12 at the start of "Gunnerkrigg Court" doesn't mean that it's intended as a children's story. I've seen other works of adult fiction with child leads - the Flavia de Luce series, which are in the adult mystery section in libraries and bookstores, but whose main character is 11-12 years old. Agreed. Oliver Twist would be another great example. Genres, while useful in categorizing tastes, are pretty arbitrary. You can have children's stories with adults at the center and adult stories with children at the center. Although I think they are equally useless, you can see this in the way manga are categorized in Japan. There are plenty of shounen stories that center around adults, like One-Punch Man, or seinen stories that center around youths, like K-ON! or Kaguya. But because the majority of stories in a genre are a certain way, it is understandable why people automatically assume it will be a certain way.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 19, 2021 0:57:14 GMT
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. She subjugated a dangerous monster with magic. Eventually they became friends. This is a pretty typical element of children's stories. Additionally, a lot of children's' stories have 'adult content' that goes over their heads. As far as has always viewed him as extremely dangerous but as a plucky girl adventurer, she once again protects herself quite handily. Much like the children in countless other tales of childhood aventure, like The Chronicles of Narnia, Alice in Wonderland, etc., etc. Specifically modeling an extremely unhealthy reaction to abusive parenting is a pretty different story. Sure, in the Harry Potter books it's probably not a good idea for kids to think they should steal dad's flying car. Kids can tell that that's fantasy. But if the Harry Potter books specifically had Harry internalizing the abuse of his foster parents and telling them and the audience "they were just misunderstood actually, and that he has learned to treat them the right way, by just doing whatever they say and helping them learn to stop abusing him" that would be unhealthy modeling on a really different level.
|
|
|
Post by Polyhymnia on May 19, 2021 1:01:07 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. I...understand.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 19, 2021 1:58:52 GMT
I don't think frogspawned was being serious...
|
|
|
Post by Polyhymnia on May 19, 2021 2:42:26 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. Probably depends where you are—uniform dress codes seem to offer more options for girls, but plain-clothes dress codes like public schools in the States are a lot more restrictive. Hair color, skirt and shorts length, if your clothing is perceived as too tight, too low cut, not long enough sleeves, etc. Pretty much the only thing that got guys dress coded in my school in the south was wearing dresses/skirts, or else having obscene language on a shirt (and even that was ignored).
|
|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 19, 2021 3:11:06 GMT
I don't think frogspawned was being serious... The first time I wasn't sure, but the second time sounded too much like shit I've read elsewhere that I felt like responding. *shrug* Could all be a joke, but well, I'd rather say something than not.
|
|
laaaa
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by laaaa on May 19, 2021 6:37:01 GMT
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. On a side note, I just wanted to say that I don't think forgiving anyone can ever be a mistake. Not placing the boundaries you need, that's a mistake. Demanding that others also forgive the wrong-doer the moment you did (or demanding that they don't place boundaries) is also a mistake (and that's probably what an enabler is). Also, I don't think that forgiveness is something that needs to be earned by the wrong-doer. Forgiveness is about the strength of the victim. It's the victim's power. Not their responsibility; their power. (As long as it's informed forgiveness and not "I'm holier than thou" forgiveness nor "they'll get better if I give them another chance" forgiveness) Atoning (or at least trying to) is the wrong-doer's responsibility. And while the wrong-doer atoning makes it easier for the victim to forgive them (and it's also fair), in the end, the victim doesn't need anyone's input to forgive someone.
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 19, 2021 6:50:42 GMT
She subjugated a dangerous monster with magic. Eventually they became friends. This is a pretty typical element of children's stories. Additionally, a lot of children's' stories have 'adult content' that goes over their heads. You can argue that about Renard, but she didn't subjugate Ysengrin, she just ran away. She also didn't subjugate Coyote, the architect of her murder attempt. Her grasping her own powerlessness in that situation was actually the point of that chapter. Ysengrin told her that he couldn't remember his fit of rage and that he'd never hurt her and she went "ok", and that is such a typical stage of the abuse cycle. Sure, in the Harry Potter books it's probably not a good idea for kids to think they should steal dad's flying car. Kids can tell that that's fantasy. But if the Harry Potter books specifically had Harry internalizing the abuse of his foster parents and telling them and the audience "they were just misunderstood actually, and that he has learned to treat them the right way, by just doing whatever they say and helping them learn to stop abusing him" that would be unhealthy modeling on a really different level. That's your interpretation of what is happening. I have a different one and I don't think standing up for yourself and setting boundaries is "helping someone learn to stop abusing them". I also don't see Annie "treating Tony the right way and doing whatever he says". She demanded Renard back and demanded the right to wear her make up again. She comes and goes out of the house at all hours without even pretending to ask for permission. She did try to get him to open up more, but she's unlikely to waste more time on that from now because based on her conversation just now, she finally understood it wasn't something she could solve. But just so you know, there has been discourse around the problematic treatment of abuse in Harry Potter for over a decade. I won't go there (at this point I'd rather get my teeth pulled), but you can go look it up if you're interested.
|
|
|
Post by basser on May 19, 2021 7:29:09 GMT
I like Tony cause he told the inexorable wife-killin magic to get rekt and I just really vibe with being willing to fight the fabric of reality to protect your spouse. Plus I've always disliked Annie as a person so Tony being rude to her ain't no thing far as I care.
I remember way back in ye olde days when I was pretty much the only one on Team Tony and y'all dogpiled me about it. Can't derail this train booooiii.
|
|
|
Post by fia on May 19, 2021 11:56:04 GMT
Perhaps the litmus test is just how comfortable people are with ambiguity. Even more specifically, with moral ambiguity.
Annie has a choice in how she interprets and reacts to her difficult father. And so do we. And we may not make the same choices. And in that gulf lies much of the truth about humanity and human relationships.
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on May 19, 2021 15:28:04 GMT
Perhaps the litmus test is just how comfortable people are with ambiguity. Even more specifically, with moral ambiguity. Annie has a choice in how she interprets and reacts to her difficult father. And so do we. And we may not make the same choices. And in that gulf lies much of the truth about humanity and human relationships. Well now! This is very much the sort of insight I was hoping to elicit when I started this thread.
To be honest, what I was NOT hoping for was yet another thread full of Tony-bashing and/or Tony-defending. Of course, a thread will go where it's gonna go, regardless, so no worries if that's the sort of thing you feel is necessary to say (even though we've had pages and pages of that in other threads).
