|
|
Post by todd on Jul 19, 2022 0:49:39 GMT
Maybe Robot will try offering Loup useful information in taking down the Court (the human portion of it) in return for giving his word to leave the robots and New People alone (a promise that Loup might decide not to keep, of course, though he'd most likely wait until after disposing of the Court before doing that).
|
|
|
|
Post by stef1987 on Jul 19, 2022 7:37:01 GMT
Most certainly it's S13's choice of how his avatar looks like. If Kat is the Angel, why does S13 need to make himself look like an angel to the robots in transition as well? Adherents of the big monotheistic religions would not approve of their clerics to dress up as their God.
On the other hand, many real world religions include or have included its priests and priestesses dressing up as the Divine beings they worship. So whether one finds it strange or presumptuous for a priest to costume as the being he claims to worship might just be a question of the culture one grew up in.
But he doesn't displace Kat and he clearly states he's not an angel |
|
|
|
Post by blahzor on Jul 19, 2022 8:19:04 GMT
Most certainly it's S13's choice of how his avatar looks like. If Kat is the Angel, why does S13 need to make himself look like an angel to the robots in transition as well? Adherents of the big monotheistic religions would not approve of their clerics to dress up as their God.
On the other hand, many real world religions include or have included its priests and priestesses dressing up as the Divine beings they worship. So whether one finds it strange or presumptuous for a priest to costume as the being he claims to worship might just be a question of the culture one grew up in.
But he doesn't displace Kat and he clearly states he's not an angel Why he dress like one then |
|
|
|
Post by stef1987 on Jul 19, 2022 11:46:49 GMT
But he doesn't displace Kat and he clearly states he's not an angel Why he dress like one then No idea. I just meant it doesn't look to me like he's trying to get rid of Kat, replace her, or pretend to be her, but he is obviously doing stuff behind her back. (also, I wouldn't call the way he looked to be "dressed like an angel", except for the last page in that chapter where he got wings, cause as far as I know that's the only way to look like one) |
|
|
|
Post by stef1987 on Jul 19, 2022 11:56:13 GMT
When did Robot stop caring about Annie? I imagine we've been shown this lack of concern before, but I don't remember. Who says he doesn't care about her? I mean I know he didn't specify her to Loup, but I'm guessing he either thought that was too much too ask for and is prioritizing, or (less likely) he just considers Annie to be part of Kat's gang and as such it's implied Loup should leave her alone as well. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 19, 2022 19:29:58 GMT
Okay, I get the Robot is amoral and his biggest concern is ensuring the Robot religious awakening, but I don't see how bringing it up to Loup is a more effective way to deal with it then bringing this up to Annie or saying nothing. Kat is going to be mildly to majorly distracted until Loup is dealt with, and while they don't have a plan to deal with Loup, protecting him seems like just delaying a potential explosion. Like if all he is asking Loup to do is leave him and Kat alone I don't see why he would bring it up at all unless he thinks Loups plan is messing with his work, in which case Robot trusting him to not mess with the plan in exchange for silence is silly. Maybe it will become clear in a few pages, but I legit don't understand the gain Robot is hoping for here. Unless he also plans on telling the gang and doing a double set up, I don't see how this doesn't work against Robtic interests. I don't think he's going for direct gain - I just think he wants to make sure he can finish his plan. Get new bodies for all of the robots and get them out of the court... Not sure he cares about collateral damage or damage to humans at all, and he is very uninterested in human soap operas.
Right, but thats why I dont yet understand Robots play here. He just cares about his plan, cool makes sense. Loup is either interfering with the plan, not interfering with the plan, or a potential problem. If he isnt currently interfering, how does making Loup aware his disguise was busted help? Just let it play out and cover for him without exposing yourself. If he is interfering, why would you believe exposing him and asking nicely would work? He isn't going to alter his goals easily. If he is a potentially issue down the road, he remains a potential issue down the road regardless of what he says, and making yourself an ally also makes you a target. I dunno, seems like a bad play by Robot for now. I'm sure it'll be expanded on. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 19, 2022 21:11:12 GMT
Another thing: If Robot was telling the truth in the previous page, he's suspected Jerrek since shortly after meeting him. If he's telling the truth about this deal he's proposing, he's been concealing this suspicion from Kat and most everybody else for some time.
That whole catching "Loup" plan still seems a bit wonky to me even if Antimony felt she couldn't draw on the resources of Eggers and Parley but it makes more sense if they had made some efforts to counter or discover efforts by "Loup" to infiltrate or surveil Antimony, Renard, and other high-value targets and those efforts hadn't borne fruit. Maybe this was just the robots being alerted to watch for wolves, maybe this was more complex, we don't know at this point. As time dragged on and nothing seemed to happen, Antimony would have felt the need to do something and, perhaps starting to question her own evaluation of the situation, she/they defaulted to a lower-insight paradigm and sought "Loup" among the other forest creatures. That's not a bad strategy in absence of other information, since the factors that draw forest critters to a spot could also cause another forest critter to be there, but they did have better information. Their efforts had been subverted which made them lose faith in what they thought they knew, apparently.