Instead, I'd hoped for more thoughts about what there is about each of us that makes us react so differently to the same piece of fiction. Some of you (like fia and aline here) have provided really thoughtful discussion, and I appreciate it!
Carry on...
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on May 19, 2021 17:04:28 GMT
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. On a side note, I just wanted to say that I don't think forgiving anyone can ever be a mistake. Not placing the boundaries you need, that's a mistake. Demanding that others also forgive the wrong-doer the moment you did (or demanding that they don't place boundaries) is also a mistake (and that's probably what an enabler is). Also, I don't think that forgiveness is something that needs to be earned by the wrong-doer. Forgiveness is about the strength of the victim. It's the victim's power. Not their responsibility; their power. (As long as it's informed forgiveness and not "I'm holier than thou" forgiveness nor "they'll get better if I give them another chance" forgiveness) Atoning (or at least trying to) is the wrong-doer's responsibility. And while the wrong-doer atoning makes it easier for the victim to forgive them (and it's also fair), in the end, the victim doesn't need anyone's input to forgive someone. I meant to say can be, not is a mistake didn't catch that on my read through. I agree with your entire post, it just made me notice that.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 19, 2021 17:21:10 GMT
She subjugated a dangerous monster with magic. Eventually they became friends. This is a pretty typical element of children's stories. Additionally, a lot of children's' stories have 'adult content' that goes over their heads. You can argue that about Renard, but she didn't subjugate Ysengrin, she just ran away. She also didn't subjugate Coyote, the architect of her murder attempt. Her grasping her own powerlessness in that situation was actually the point of that chapter. Ysengrin told her that he couldn't remember his fit of rage and that he'd never hurt her and she went "ok", and that is such a typical stage of the abuse cycle. I just don't think it makes sense to equate the behavior of a literal trickster god to that of a child's human parent. If I were considering giving this book to a kid, I would have no concern that they would develop unhealthy patterns for dealing with trickster gods. If on the other hand I were considering giving this book to a kid with an abusive parent, frankly I wouldn't because it is extremely clear that in my opinion, if Annie is supposed to be any kind of role modeling, she is modeling very unhealthy coping mechanisms. "Just love the problematic man harder" is a recipe for encouraging women and girls to end up in abusive parent child relationships and other relationships in my opinion. I respect that Tom has the right to tell whatever story he wants to tell, but I find the take "hey actually there's some good in this guy who abuses me" or today's Annie statement "because he is my biological family, I will just put up with whatever" is not that interesting to me. This take has been around for a long time and I don't think it's one that I would want to expose a kid to. Whether I want to keep absorbing it myself, I mean I have been reading this comic for around a decade so I'm probably not going to stop, but it is a pretty boring road for the story to be going down. Hopefully we'll get back into the cosmology and Tony can go back to being a character I ignore soon.
|
|
jocobo
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by jocobo on May 19, 2021 17:54:45 GMT
I don't actually think Tony's divisiveness stems from Tony himself. Most people seem to agree his behavior isn't good.
I actually think the true point of division is people who think the narrative has done a good job presenting Tony and those who think it has done a lackluster one.
I fall into the latter category. Here's why:
1: I do not think the discussion of Tony, in comic,has lived up to the potential signified by his return. 2: I believe the comic is in fact taking a stand about what the "right" conclusion is about Tony and how Annie should interact with him 3: I think the comic has devolved into repetition on the subject, with little tension and with the plot not advancing.
If the story wanted to just be portraying a relationship without moral judgement on the part of the narrative but merely showcasing an interesting human scenario, I'd be OK. Messy human relationships are interesting. I'd be OK with it. I'd be pretty excited about it in fact.
But that's not the vibe I get from the narrative. The comic itself does not seem like it is telling a story from a position of neutrality. It seems fairly sympathetic toward Tony and it isn't particularly messy.
The overwhelming majority of the cast are in complete consensus when it comes to Tony both in feeling and in action. There is actually very little conflict between cast members on the topic of Tony. Which is vague disdain for his actions, but no actual actions taken about it.
Tony's return caused conflict for Annie but never causes conflict between characters over how to respond to Tony.
I'd hate Tony less if the reactions to him in the comic were more, well, not necessarily balanced, but at least more diverse. There's been no tension on the topic of Tony since Annie and the Fire and yet he's still here and we are still having this same conversation.
We have Eglamore, but his disdain of Tony and his actions is dismissed as biased and based on his failed relationship with Surma. He's the only person to actually have his position on Tony debated with and refuted. Wouldn't it be more interesting if perhaps his anger towards Tony for how he treats Annie actually his evolved his character that one-note trope?
We have the Donlan's reactions which are vaguely disapproving but hasn't seemed to affected their relationship with Tony or Annie. But wouldn't it be more interesting if it created conflict? Maybe between the Donlans themselves?
We have Kat who dropped any and all forms of resentment for Tony after one meeting. And it happened off screen! So again , no conflict there.
We have Rey who seems to be at peace with Tony and neutral towards his current treatment of Annie despite vocally disagreeing before Tony's return. Again, we didn't get to see how they reached this point.
We have Ysengrin who basically told Annie she was overreacting.
We have the other teens in the extended friend group who seem to dislike Tony, but they are portrayed as being misinformed gossips.Which is strange because up until Loup attacked they were in his class. They personally interacted with him outside the context of Annie as his students. We don't even get to see what impact their negative opinion on him was.
Were they more likely to act out in class? Did the general resentment of Tony make his job more difficult while he was still teaching them? Their attitudes towards Tony have no actual impact on the story, or Tony or Annie's relationship with them.
These are not messy relationship dynamics. These are all pretty, neat and tied into a bow, politely sequestered away where they cannot actually impact the narrative or character dynamics. It feels like such a waste of potential.
Even Annie herself has not actually changed her position on her Father all that much. She's less angry about it and she has more perspective to argue and justify her position. But loving him despite his shortcomings and mistakes and desiring his approval was always Annie's position.
Even when he first returned and she was angriest with him, her anger never impacted Tony in any meaningful way. She mostly took it out on herself. She literally tore it out from herself so that she could continue loving him and chasing his affection and approval. I don't think Tony ever even found out.
Mind you not every character arc needs to end in growth. Ending in reaffirmation is perfectly fine. But how many times does it need to be reaffirmed?
I believe this is why so few readers seem to have changed their stance on Tony. Nothing about the argument has changed so there's nothing new to reach a different conclusion on. No new context is provided.
So then why, I ask myself, do we keep revisiting the Topic of Tony in the comic when no one's opinion ever changes and there are no actual outcomes (I'm using outcomes instead of consequences here because people have taken that word to mean punishment rather than cause and effect) of the discussion.
The only one I can think of that actually mattered in the end was the one with Ysengrin and even then no one changed their mind from the conversation, it was Annie's blinker stone getting shattered and Bunnie boy almost getting burned that mattered.
So, if no one in the comic is really in disagreement about Tony and the constant reexaminations of his character don't change anyone in the comics mind or reach different conclusions, who is this all for?
I must conclude they are for the audience.
So I feel the comic is trying to lead the audience to a very specific conclusion regarding Tony's character and Annie's relationship with him. Or failing that, justify the conclusion. And it's a conclusion without tension because we were never in any risk of it turning out any other way outside of a cliff hanger chapter or two.
Now maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but the more I feel like the comic is trying to draw me to one specific conclusion the more intensely I want to argue back. I feel like I have to be whatever the inverse of a devil's advocate is on the topic becuase it's so lopsided in the comic.
So to answer the original prompt, for me personally, I think my reaction stems from not liking the narrative trying to control my reaction coupled with it not really accruing tension, being repetitive and overall disappointing me with wasted potential.
I said my first positive about Tony ever when he mentioned he felt like he lost a daughter because it was us finally getting something new, something that could lead to something interesting.
But no, it quickly devolved back into the same old narrative beats, up to and including a long monologue from Annie about how actually she loves her dad thank you very much as if we didn't already know that.
So yeah, it's not a reaction to personal trauma or some deep connection. Tony doesn't make me examine myself or anything. It's just disdain for his narrative presence. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 19, 2021 18:38:29 GMT
I don't actually think Tony's divisiveness stems from Tony himself. Most people seem to agree his behavior isn't good. I actually think the true point of division is people who think the narrative has done a good job presenting Tony and those who think it has done a lackluster one. I fall into the latter category. Here's why: 1: I do not think the discussion of Tony, in comic,has lived up to the potential signified by his return. 2: I believe the comic is in fact taking a stand about what the "right" conclusion is about Tony and how Annie should interact with him 3: I think the comic has devolved into repetition on the subject, with little tension and with the plot not advancing. If the story wanted to just be portraying a relationship without moral judgement on the part of the narrative but merely showcasing an interesting human scenario, I'd be OK. Messy human relationships are interesting. I'd be OK with it. I'd be pretty excited about it in fact. But that's not the vibe I get from the narrative. The comic itself does not seem like it is telling a story from a position of neutrality. It seems fairly sympathetic toward Tony and it isn't particularly messy. The overwhelming majority of the cast are in complete consensus when it comes to Tony both in feeling and in action. There is actually very little conflict between cast members on the topic of Tony. Which is vague disdain for his actions, but no actual actions taken about it. Tony's return caused conflict for Annie but never causes conflict between characters over how to respond to Tony. I'd hate Tony less if the reactions to him in the comic were more, well, not necessarily balanced, but at least more diverse. There's been no tension on the topic of Tony since Annie and the Fire and yet he's still here and we are still having this same conversation. We have Eglamore, but his disdain of Tony and his actions is dismissed as biased and based on his failed relationship with Surma. He's the only person to actually have his position on Tony debated with and refuted. Wouldn't it be more interesting if perhaps his anger towards Tony for how he treats Annie actually his evolved his character that one-note trope? We have the Donlan's reactions which are vaguely disapproving but hasn't seemed to affected their relationship with Tony or Annie. But wouldn't it be more interesting if it created conflict? Maybe between the Donlans themselves? We have Kat who dropped any and all forms of resentment for Tony after one meeting. And it happened off screen! So again , no conflict there. We have Rey who seems to be at peace with Tony and neutral towards his current treatment of Annie despite vocally disagreeing before Tony's return. Again, we didn't get to see how they reached this point. We have Ysengrin who basically told Annie she was overreacting. We have the other teens in the extended friend group who seem to dislike Tony, but they are portrayed as being misinformed gossips.Which is strange because up until Loup attacked they were in his class. They personally interacted with him outside the context of Annie as his students. We don't even get to see what impact their negative opinion on him was. Were they more likely to act out in class? Did the general resentment of Tony make his job more difficult while he was still teaching them? Their attitudes towards Tony have no actual impact on the story, or Tony or Annie's relationship with them. These are not messy relationship dynamics. These are all pretty, neat and tied into a bow, politely sequestered away where they cannot actually impact the narrative or character dynamics. It feels like such a waste of potential. Even Annie herself has not actually changed her position on her Father all that much. She's less angry about it and she has more perspective to argue and justify her position. But loving him despite his shortcomings and mistakes and desiring his approval was always Annie's position. Even when he first returned and she was angriest with him, her anger never impacted Tony in any meaningful way. She mostly took it out on herself. She literally tore it out from herself so that she could continue loving him and chasing his affection and approval. I don't think Tony ever even found out. Mind you not every character arc needs to end in growth. Ending in reaffirmation is perfectly fine. But how many times does it need to be reaffirmed? I believe this is why so few readers seem to have changed their stance on Tony. Nothing about the argument has changed so there's nothing new to reach a different conclusion on. No new context is provided. So then why, I ask myself, do we keep revisiting the Topic of Tony in the comic when no one's opinion ever changes and there are no actual outcomes (I'm using outcomes instead of consequences here because people have taken that word to mean punishment rather than cause and effect) of the discussion. The only one I can think of that actually mattered in the end was the one with Ysengrin and even then no one changed their mind from the conversation, it was Annie's blinker stone getting shattered and Bunnie boy almost getting burned that mattered. So, if no one in the comic is really in disagreement about Tony and the constant reexaminations of his character don't change anyone in the comics mind or reach different conclusions, who is this all for? I must conclude they are for the audience. So I feel the comic is trying to lead the audience to a very specific conclusion regarding Tony's character and Annie's relationship with him. Or failing that, justify the conclusion. And it's a conclusion without tension because we were never in any risk of it turning out any other way outside of a cliff hanger chapter or two. Now maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but the more I feel like the comic is trying to draw me to one specific conclusion the more intensely I want to argue back. I feel like I have to be whatever the inverse of a devil's advocate is on the topic becuase it's so lopsided in the comic. So to answer the original prompt, for me personally, I think my reaction stems from not liking the narrative trying to control my reaction coupled with it not really accruing tension, being repetitive and overall disappointing me with wasted potential. I said my first positive about Tony ever when he mentioned he felt like he lost a daughter because it was us finally getting something new, something that could lead to something interesting. But no, it quickly devolved back into the same old narrative beats, up to and including a long monologue from Annie about how actually she loves her dad thank you very much as if we didn't already know that. So yeah, it's not a reaction to personal trauma or some deep connection. Tony doesn't make me examine myself or anything. It's just disdain for his narrative presence. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with just about everything you've said here - this to me has felt very much about Tom insisting that we get on his team regarding the story he wants to tell about Tony and Annie and the feelings he wants us to have about it. I think he realizes that this has not been successful so far, with the "Kat likes him now!" and "for some reason he's nice to one of the Annie's!" plot developments so he really pulled out all the stops to let us know Tony's perspective (which as you said, we already knew) and that Annie loves him anyway and also "doesn't care" if people don't agree. Frankly nothing says "I care a lot if people agree" more than if you say "I don't care if you agree." Tom really, really wants us to agree with Annie here, and for me, it's just not happening. I'm not sure why this is the hill Tom picked to fight on, but he really wants to take his reader on this journey to loving Tony and while I am still on the "I wonder what happens next in the narrative" train I am not on the "how I learned to stop worrying about the abuse and love the Tony" train and honestly I don't see any reason I ever would be.