But then, was Robot also telling the truth about Jerrek being found out immediately if he dies (also interesting that he uses the word "dead")? If this was a chance encounter then Shadow 2 might be hiding nearby, and he could blab what happened to Robot, but that's unlikely. I don't think Robot would confront "Loup" with Shadow 2 nearby for fear of his safety, and though it could be a misdirection Robot seems to be saying he's suspected Jerrek for a good while. Robot may also have some sort of communications port that would allow him to make a near-instant communication to some other NPCs but he would still have to use it faster than "Loup" can destroy him and that carries some risk. However, if Robot has been planning to approach and confront Jerrek then he could easily have planned things out with the other Seraphs; if the plan to make a deal falls through then the best course of action to protect the Angel and The Plan would be to out Jerrek at some point when Jerrek wasn't around. Maybe there are other Seraphs hanging around watching, or maybe they're just waiting far away to hear the results, or not hear back from Robot. One might expect Robot would send another more disposable Seraph in his place to confront Jerrek but I guess he believed "Loup" would figure out Robot was behind, since the call-out depended on Robot's knowledge of NPCs, and kill him anyway.
...but hey, maybe this whole thing is a double-bluff and "Loup" is being led into a much more complex trap. Remains to be seen?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sky Schemer on Jul 20, 2022 1:38:02 GMT
I don't think he's going for direct gain - I just think he wants to make sure he can finish his plan. Get new bodies for all of the robots and get them out of the court... Not sure he cares about collateral damage or damage to humans at all, and he is very uninterested in human soap operas.
I dunno, seems like a bad play by Robot for now. I'm sure it'll be expanded on. I think folks are reading too much into it. From Robot's perspective, the Plan had been going well. But then Loup comes into the Court in disguise and is around doing random stuff and basically being a force for chaos, and chaos and The Plan do not mesh. They are Apple and Samsung. So Robot steps in and says, "play your games if you want, but don't mess with The Plan". Why not out Loup to the others? Because that would disrupt The Plan, too, by bringing in unwanted attention from the Court. So of three bad options--do nothing, tell someone, and deal with it himself--he chooses one he has some control over: confront Loup and coerce/bluff compliance. That, and Robot is a "deal with it myself" kind of guy. |
|
|
|
Post by jda on Jul 20, 2022 3:53:01 GMT
Imagine if Robbie started taking his body mods upon himself sans the Angel, only to emerge looking like goddamn Diego. Something about that is very 'Animal Farm'. Diego all along wanted to be a red headed angel and be with Jeanne She died and we did nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by jda on Jul 20, 2022 4:35:02 GMT
By the way, where has Shadow been all this time?
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jul 20, 2022 11:23:09 GMT
We haven't seen any evidence so far that Loup is able to create a convincing fake version of anyone but himself. That by itself would be enough. Jerrek et al could watch in horror as "Loup" ran by with Robot's remains in his mouth. Alibi established. I just explained in the rest of my post why knowing Loup killed S13 would logically lead to the realization he's posing as an NP. Annie's not dumb, she knows Coyote could be in more than one place at once, sooner or later she has to realize if Coyote could do it then chances are good Loup can do it as well. It's much more convenient for Loup if he can be sure that S13, when asked if he has seen any NP acting suspicious, will say "no, they're all clean".
Also, why do you keep on putting quotes around Loup's name in your posts? Are you doubting that's his real name?
I don't think he's going for direct gain - I just think he wants to make sure he can finish his plan. Get new bodies for all of the robots and get them out of the court... Not sure he cares about collateral damage or damage to humans at all, and he is very uninterested in human soap operas.
Right, but thats why I dont yet understand Robots play here. He just cares about his plan, cool makes sense. Loup is either interfering with the plan, not interfering with the plan, or a potential problem. If he isnt currently interfering, how does making Loup aware his disguise was busted help? Just let it play out and cover for him without exposing yourself. If he is interfering, why would you believe exposing him and asking nicely would work? He isn't going to alter his goals easily. If he is a potentially issue down the road, he remains a potential issue down the road regardless of what he says, and making yourself an ally also makes you a target. I dunno, seems like a bad play by Robot for now. I'm sure it'll be expanded on. Maybe his "friends" being distracted by Loup and not paying attention to how S13 leads the NP project is precisely what he wants right now. |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on Jul 20, 2022 16:05:19 GMT
When did Robot stop caring about Annie? I imagine we've been shown this lack of concern before, but I don't remember. Who says he doesn't care about her? I mean I know he didn't specify her to Loup, but I'm guessing he either thought that was too much too ask for and is prioritizing, or (less likely) he just considers Annie to be part of Kat's gang and as such it's implied Loup should leave her alone as well. Loup is obsessed with Annie and everyone knows it. It's like half the reason he's doing all this stuff. Robot isn't dumb, he would know that he'd have to specifically mention Annie if he wanted her included in this. More than that, though, Loup wouldn't agree if Annie was involved in the deal. If Robot cared about Annie then he would tell Annie about Loup instead of doing whatever this is. "Prioritizing" in this situation amounts to throwing Annie under the bus. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 20, 2022 18:35:05 GMT