|
|
|
Post by mitten on May 19, 2021 20:08:16 GMT
I don't actually think Tony's divisiveness stems from Tony himself. Most people seem to agree his behavior isn't good. I actually think the true point of division is people who think the narrative has done a good job presenting Tony and those who think it has done a lackluster one. I fall into the latter category. Here's why: 1: I do not think the discussion of Tony, in comic,has lived up to the potential signified by his return. 2: I believe the comic is in fact taking a stand about what the "right" conclusion is about Tony and how Annie should interact with him 3: I think the comic has devolved into repetition on the subject, with little tension and with the plot not advancing. If the story wanted to just be portraying a relationship without moral judgement on the part of the narrative but merely showcasing an interesting human scenario, I'd be OK. Messy human relationships are interesting. I'd be OK with it. I'd be pretty excited about it in fact. But that's not the vibe I get from the narrative. The comic itself does not seem like it is telling a story from a position of neutrality. It seems fairly sympathetic toward Tony and it isn't particularly messy. The overwhelming majority of the cast are in complete consensus when it comes to Tony both in feeling and in action. There is actually very little conflict between cast members on the topic of Tony. Which is vague disdain for his actions, but no actual actions taken about it. Tony's return caused conflict for Annie but never causes conflict between characters over how to respond to Tony. I'd hate Tony less if the reactions to him in the comic were more, well, not necessarily balanced, but at least more diverse. There's been no tension on the topic of Tony since Annie and the Fire and yet he's still here and we are still having this same conversation. We have Eglamore, but his disdain of Tony and his actions is dismissed as biased and based on his failed relationship with Surma. He's the only person to actually have his position on Tony debated with and refuted. Wouldn't it be more interesting if perhaps his anger towards Tony for how he treats Annie actually his evolved his character that one-note trope? We have the Donlan's reactions which are vaguely disapproving but hasn't seemed to affected their relationship with Tony or Annie. But wouldn't it be more interesting if it created conflict? Maybe between the Donlans themselves? We have Kat who dropped any and all forms of resentment for Tony after one meeting. And it happened off screen! So again , no conflict there. We have Rey who seems to be at peace with Tony and neutral towards his current treatment of Annie despite vocally disagreeing before Tony's return. Again, we didn't get to see how they reached this point. We have Ysengrin who basically told Annie she was overreacting. We have the other teens in the extended friend group who seem to dislike Tony, but they are portrayed as being misinformed gossips.Which is strange because up until Loup attacked they were in his class. They personally interacted with him outside the context of Annie as his students. We don't even get to see what impact their negative opinion on him was. Were they more likely to act out in class? Did the general resentment of Tony make his job more difficult while he was still teaching them? Their attitudes towards Tony have no actual impact on the story, or Tony or Annie's relationship with them. These are not messy relationship dynamics. These are all pretty, neat and tied into a bow, politely sequestered away where they cannot actually impact the narrative or character dynamics. It feels like such a waste of potential. Even Annie herself has not actually changed her position on her Father all that much. She's less angry about it and she has more perspective to argue and justify her position. But loving him despite his shortcomings and mistakes and desiring his approval was always Annie's position. Even when he first returned and she was angriest with him, her anger never impacted Tony in any meaningful way. She mostly took it out on herself. She literally tore it out from herself so that she could continue loving him and chasing his affection and approval. I don't think Tony ever even found out. Mind you not every character arc needs to end in growth. Ending in reaffirmation is perfectly fine. But how many times does it need to be reaffirmed? I believe this is why so few readers seem to have changed their stance on Tony. Nothing about the argument has changed so there's nothing new to reach a different conclusion on. No new context is provided. So then why, I ask myself, do we keep revisiting the Topic of Tony in the comic when no one's opinion ever changes and there are no actual outcomes (I'm using outcomes instead of consequences here because people have taken that word to mean punishment rather than cause and effect) of the discussion. The only one I can think of that actually mattered in the end was the one with Ysengrin and even then no one changed their mind from the conversation, it was Annie's blinker stone getting shattered and Bunnie boy almost getting burned that mattered. So, if no one in the comic is really in disagreement about Tony and the constant reexaminations of his character don't change anyone in the comics mind or reach different conclusions, who is this all for? I must conclude they are for the audience. So I feel the comic is trying to lead the audience to a very specific conclusion regarding Tony's character and Annie's relationship with him. Or failing that, justify the conclusion. And it's a conclusion without tension because we were never in any risk of it turning out any other way outside of a cliff hanger chapter or two. Now maybe it's just the contrarian in me, but the more I feel like the comic is trying to draw me to one specific conclusion the more intensely I want to argue back. I feel like I have to be whatever the inverse of a devil's advocate is on the topic becuase it's so lopsided in the comic. So to answer the original prompt, for me personally, I think my reaction stems from not liking the narrative trying to control my reaction coupled with it not really accruing tension, being repetitive and overall disappointing me with wasted potential. I said my first positive about Tony ever when he mentioned he felt like he lost a daughter because it was us finally getting something new, something that could lead to something interesting. But no, it quickly devolved back into the same old narrative beats, up to and including a long monologue from Annie about how actually she loves her dad thank you very much as if we didn't already know that. So yeah, it's not a reaction to personal trauma or some deep connection. Tony doesn't make me examine myself or anything. It's just disdain for his narrative presence. Nothing more, nothing less. I also very much agree with this. My problems with Tony as a character isn't just his past actions. I have liked many morally ambiguous characters before, some of them have done worse things than Tony has. Neither is it some sort of personal issue relating to any trauma of my own. Tony so far feels to me also like wasted potential, a stagnant character who just keeps going in circles. More than once I have hoped that finally, finally he will do something interesting, grow, evolve, but it always seems to go back to him passively feeling sorry for himself. Yes, I get it that Annie still loves her father. That's not surprising, children often love parents who have done worse than Tony. Each time this is repeated, the stronger the story tries to push this, the more it warps the narrative around him like with Kat's strange change of heart, it makes me feel more apathetic towards this particular plot and given how much I normally love and look forward to plot developments in GC, that says a lot. Short version: To me, Tony isn't just a bad father, but a character who so far fails to live up to his potential and also drags the plot down. I hope I will be proven wrong. I really do.