That by itself would be enough. Jerrek et al could watch in horror as "Loup" ran by with Robot's remains in his mouth. Alibi established. I just explained in the rest of my post why knowing Loup killed S13 would logically lead to the realization he's posing as an NP. Annie's not dumb, she knows Coyote could be in more than one place at once, sooner or later she has to realize if Coyote could do it then chances are good Loup can do it as well. It's much more convenient for Loup if he can be sure that S13, when asked if he has seen any NP acting suspicious, will say "no, they're all clean". I agree completely. Better at maintaining his cover isn't the same as best strategy, though. If his cover's blown, and even if Robot/S13 cooperates it's still blown to an extent, then I think his best available option is to neutralize the immediate and obvious threat and then run a replacement Jerrek for a while. He might even be able to get information through the divine digestion process about what contingencies Robot might have put in place but either way I'd argue it's better to find out fast how durable the cover is then risk getting played down the line. The Scooby gang might be able to come up with a trap that works and lead him right into it. "Loup" has lots of powers; he can always do something else. He's really only limited by his own imagination, patience, and his knowledge of human behavior/society. If he discovers the internet is a thing he could steal her phone, disguise himself as her, and make cringe TikTok vids until she coughs up the Tooth, for example. Also, why do you keep on putting quotes around Loup's name in your posts? Are you doubting that's his real name? It's his real name in the sense that he started calling himself that and other people have gone along with it. While it's true that "Loup" =/= Coyote and "Loup" =/= Ysengrin, "Loup" is pretty much just Ysengrin drunk on/attempting to adapt to Coyote's powers after a few self-made tweaks. I made a big post about that a while back. As time passes "Loup" is becoming more different than he was but I'm sticking with the quotes until he does something decidedly un-Ysengrin. If I'd known Jerrek was "Loup" I'd have been putting Jerrek in quotes this whole time as well. I suppose I should go back and put Jerrek in quotes in my previous posts for consistency but it would be a chore. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbit on Jul 20, 2022 20:06:13 GMT
If I'd known Jerrek was "Loup" I'd have been putting Jerrek in quotes this whole time as well. I suppose I should go back and put Jerrek in quotes in my previous posts for consistency but it would be a chore. Sheesh - if I wanted to do chores, I wouldn't spend so much time reading webcomics  |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 21, 2022 0:04:41 GMT
It's his real name in the sense that he started calling himself that and other people have gone along with it. While it's true that "Loup" =/= Coyote and "Loup" =/= Ysengrin, "Loup" is pretty much just Ysengrin drunk on/attempting to adapt to Coyote's powers after a few self-made tweaks. I made a big post about that a while back. As time passes "Loup" is becoming more different than he was but I'm sticking with the quotes until he does something decidedly un-Ysengrin. Shocker, I'm confused. I thought you were in the "Cannie+Fannie=new Annie" camp. By that logic Ysengrin+Coyete=New lifeform. Even if it is just a new and more powerful Ysengrin, isn't he a separate entity? Wouldn't he be able to choose a new name and have it apply to him by virtue of that newness alone? Had combined Annie decided to be called Beth, would you still use quotes to signify the new life is still essentially Annie? I'm only asking this up because you're smart and I respect your insights into complex topics like this. I am most likely wrong about your postion and/or have missed or forgotten some point you already made. I'm looking at your post history and can't find anything do to with these topics, inculding the long post you referred to, no doubt because of fourm searching incompetence and a lack of patience on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 21, 2022 1:40:54 GMT
It's his real name in the sense that he started calling himself that and other people have gone along with it. While it's true that "Loup" =/= Coyote and "Loup" =/= Ysengrin, "Loup" is pretty much just Ysengrin drunk on/attempting to adapt to Coyote's powers after a few self-made tweaks. I made a big post about that a while back. As time passes "Loup" is becoming more different than he was but I'm sticking with the quotes until he does something decidedly un-Ysengrin. Shocker, I'm confused. I thought you were in the "Cannie+Fannie=new Annie" camp. By that logic Ysengrin+Coyete=New lifeform. Even if it is just a new and more powerful Ysengrin, isn't he a separate entity? Wouldn't he be able to choose a new name and have it apply to him by virtue of that newness alone? Had combined Annie decided to be called Beth, would you still use quotes to signify the new life is still essentially Annie? I'm only asking this up because you're smart and I respect your insights into complex topics like this. I am most likely wrong about your postion and/or have missed or forgotten some point you already made. I'm looking at your post history and can't find anything do to with these topics, inculding the long post you referred to, no doubt because of fourm incompetence and a lack of patience on my part. Thanks, the smartness that I appear to have comes from the indexes people have made and the wiki. And from overthinking the comic for a long time. Yeah, Proboards search is trash so I can't find it either. It's more than ten pages back in my recent posts but I know I did a write-up on my position on the whole "is Loup or is Loup not Ys" topic at least once. Yes, I do think that he is a new being but he's mostly Ysengrin with tweaks and a big upgrade. Same with FAnnie + Courtnie = NAnnie where NAnnie > Annie(2) but these are fantastic concepts that are tough to reconcile with conventional thinking so we have to be veeeery careful with language and definitions or the nominally right answer can lead you to the wrong conclusions. ...I have a copy of the collected works of Aristotle almost within reach but will fight the urge. Say you take the board and hard drive from an old desktop tower and put it into a bigger tower, add some new sticks and a fancy graphics card, plug it into a LAN, download some new drivers and updates, change the name. Is it the same computer? You can make a case either way but it doesn't look