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 19, 2021 22:17:58 GMT
Is Antony really a bad father. Let see what he did, He abandoned her for three years, that was partly because the Court was sending him around to research for their blasted Omega device and while he was around he searched for the psycopomps, but also he honestly thought that she would have been better without him and re-reading that part I think that ... he wanted to die, even if maybe just unconsciously . He'd become a death seeker, in more that ways than one, he wanted to re-join Surma one way or the other. He actually never said why he exactly searched the psycopomps... anyway, things went as we know, he got tricked, almost got his wish (IMO), then the Court come, told him that if he don't come back his daughter get it... and he come back. Then it come his first lesson and that is where I agree he was really abusive, he come out without warning, disrupted her life, humiliate her before her friend make her move in that room and made her renounce to Reynardine and to her work with the Forest, etc, even if the last two are even reasonable the way he did it was awful, this and the immediate following are his lowest point as a father, but even he agree that he was not fully 'compos mentis' then But after that? The worst you can say of him is that he act cold to her, but it was explained why (the 'mindcage'). He never starved her, or beat her, or keep it segregated, he never stopped her to see her friends and the situation improved constantly, he let her go back to the Forest, he gave her back Reynardine, he offered her to live with him, he let her wear make-up again, and so on, and so far. The least you can say is that he is trying and keep trying to improve his relationship with Annie.
|
|
|
Post by rylfrazier on May 19, 2021 23:17:01 GMT
Sebastian, yeah, IMO he really is a bad father. If I emotionally devastate my child and repeatedly humiliate her in front of all of her friends and peers, then never apologize but just gradually stop doing the bad stuff a little, I'm not a good father.
Also, being emotionally absent but demanding love is abuse. I understand that Tony (and I guess Tom) want Annie (and I guess the audience) to buy into the idea that this is because of the scaaaaaaaary "mind cage" which justifies all of Tony's behavior, but let's say for some reason I have a brain problem where I keep punching people who get within 5 feet of me in the face. I want to stop, but I can't! It's THE FIST CAGE!
But anyway, even though it's super sad that I'm stuck in THE FIST CAGE I decide that I'm going to be "dad" to a 15 year old girl, so it's not my fault if that means she gets punched in the face every day. Saying "I have no choice!" when you clearly at a minimum have the choice of removing the abuse by removing yourself is just a cop out and not the mark of a "good person" or in this case "a good father."
Now I do not demand that all of my media be populated by only good people. For example, I love the TV show Hannibal, which is a show about a serial killer. What I need from my story is to be interested in where the story is going and to basically agree with what the story is saying about what is or isn't healthy. Hannibal causes a lot of harm to the people around him - but the show / writers never try to convince us that "this is OK actually". It's the "this is OK actually" that I find to be just something I don't connect with in the way Tom has decided to write the Tony / Annie relationship.
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on May 20, 2021 1:14:52 GMT
2: I believe the comic is in fact taking a stand about what the "right" conclusion is about Tony and how Annie should interact with him 3: I think the comic has devolved into repetition on the subject, with little tension and with the plot not advancing. If the story wanted to just be portraying a relationship without moral judgement on the part of the narrative but merely showcasing an interesting human scenario, I'd be OK. Messy human relationships are interesting. I'd be OK with it. I'd be pretty excited about it in fact. But that's not the vibe I get from the narrative. The comic itself does not seem like it is telling a story from a position of neutrality. It seems fairly sympathetic toward Tony and it isn't particularly messy. The overwhelming majority of the cast are in complete consensus when it comes to Tony both in feeling and in action. There is actually very little conflict between cast members on the topic of Tony. Which is vague disdain for his actions, but no actual actions taken about it. Tony's return caused conflict for Annie but never causes conflict between characters over how to respond to Tony. I'd hate Tony less if the reactions to him in the comic were more, well, not necessarily balanced, but at least more diverse. There's been no tension on the topic of Tony since Annie and the Fire and yet he's still here and we are still having this same conversation. We have Eglamore, but his disdain of Tony and his actions is dismissed as biased and based on his failed relationship with Surma. He's the only person to actually have his position on Tony debated with and refuted. Wouldn't it be more interesting if perhaps his anger towards Tony for how he treats Annie actually his evolved his character that one-note trope? We have the Donlan's reactions which are vaguely disapproving but hasn't seemed to affected their relationship with Tony or Annie. I wouldn't change Eglamore, just not have him be the most frequent Tony hater or critic in-universe. Just have a character serving as a contrast. While not greatly better, the Mega Man comics (criminally underrated and even at 55 issues died too soon) from Archie had a much better attempt with some comic original characters sort of. See Dr. Light is a stand up guy, but even with precautions he takes with his robots being near sentient, but programming them to follow the laws of robotics (i.e. No direct harming of a human or letting them fall to harm)? We even see that attempts to emulate his work including his first fully sentient bot X in the Mega Man X series lead to countless violence even death. Now the comic adds their own characters in the form of the Emerald Spears. A terrorist group seeking to end advanced robotics and related tech. Other comic original, Chief Sterns, agrees with them. Nope he shares their fear for advanced robotics and such, but he also equally disapproves of their methods and will eagerly work with the Blue Bomber to stop them. And he still has a good amountcof respect for Mega Man & Light. Even takes concern at either of them being harmed. So yeah I think having all Tony haters being biased ex of his late wife or uninformed classmates of his daughter don't serve the nuance better. Have someone who hates is harsher on the criticism, but doesn't have tunnel vision.
|
|
|
Post by Polyhymnia on May 20, 2021 3:22:25 GMT
I don't actually think Tony's divisiveness stems from Tony himself. Most people seem to agree his behavior isn't good. I actually think the true point of division is people who think the narrative has done a good job presenting Tony and those who think it has done a lackluster one. I fall into the latter category. Here's why: 1: I do not think the discussion of Tony, in comic,has lived up to the potential signified by his return. 2: I believe the comic is in fact taking a stand about what the "right" conclusion is about Tony and how Annie should interact with him 3: I think the comic has devolved into repetition on the subject, with little tension and with the plot not advancing. Thanks for writing this (the whole post) out! I feel like I finally understand some of the reasons people have felt the story has been "flat" lately. I haven't had the same reaction, but now I can see why others may be bored or frustrated or let down.
|
|
|
Post by faiiry on May 20, 2021 5:31:58 GMT
I both see myself in Tony as an autistic person who has nearly identical problems with socializing, and strongly dislike him and believe he's an abusive father as someone who has a similar parent in my life. I'm able to empathize with both sides. I don't think the character of Tony was necessarily invented specifically to divide everyone? He's just a complex, morally grey character who inspires a lot of debate, and his existence is a sign that the comic is compellingly well-written, IMO. He's not a villain and he's not a hero--he's just a flawed person working through his own trauma and inadvertently harming his daughter in the process. "It doesn't excuse it, just explains it," as Annie said. Reminds me of this poem (not sure if I should warn for strong language, but warning for strong language): www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48419/this-be-the-verse
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 20, 2021 7:11:21 GMT
My two cents: Too Long; Didn't Read version: Anthony works as a mirror or litmus test because his treatment of Antimony is very marginal and there's still stuff we don't know about him. People fill in the blanks with their own experience, which isn't necessarily bad. I think we can all agree he's sub-optimal as a dad. He does appear to have issues and I do not condemn him for that. I am somehow both disappointed and unsurprised whenever he doesn't overcome his issues. Long Version: I've hashed this out in previous posts over the years and I don't think that Anthony's treatment of Antimony quite rises to the level of abuse but it is really close. There's three particular areas of concern. They do overlap and intertwine but I think dividing them this way is useful. First is neglect. Looks like nobody was watching her when Surma slept. At the Court not only was there apparently no "dorm mother" that we know of and there's an issue of physical safety. Antimony's wandering could have had a lot worse consequences then they did... but the argument can be raised that sending her to the Court meets a minimum standard; then again teaching her lockpicking allowed her to escape from where she was supposed to be both at Good Hope and in the Court. Second on the list of concerns is emotional development. Since it wasn't in the comic I'm guessing Antimony didn't have any friends of note when she was at Good Hope and her parents didn't arrange play-dates or anything like that. Any kids her own age she met were just passing through one way or another. Antimony did struggle in the early days of the comic but she did make friends when she got to the Court and she is/was able to execute the basics of school... only to resort to cheating when she reached topics she struggled with. At first she complied with detentions, then as there were no immediate consequences for blowing them off she blew them off. And then there was that time she judo-flipped Winsbury because he was hassling Kat (probably) which I speculate wasn't why Anthony taught her self-defense. Of those things, and all the rest of the times Antimony struggled with her emotions, it's possible to give passes because Antimony is a kid and kids struggle with emotions in any case. Was she denied the tools for dealing with her emotions is another question. I'll speculate that Antimony acted the way she acted because that's how she was taught to act, intentionally or otherwise. Surma probably comforted Antimony when she cried; I'm unsure what she did when Antimony threw a tantrum, but I am sure Surma didn't withhold affection. Anthony, I suspect, did. We don't know what Anthony's backstory is but there's a decent chance he interacted with Antimony the way he did because that's how his parent(s) raised him. I do not think he would reward anything he saw as emotional outbursts or anything else childish. I imagine a toddler-Antimony falling down and crying, and Anthony just staring at her until she stopped, at which point he would pick her up and carry her back to Surma's room. This would lead to Antimony chasing her father's approval and affection, the former of which she would have gotten on the rare instance when he could see her acting the way he would act. The latter, affection, she likely had to infer from the time he spent educating and training her; I'm not sure she tangibly experienced anything more until she was twinned by "Loup." However, Anthony sending Antimony to the Court where people other than him are responsible for Antimony's education and care (i.e. pushing her off onto the Donlans and the other staff) is arguably an effort to give her what she needs. Last on the list of concerns is what I'll label as Anthony's projections. There's a couple of things I've posted about before that I'll group together here. He raised Antimony to act like him so I speculate that he thinks Antimony thinks and feels like he does, therefore he treats Antimony sometimes as he would want to be treated and she doesn't object because he trained her not to. Now, nobody's a mind reader irl so when in absence of better information that's better than nothing; the great thing about the Golden Rule is that it's scalable, what it dictates changes depending on knowledge and sophistication. In some instances I'm sure it was useful but I think it's clear that what Anthony's doing does not lead to productive results generally speaking. Despite what he's said about wanting out of his mind cage I think that some interactions (or lack thereof) he justifies by projecting his preferences onto her. Most pointed: How could Antimony want to live with the man who killed her mother, he asks, and so he ditched her in accordance with her wishes..? And finally, he can't stop seeing Surma when he looks at Antimony. That's also understandable to an extent. It can be unhealthy, and that is probably what led to his public deconstruction of Antimony's appearance when he returned, which is often cited as abusive on the forum. Additionally, I wonder if he does have some resentment against Antimony for Surma's death. Sure, he blames himself. He tried to save Surma and couldn't. Yes, Surma meant a lot to him. But after Surma died he sends Antimony to the Court and goes on his research tour, part of which was aimed at bringing Surma back. Meanwhile, Antimony has no way to contact him. Neither do the Donlans or anyone the Donlans asked, apparently. Was he intending to return at all? Not to the Court, at least, probably not at all if he couldn't retrieve Surma. There's some room for interpretation in his words. In any case, in taking all the blame for Surma's death he may be unable to acknowledge any resentment he might feel for Antimony's innocent yet undeniable role in taking his wife away from him, even before her death. If he doesn't acknowledge it he can't really deal with it. Anthony has some good points, which should be mentioned in passing. I doubt he ever hit Antimony or lost his temper with her even though that's never been referenced in the comic. He taught Antimony a few useful things. And he does love her. Anthony is a nuanced character, to be sure. Is he a good dad? Nope. Is he a bad dad? I think he's pretty crappy. Is he an abusive dad? Unless something new comes out in the comic that changes things I've gotta say no, not quite. Emotionally distant? Yep. Insecure? I think so. Neglectful? A bit. Self-absorbed? Possibly. Does he have issues? Clearly so, though what they are can be argued over. As a character I find it disappointing when we've seen him wrestle with his issues again and again and hasn't had much success. Maybe we can all agree that Anthony is marginal. He's not evil. People can and have built well-reasoned cases for him being abusive, and I agree with many of their points, but he's clearly no monster. We still don't know that much about him, and I think that's why he is a good "mirror" for the forum, as DonDueed put it, though I'd rather say litmus test since we're sorta looking at a range of conclusions between two particular poles as people use their own lived experiences to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. I have no idea if the character Anthony was created to make the readers reflect on themselves or their own experiences but I think he is a successful character because he has done so. Another version of a dad might have been more exciting to read about, or less disappointing, but nevertheless I am still reading and enjoying the comic.