the same, components aren't the same, and it can do way more things... and maybe it can't do some things it used to and some things it used to have are gone... so I'm going with no, it's different. If even the smallest part had changed I think it's accurate to say it's different. Is it new? Sure, but we have to be careful with language and definitions and make sure we apply that answer correctly. The OS isn't exactly the same but operates more or less like it did before. Applying Plug & Play concept to mythic wolf getting god powers and then eating an unpowered god: He can do stuff he couldn't and is plugged into etheric stuff he wasn't before. He got memories back that he didn't know were stolen. He redesigned his exterior. Physically, he can do more stuff now. When he walked into that tree he probably left anything remaining of his original flesh and blood wolf body behind; maybe he reconstituted it exactly with continuity between but I doubt it. I figure he changed some things about his personality that he didn't like. The mind is the plaything software of the body and is changing in response to becoming "Loup" and "Jerrek" and his new experiences, some of which he couldn't experience as Ysengrin before. You've gotta say "Loup" is not Ysengrin. However... That self, that mind, the will, that important bit of Ysengrin that said "I" is the primary and continuous driver of why "Loup" does what he does In My Humble Opinion. In that sense he's mostly just Ysengrin. That's what's responsible for the problems he's experienced controlling things. That mind is now different enough from what it was that a distinction can be made but I believe the goals and perspectives of Ysengrin are, for better and worse, still in the driver's seat as of this current update. This will change. It's already started changing. I'm waiting for the first time Jerrek does something that Ysengrin or "Loup" would never do as a benchmark of how far how fast things are going, because there's two boards in that big new tower, the old one pulled from that old desktop that could barely handle OpenGL1.3 and the high end one the tower came with. Hopefully the Ysengrin board gets yanked and Jerrek.app gets backed up before the tower goes back to the manufacturer and returns refurbished and factory reset. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 21, 2022 4:31:01 GMT
Shocker, I'm confused. I thought you were in the "Cannie+Fannie=new Annie" camp. By that logic Ysengrin+Coyete=New lifeform. Even if it is just a new and more powerful Ysengrin, isn't he a separate entity? Wouldn't he be able to choose a new name and have it apply to him by virtue of that newness alone? Had combined Annie decided to be called Beth, would you still use quotes to signify the new life is still essentially Annie? I'm only asking this up because you're smart and I respect your insights into complex topics like this. I am most likely wrong about your postion and/or have missed or forgotten some point you already made. I'm looking at your post history and can't find anything do to with these topics, inculding the long post you referred to, no doubt because of fourm incompetence and a lack of patience on my part. Thanks, the smartness that I appear to have comes from the indexes people have made and the wiki. And from overthinking the comic for a long time. Yeah, Proboards search is trash so I can't find it either. It's more than ten pages back in my recent posts but I know I did a write-up on my position on the whole "is Loup or is Loup not Ys" topic at least once. Yes, I do think that he is a new being but he's mostly Ysengrin with tweaks and a big upgrade. Same with FAnnie + Courtnie = NAnnie where NAnnie > Annie(2) but these are fantastic concepts that are tough to reconcile with conventional thinking so we have to be veeeery careful with language and definitions or the nominally right answer can lead you to the wrong conclusions. ...I have a copy of the collected works of Aristotle almost within reach but will fight the urge. Say you take the board and hard drive from an old desktop tower and put it into a bigger tower, add some new sticks and a fancy graphics card, plug it into a LAN, download some new drivers and updates, change the name. Is it the same computer? You can make a case either way but it doesn't look the same, components aren't the same, and it can do way more things... and maybe it can't do some things it used to and some things it used to have are gone... so I'm going with no, it's different. If even the smallest part had changed I think it's accurate to say it's different. Is it new? Sure, but we have to be careful with language and definitions and make sure we apply that answer correctly. The OS isn't exactly the same but operates more or less like it did before. Applying Plug & Play concept to mythic wolf getting god powers and then eating an unpowered god: He can do stuff he couldn't and is plugged into etheric stuff he wasn't before. He got memories back that he didn't know were stolen. He redesigned his exterior. Physically, he can do more stuff now. When he walked into that tree he probably left anything remaining of his original flesh and blood wolf body behind; maybe he reconstituted it exactly with continuity between but I doubt it. I figure he changed some things about his personality that he didn't like. The mind is the plaything software of the body and is changing in response to becoming "Loup" and "Jerrek" and his new experiences, some of which he couldn't experience as Ysengrin before. You've gotta say "Loup" is not Ysengrin. However... That self, that mind, the will, that important bit of Ysengrin that said "I" is the primary and continuous driver of why "Loup" does what he does In My Humble Opinion. In that sense he's mostly just Ysengrin. That's what's responsible for the problems he's experienced controlling things. That mind is now different enough from what it was that a distinction can be made but I believe the goals and perspectives of Ysengrin are, for better and worse, still in the driver's seat as of this current update. This will change. It's already started changing. I'm waiting for the first time Jerrek does something that Ysengrin or "Loup" would never do as a benchmark of how far how fast things are going, because there's two boards in that big new tower, the old one pulled from that old desktop that could barely handle OpenGL1.3 and the high end one the tower came with. Hopefully the Ysengrin board gets yanked and Jerrek.app gets backed up before the tower goes back to the manufacturer and returns refurbished and factory reset. Im not great with computers but I like this metaphor, it can easily be extended to other relevant to the comic comparisons like identical but newly made original software, being infected by an external virus and oddities of merging incompatible/diffrent operating systems. I dunno if I agree that having a pre owned, identical or similar driving force/soul means that Ysengrin and Loup/the two Annies aren't separate entities, even in a mostly sense. If you transfer all the *correct computer words* from an old computer to a modded iphone, you don't have your old computer even if it has your Oregon Trail save, which I assume is a primary and continuous driver of old computers. Sure it's functionally very similar but even just the interface changing is significant enough to not be classified the exact same. Also if you play that save for a while and then try to put it back into the original old computer you get another entire rabbit hole. And while you may be playing the same game, it isn't the exact same game that you played on the other computer, even if the goals and game play are identical to every version of that game. Edit-"Ysengrin" as we knew him can't exist anymore then pre split Annie can. Even if Loup turns back into Ysengrin, it's not the same Ysengrin it's post Loup Ysengrin. Unless he can get plot amnesia to right before he ate Coyete. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 21, 2022 6:42:55 GMT
I dunno if I agree that having a pre owned, identical or similar driving force/soul means that Ysengrin and Loup/the two Annies aren't separate entities, even in a mostly sense. If you transfer all the *correct computer words* from an old computer to a modded iphone, you don't have your old computer even if it has your Oregon Trail save, which I assume is a primary and continuous driver of old computers. Sure it's functionally very similar but even just the interface changing is significant enough to not be classified the exact same. This is where it gets really complicated. Stuff changes all the time. I am nearly identical to the me that existed twenty-four hours ago but I can perceive some differences (trimmed a hangnail, shed some skin cells, lost a few hairs) and I suffered a discontinuity of consciousness when I went to sleep. If placed on a sensitive enough scale I would not weigh exactly the same. However, I'm nominally the same (I answer to the same name) and to the limits of my perception I'm functionally the same (can do the same stuff as back then) and though I went to sleep there is a continuity of mind and memory. Other people perceive me as being the same individual. If I'd been in a car accident and became a paraplegic my ability to do things would be greatly impacted but I'd still be me. If I suffered traumatic brain injuries people might say that I became a completely different person, but I think I'd still be me (or at least a me) even if I had complete amnesia. On the other hand, if my brain functions permanently ceased my self would be gone even if my body was still alive and looked identical. Assuming you agree that I am the same me as I was twenty-four hours ago though not identical to that past me (and this may not be the case as you are only interacting with text on the internet) I would argue that the key factor in that sameness is the continuity of the mind, or in other words the self is an emergent thing of the mind interacting with the body (and through the body interacting with the environment and other people) and this does not depend on any lack of change, rather change is a necessary part of the process from which identity emerges. If I was comatose I might still be alive but my self would not be verifiable. If you think of a flame, say a fire in a fireplace, the flame continues to exist as long as it has oxygen and fuel (and other conditions are favorable like air flow and ambient temperature) though it may get bigger or smaller depending on the state of the fuel it is using. It may move around on the fuel in the fireplace but it's still the same flame. If it goes out, you can relight it but the continuity of the flame is broken so I would argue that it isn't the same fire even if it looked identical once relit and very little time had passed. Although the distinction in this case is irrelevant, and the only people who would bother to correct them would be people who want credit for relighting the fire, people who weren't there when the fire went out might assume it was the same flame but it is in fact another. Proof that the process ended and was restarted can be found in the pattern of burning on the wood (before it all burns to ash). "Ysengrin" as we knew him can't exist anymore then pre split Annie can. Even if Loup turns back into Ysengrin, it's not the same Ysengrin it's post Loup Ysengrin. Unless he can get plot amnesia to right before he ate Coyete. I agree that Ysengrin cut free from "Loup" would indeed be a drastically changed Ysengrin, but I would also argue that he would still be Ysengrin even if he felt so changed that he could no longer answer to that name. Though the bodily integrity is broken and the flow of consciousness wasn't preserved there is a continuity of mind that the revived individual arose from. Thinking of the ether as a series of flows, the consciousness and memories of Ysengrin are like a log-jam of debris in a particular stream that altogether was Ysengrin. Another bigger flow (Coyote's power) flash-flooded the stream and the stream became a raging river. The log-jam became dislodged and, along with other debris (recovered memories, other stuff) reconstituted itself elsewhere but, I'd estimate, is hanging on by a thread. If the larger flow isn't redirected the stream bed will be carved out deeper and the stream will be gone forever but if it is then the debris could be more or less separated out, refloated, maybe even dragged back upstream a bit. Normally that would require an army of beavers but in this case the female lead has been supplied with a magic knife. Yanking out a Jerrek from the mess would be even harder but we do have god-tier powers in play. I think Jerrek either is or soon will be different enough from "Loup" to make that possible. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jul 21, 2022 20:43:19 GMT