|
|
|
Post by aline on May 20, 2021 7:30:58 GMT
You can argue that about Renard, but she didn't subjugate Ysengrin, she just ran away. She also didn't subjugate Coyote, the architect of her murder attempt. Her grasping her own powerlessness in that situation was actually the point of that chapter. Ysengrin told her that he couldn't remember his fit of rage and that he'd never hurt her and she went "ok", and that is such a typical stage of the abuse cycle. I just don't think it makes sense to equate the behavior of a literal trickster god to that of a child's human parent. If I were considering giving this book to a kid, I would have no concern that they would develop unhealthy patterns for dealing with trickster gods. Both Ysengrin and Coyote took on the role of friends and mentors. You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you, personally, care about one instance of unhealthy relationship and not about the other. Children internalize these things whether or not the characters are humans or talking rabbits or elfs. I can tell you I knew I wouldn't put this comic in a child's lap when Coyote sexually harrassed 12 yo Annie and it was glossed over.
|
|
|
Post by sebastian on May 20, 2021 8:21:45 GMT
Sebastian, yeah, IMO he really is a bad father. If I emotionally devastate my child and repeatedly humiliate her in front of all of her friends and peers, then never apologize but just gradually stop doing the bad stuff a little, I'm not a good father. Repeteadly? I remember three times. One , in front of the class, which I already mentioned, a second at the Donlan's home and a last at the lab, Are there are others that I have missed? and I think we disagree on how the cage work, I believe that you think that the cage just limit his options but he can still decide what to do, the way i see it even if he want to something his body just refuse to do it, kinda like playing a flying simulator using a Pong controller. He could not apologize to her more than he could have asked Brinnie if she wanted to come to their group date.or, for another example, remember the time when to avoid a discussion with Annie he got out of the house without shoes, and he didn't even noticed until much later? Does it sound to you like someone which is in control of his actions? To use your 'fist cage' as an example it is not that you punch everyone that come close, but every time you try to touch someone, even as a caress, or an handshake ... you punch them. So, of course, you avoid to touch anyone, even your own daughter, especially your daughter and people come to see you as cold, distant, aloof and a bit of jerk. When he even demanded her love? Are we even reading the same comic? So, what you suggest Antony does? and remember that he is not here because he wanted to. If it was for him he would have wanted to die in the wilderness. he only come back because the Court threatened to kick Annie out if he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 20, 2021 8:32:56 GMT
OK, I'm pretty sure I'm in the 99th percentile of pro-Tonyness (abandoning Annie was abusive neglect, the makeup thing was abusively harsh, everything else is understandable), so I feel bound to represent. Also I like to hear myself talk. And, mild content warning: This is going to be a very race-conscious analysis. I'm black, mostly, and I've done a lot of teaching at mostly-black inner-city schools. Anthony Carver is not black, of course--though the name and the awkwardness and the polymathery and the vanished parents are a bit suggestive for American readers--but I think it's key to his character that he's raising a mixed-race child in a racially unequal society. Speaking of which, let's review how the Court is not a very nice place for many of of its inhabitants. Robots are a slave caste, destroyed if they malfunction, forbidden from miscegenation with humans, forbidden to leave the Court, and currently having their bodies hijacked because nobody really valued their minds anyway. Etheric beings are generally barred from even entering the Court, unless they're enslaved like Renard and (perhaps) Hetty. The one exception we've met (IIRC) is Basil the Minotaur, but I suspect that his comical inauthenticity illustrates exactly how far an etheric has to change itself to become Court-acceptable. Meanwhile, etherically tainted humans--oh I'm sorry, "persons with a predetermination towards etheric sciences"--get sequestered in Chester House, where they can be properly identified as freaks and weirdos, unless they learn to pass and can join the Better People in Queslett. Forest animals and fairies have to literally die to immigrate, and then are given new bodies of whatever sex the Court prefers, and work crunching data 7 days a week until someone from the master race decides they deserve a name. Happily they don't mind too much because of their shared dreamworld, but I'm pretty sure the Court has no idea about that. Ordinary animals are used for lethal medical experiments, despite the fact that when Paz is around they can talk.Even if you're a normal-ish human, of course, you still face oppression. Children are required to live separately from their families, and everyone's under constant surveillance via tracking devices in their food. And if you're troublesome enough or Forest-loving enough to be expelled...well, we've never met anyone who was expelled from the Court, have we? Except Jeanne. I wonder what happened to the rest of them? Oh, and did you notice that the Court basically bought Paz from her family? Think about that when you're wondering why she's willing to do those experiments, and why she's so much more conformist than her girlfriend, and why she feels bound to police Annie's deviant behavior for Kat's sake. So: the Court is a human supremacist, apartheid, dehumanizing surveillance state. I don't bring this up to condemn the people who live there; lots of readers live in similar places, and it's not anybody's fault! But I understand that for people like Annie, halfblood wilful witchy Forest-lovers like Annie , the Court is perilous. And Tony knows its perils, and hates them, bitterly. And that motivates his everything.