Say you take the board and hard drive from an old desktop tower and put it into a bigger tower, add some new sticks and a fancy graphics card, plug it into a LAN, download some new drivers and updates, change the name. Is it the same computer? You can make a case either way but it doesn't look the same, components aren't the same, and it can do way more things... and maybe it can't do some things it used to and some things it used to have are gone... so I'm going with no, it's different. If even the smallest part had changed I think it's accurate to say it's different. Is it new? Sure, but we have to be careful with language and definitions and make sure we apply that answer correctly. The OS isn't exactly the same but operates more or less like it did before. Applying Plug & Play concept to mythic wolf getting god powers and then eating an unpowered god: He can do stuff he couldn't and is plugged into etheric stuff he wasn't before. He got memories back that he didn't know were stolen. He redesigned his exterior. Physically, he can do more stuff now. When he walked into that tree he probably left anything remaining of his original flesh and blood wolf body behind; maybe he reconstituted it exactly with continuity between but I doubt it. I figure he changed some things about his personality that he didn't like. The mind is the plaything software of the body and is changing in response to becoming "Loup" and "Jerrek" and his new experiences, some of which he couldn't experience as Ysengrin before. You've gotta say "Loup" is not Ysengrin. However... That self, that mind, the will, that important bit of Ysengrin that said "I" is the primary and continuous driver of why "Loup" does what he does In My Humble Opinion. In that sense he's mostly just Ysengrin. That's what's responsible for the problems he's experienced controlling things. That mind is now different enough from what it was that a distinction can be made but I believe the goals and perspectives of Ysengrin are, for better and worse, still in the driver's seat as of this current update. This is all well and good, and while I personally (just out of a gut feeling) don't agree with the assessment that Loup is nothing more than an enhanced Ysengrin at the current point in the story (I agree that he very much seemed to be this immediately after he first appeared), I see the logic to your reasoning. However, even assuming it is fundamentally the same being, then Ysengrin obviously doesn't want to be called Ysengrin any more; his name is Loup now. Even if he's a madman/maddog this choice should be respected. Or, to use an analogue as well, by the same logic Darth Vader's name should forever be put in quotes, since he is just Anakin Skywalker with a cyborg suit and perpetual emotional and physical pain. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 21, 2022 23:01:32 GMT
This is all well and good, and while I personally (just out of a gut feeling) don't agree with the assessment that Loup is nothing more than an enhanced Ysengrin at the current point in the story (I agree that he very much seemed to be this immediately after he first appeared), I see the logic to your reasoning. I'm trying to stake out a position that's more nuanced than, "Loup is nothing more than an enhanced Ysengrin." However, even assuming it is fundamentally the same being, then Ysengrin obviously doesn't want to be called Ysengrin any more; his name is Loup now. Even if he's a madman/maddog this choice should be respected. Or, to use an analogue as well, by the same logic Darth Vader's name should forever be put in quotes, since he is just Anakin Skywalker with a cyborg suit and perpetual emotional and physical pain. If I remember correctly there was a tradition of Sith giving their apprentices new names. If I were on some other board where such things were being discussed I wouldn't put Darth Vader or Kylo Ren in quotes, but if Kylo Ren (formerly Ben Solo) suddenly announced in some canonic movie or graphic novel that his new name was "Darth Vader 2" (Force-Lightning Boogaloo) I would put that in quotes when referencing the character. Suppose I somehow gained super powers and became bigger and floaty. If I then announced my new name was "Human" I suspect any onlookers would also be mentally putting quotes around that name, as well as raising eyebrows. Quotative markers are used to indicate that something was said or written by another writer or speaker. I use the word "Loup" to refer to that character because that's what he said his name was but I add quotes because it's not particularly fitting, there's no social context for it, and I am thinking that this individual isn't going to end the comic with that same name. Are you trying to conflate what I'm doing with deadnaming? |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 21, 2022 23:59:54 GMT
This is all well and good, and while I personally (just out of a gut feeling) don't agree with the assessment that Loup is nothing more than an enhanced Ysengrin at the current point in the story (I agree that he very much seemed to be this immediately after he first appeared), I see the logic to your reasoning. I'm trying to stake out a position that's more nuanced than, "Loup is nothing more than an enhanced Ysengrin." However, even assuming it is fundamentally the same being, then Ysengrin obviously doesn't want to be called Ysengrin any more; his name is Loup now. Even if he's a madman/maddog this choice should be respected. Or, to use an analogue as well, by the same logic Darth Vader's name should forever be put in quotes, since he is just Anakin Skywalker with a cyborg suit and perpetual emotional and physical pain. If I remember correctly there was a tradition of Sith giving their apprentices new names. If I were on some other board where such things were being discussed I wouldn't put Darth Vader or Kylo Ren in quotes, but if Kylo Ren (formerly Ben Solo) suddenly announced in some canonic movie or graphic novel that his new name was "Darth Vader 2" (Force-Lightning Boogaloo) I would put that in quotes when referencing the character. Suppose I somehow gained super powers and became bigger and floaty. If I then announced my new name was "Human" I suspect any onlookers would also be mentally putting quotes around that name, as well as raising eyebrows. Quotative markers are used to indicate that something was said or written by another writer or speaker. I use the word "Loup" to refer to that character because that's what he said his name was but I add quotes because it's not particularly fitting, there's no social context for it, and I am thinking that this individual isn't going to end the comic with that same name. Are you trying to conflate what I'm doing with deadnaming? But Darth Vader did become Anakin in the end. He was still Vader until that moment, but also Anakin. Based on what youve said, it seems like quotes should apply. Loup is either Ysengrin wanting to be called Loup, or he is currently Loup even if he is and will also become Ysengrin. I don't see how another person coming up with the name is relevant. I'm also a little confused how you can reconcile Jerrek being difrent enough from Loup to be a individual, but not feel the same about Loup to Ysengrin. Also my mind didnt go there at first, but it is kinda similar to dead naming now that you mention it.... |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 22, 2022 1:29:23 GMT
But Darth Vader did become Anakin in the end. He was still Vader until that moment, but also Anakin. I don't recall any announced name change for Vader/Anakin though his appearance changed after he died. Based on what youve said, it seems like quotes should apply. Loup is either Ysengrin wanting to be called Loup, or he is currently Loup even if he is and will also become Ysengrin. I don't see how another person coming up with the name is relevant. I'm also a little confused how you can reconcile Jerrek being difrent enough from Loup to be a individual, but not feel the same about Loup to Ysengrin. Social justifications exist for naming, like at birth or christening. They're not the only source of names but they are a source. I did say that I could and/or should be putting Jerrek in quotes too, but didn't know from the start he was "Loup" in disguise. If I'd known I might have (or done something else to indicate that something was up) and I think I'd have been correct if I'd done so. If I'd known Jerrek was "Loup" I'd have been putting Jerrek in quotes this whole time as well. I suppose I should go back and put Jerrek in quotes in my previous posts for consistency but it would be a chore. If you'd said I was being condescending toward "Loup" by putting his name in quotes I'd agree, though I would set forth why I felt that was justified. If you're accusing me of something amounting to deadnaming I gotta categorically reject any validity to that. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 22, 2022 3:37:19 GMT
But Darth Vader did become Anakin in the end. He was still Vader until that moment, but also Anakin. I don't recall any announced name change for Vader/Anakin though his appearance changed after he died. Based on what youve said, it seems like quotes should apply. Loup is either Ysengrin wanting to be called Loup, or he is currently Loup even if he is and will also become Ysengrin. I don't see how another person coming up with the name is relevant. I'm also a little confused how you can reconcile Jerrek being difrent enough from Loup to be a individual, but not feel the same about Loup to Ysengrin. Social justifications exist for naming, like at birth or christening. They're not the only source of names but they are a source. I did say that I could and/or should be putting Jerrek in quotes too, but didn't know from the start he was "Loup" in disguise. If I'd known I might have (or done something else to indicate that something was up) and I think I'd have been correct if I'd done so. If I'd known Jerrek was "Loup" I'd have been putting Jerrek in quotes this whole time as well. I suppose I should go back and put Jerrek in quotes in my previous posts for consistency but it would be a chore. If you'd said I was being condescending toward "Loup" by putting his name in quotes I'd agree, though I would set forth why I felt that was justified. If you're accusing me of something amounting to deadnaming I gotta categorically reject any validity to that. I dunno if it's current cannon, but unless I'm mistaken the topic is covered in Legends cannon in a comic book. Short version is Anakin as ghost is no longer Darth Vader and gets called Anakin. I think the real version is more nuanced then that; living force, consequences and all that jazz. Not like real deadnaming obviously. Just kinda similar in the sense you're using quotes to imply something or other about someone and or their chosen name, which they took based on a big life change. If Loup is really a factually new person or just Ysengrin with new qualities and a new name isnt important. It would be condescending to use the quoting tone or air quotes, were this all real. But the similarity is casual at best and kinda falls apart when I think more about it. You arent talking to Loup or about Loup, you are posting about a character within a comic in fan discussion fourm and what you think his character really is. While I think Loup is mostly a serprate entity from Ysengrin, your theory is very plausible. So the first one I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Jul 23, 2022 22:46:57 GMT
Are you trying to conflate what I'm doing with deadnaming? If I was, I would have said so. Your reasoning for not fully accepting that Loup's name is Loup just strikes me as odd. Even more since you used a typical superhero/supervillain story analogy. In these kind of stories it is convention as well to accept whatever ridiculuous names the characters choose for themselves after becoming superheroes or supervillains. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 24, 2022 1:51:00 GMT
Are you trying to conflate what I'm doing with deadnaming? If I was, I would have said so. Your reasoning for not fully accepting that Loup's name is Loup just strikes me as odd. Even more since you used a typical superhero/supervillain story analogy. In these kind of stories it is convention as well to accept whatever ridiculuous names the characters choose for themselves after becoming superheroes or supervillains. The point of the analogy with the name "Human" was to illustrate that no, not all ridiculous superhero names must be unconditionally accepted. Also: Your assertion that I should respect the wishes of fictional characters strikes me as odd. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Jul 24, 2022 4:49:07 GMT