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on May 20, 2021 8:40:48 GMT
So let's explore Tony, shall we? Tony abandoned Annie when he sent her to the Court.Yup. Because he thought he was not worthy of her. Because he feared that he was an unfit parent. Because even a dead Surma would be a better parent than he could ever be, if he could manage to call her back. He was wrong to think this, of course, and still more wrong to suddenly flee without a ghost of an explanation. But Eglamore thinks he'd be better off out of Annie's life, and so do a huge number of readers. Why wouldn't Tony think that? Many parents have spiraled downward and ended up agonizing over whether to surrender their child to the state, temporarily or permanently. They can't just "be better" instead; they don't have the strength or the support, or the faith that someone of their color/gender/ orientation/neurodivergence could be a better parent. Oppression gets internalized. (Note to fellow survivors: I recognize that many other neglectful parents, including those of some posters here, are very different characters. My father and stepfather were a sadist and a narcissist, respectively, and they abandoned children with breathtaking ease. But they also would never have come back to a Court for their children's sake, and they never expressed remorse, to their friends or their family or anyone else. My experience is only my experience, but I really don't think Tony is that sort.) Tony was excessively--abusively--harsh to Annie in the classroom.Yes, he was. In Between the World and Me, Tah-Nehisi Coates writes of his terrified, abusive father and the many other terrified, abusive parents he heard about from his friends: That speaks to me, and to many other black and brown folk. I've told this story before, but I teach inner city K-12, and I've had a mother march her truant daughter into my class in clown makeup. While playing fucking circus music on her cell phone. Hurtful? Absolutely. Humiliating? You bet. Abusive? Fuck yes, and I spent an hour playing therapist/ peace activist with the two of them before documenting and raising my alarm to the administration. But you know what they said? And what other teachers and parents that I fully respected said? "Well, I wouldn't handle my kid that way, but I hope it made a difference to [[Annie]]. She's ignored a lot of warnings until now, and when she's out on her own, ain't nobody else gonna give her a warning." They are not wrong. I guarantee you, in terms of 10-years-shorter lifespan, star students dying from ignored health issues, tent cities, hanging judges and brutal police, they are not wrong. Quantitatively, PM-me-if-you-need-links-ively, they are not wrong. These children don't get second chances. Tony was not wrong. He was abusive, he should have chosen a better way, he caused her unnecessary shame, but he was not wrong. A shamed Annie is still better than an Annie who gets the Jeanne treatment. Think I'm exaggerating there? Annie is now "guilty" of freeing Jeanne and destroying the Court's security system. Both young women privately enraged the Court's masters with their defiant, Court-snubbing, Forest-loving ways. And Annie's powers and combat skills would make her a very effective watchghost. Merely locking down her powers, wiping her memory, and dumping her on a street corner is the best-case scenario for how the Court might dispose of her; the worst case is Jeanne. Tony somehow charmed Kat into being his admirer, and she forgot all about Annie's pain.No, that did not happen. Remember that Tony was the first person to learn about Juliette and Arthur's relationship, and he has protected them and worked to help them escape the Court. That is why he started working with Kat, and that is why Kat was so coy about her change of heart: because Juliette and Arthur had not yet signed off on revealing their secret to Annie. This is life or death for them. Tony treated the twin Annies differently.Sure he did, because they were distinct people with distinct histories, and deserved distinct responses. Didja also notice that Forest Annie was a DREAMer? A literal teenage immigrant, stumbling out of the Forest, without documents or accompanying family, facing indefinite detention, with Eglamore's loud approval? Tony put a stop to that, and welcomed her into his family, despite his first reaction being the exact same hatred and suspicion that other Courtiers felt toward Fannie. Tony's actually very good at rising above his hatred. (His anxiety, not so much.) Tony's habitual speech and body language are inherently abusive and alienating to Annie, so that she's not confident in his love.Pull the BOY!ing other one. Have you noticed Annie? Have you noticed her doing the same by-our-lady things as Tony, and reaping the same rewards from baffled classmates? She speaks his language, and he speaks hers. Maybe imperfectly, maybe frustratingly imperfectly, but a far sight better than anyone else in this comic--her closest friends including. Of course she knows he loves her. There is IIRC exactly one page where Annie even doubts that for a moment. (And if you're going to bring up The Look, IMO that is also Tony and Annie speaking the same language, and Surma totally Not Getting It.) As I've noted before, Tony has yet to appear in Annie's Zimmingham. She's simply not worried about him that way.
|
|
laaaa
Full Member
Posts: 214
|
Post by laaaa on May 20, 2021 12:52:26 GMT
I just don't think it makes sense to equate the behavior of a literal trickster god to that of a child's human parent. If I were considering giving this book to a kid, I would have no concern that they would develop unhealthy patterns for dealing with trickster gods. Both Ysengrin and Coyote took on the role of friends and mentors. You're just trying to rationalize the fact that you, personally, care about one instance of unhealthy relationship and not about the other. Children internalize these things whether or not the characters are humans or talking rabbits or elfs. I can tell you I knew I wouldn't put this comic in a child's lap when Coyote sexually harrassed 12 yo Annie and it was glossed over. Eh, they are still animals and it's been stated in the comic that their behavior is not supposed to be fully humane. I think their mentoring abilities should be taken with a grain of salt. And children in books do all kinds of unrealistic stuff: they save the world, fight in wars, battle evil noseless wizards etc. By the same line of thought I shouldn't let my kids read Harry Potter because they might think they have to take a burglar head on if one breaks into the house. Parents need to discuss such things with their children, and focus on real life examples. Whether or not GC is a comic appropriate for children is another discussion, but I'd like to point out the first panel of this page: www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2465"I'll probably never experience that side of him again" THAT is an extremely valuable lesson. The wrong-doer/toxic/abusive person might NEVER improve. NEVER. Not during the victim's lifetime. An abuser-victim relationship is a very complicated one, but one of the many reasons the victim stays is because they hope the abuser will improve if they just get enough love. If they try hard enough. And that is part of the trap. Because if you have to withstand 1 year of abuse for you to transform (with your love) the abuser to a wonderful, hard-working, emotional person who is absolutely devoted to you for the rest of your long life then sure, go ahead. It's worth it. But what about 3 years of abuse? 5? 10? 30? 50? 80? All your life? When I was a child I read an article explaining how some abusers never improve, NEVER, and it pretty much shook me to my core, and to this day I feel like it has helped me escape/avoid some dangerous relationships. I've walked into a potentially toxic relationship with quite a different mindset, placing a lot more effective boundaries etc by keeping the thought "they might never improve" in my mind. So I'm not really worried about GC's message about toxic situations, but then again that's based solely on my experience.
|
|