Your assertion that I should respect the wishes of fictional characters strikes me as odd. As an author, I find that it is almost always a good idea. (But when I'm a reader rather than the author, I recognize that it actually all comes from the author - and I'm free to wonder just how intoxicated the author had to be to do that.) |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 24, 2022 14:06:13 GMT
If I was, I would have said so. Your reasoning for not fully accepting that Loup's name is Loup just strikes me as odd. Even more since you used a typical superhero/supervillain story analogy. In these kind of stories it is convention as well to accept whatever ridiculuous names the characters choose for themselves after becoming superheroes or supervillains. The point of the analogy with the name "Human" was to illustrate that no, not all ridiculous superhero names must be unconditionally accepted. Also: Your assertion that I should respect the wishes of fictional characters strikes me as odd. I'm not sure if you're implying that you use quotes for Superman, Batman, Spiderman and almost all other superhero names, or that these and most superhero names aren't ridiculous. Either way, I dunno if that analogy tracks. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 24, 2022 20:01:16 GMT
The point of the analogy with the name "Human" was to illustrate that no, not all ridiculous superhero names must be unconditionally accepted. Also: Your assertion that I should respect the wishes of fictional characters strikes me as odd. I'm not sure if you're implying that you use quotes for Superman, Batman, Spiderman and almost all other superhero names, or that these and most superhero names aren't ridiculous. Either way, I dunno if that analogy tracks. The genre is scraping the bottom of the barrel for names so I give more leeway to ridiculous superhero names than I would for most fiction but no, I would not put all superhero names in quotes unless there was something up with the name or superhero. For example, suppose a young superhero just started out in the superheroing business accidentally and, on their way out the door from their first caper, made up a superhero name that I thought was absurd... but only absurd, not utterly ridiculous. Thinking they might not stick with that name long I would probably put that name in quotes when using it. Is that an implied criticism of the author? Not necessarily, as that might be what a well-crafted character would do in that situation. Am I looking down on the name and/or character by doing so? I guess, but so what? If, over the course of time, the character changed to better fit the name, or enough time passed that the name stuck, I'd probably drop the quotes. |
|
|
|
Post by maxptc on Jul 25, 2022 5:04:59 GMT
I'm not sure if you're implying that you use quotes for Superman, Batman, Spiderman and almost all other superhero names, or that these and most superhero names aren't ridiculous. Either way, I dunno if that analogy tracks. The genre is scraping the bottom of the barrel for names so I give more leeway to ridiculous superhero names than I would for most fiction but no, I would not put all superhero names in quotes unless there was something up with the name or superhero. For example, suppose a young superhero just started out in the superheroing business accidentally and, on their way out the door from their first caper, made up a superhero name that I thought was absurd... but only absurd, not utterly ridiculous. Thinking they might not stick with that name long I would probably put that name in quotes when using it. Is that an implied criticism of the author? Not necessarily, as that might be what a well-crafted character would do in that situation. Am I looking down on the name and/or character by doing so? I guess, but so what? If, over the course of time, the character changed to better fit the name, or enough time passed that the name stuck, I'd probably drop the quotes. For sure, but someone could call themselves Human and that wouldn't stand out much to me in the super world, particularly the campy sections. For the GK universe, your postion makes sense; it's disrespect/disbelief towards Loup and you're in the he's not an individual camp. I'm definitely cool with you disrespecting Loup, dudes a jerk. Superheroes is just a tough comparison here, at least to me. Your computer one tracked better. I feel the tone may have shifted to less light-hearted then I precived, which is definitely a my bad. I was just genuinely curious about your postion which you explained well, and then it became a rabbit hole without me noticing the tonal shift. Ape brain, again my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Jul 25, 2022 6:34:08 GMT
I feel the tone may have shifted to less light-hearted then I precived, which is definitely a my bad. I was just genuinely curious about your postion which you explained well, and then it became a rabbit hole without me noticing the tonal shift. Ape brain, again my bad. No apology necessary, no offense taken; the forum is for discussing the comic. I want the forum to stay a place where we can ask questions freely, as long as we retain a basic level of respect for the author and each other and maybe a quantum of good taste. That leaves lots of room for debate and weird fanart. ...but I wonder if I have explained myself well... What I'm trying to say is that "Loup" is like a kludge. He is an individual and is distinct from Ysengrin but he isn't entirely a unique individual; in fact I think the bulk of his psyche is from Ysengrin or molded by Ysengrin after the image of what Ysengrin thought an idealized wolf-god user of Coyote's power would be like. That's been changing as time has passed and he's adapted to Coyote's powers and had new experiences and set new goals; he's less Ysengrin than he was early on... but now he's also a bit Jerrek. Part of the problem is that this is a fantasy comic with stuff that can't happen in real life (at least not so far). Part of the problem is that language doesn't really exist for such things yet (and human languages are imprecise at best anyway) and I'm trying to avoid words like "kludge" so that nobody gets left behind in the conversation. [edit] Should also mention that in the retrospective for Ch.68 there's a lot of qualified language being used to describe "Loup." [/edit] |
|
