|
|
Post by speedwell on Oct 8, 2022 10:42:20 GMT
My goodness. All of you insisting vehemently that being married does not mean ever having been in love. I've been married three times myself - I'm old enough, heh - and though the ups and downs have ranged from magical to grim, I would hardly go as far as that. And you live in the modern day, where marriage no longer is an arrangement of convenience and/or politics by the parents of the married, but an arrangement between the married due to a mutual attraction and/or interest in each other. Going back to your earlier point that in the myths Ysengrim was married: that might be, but this is a comic where it turns out the Minotaur of the Labyrinth is not some monster set to kill anyone who enters his lair only to be slain by the brave Thesues, this is a comic where it turns out that those were party guests and Theseus got drunk and ruined the whole party. It wasn't normally convenience/politics then, either, except among the rich, ruling, or aspirational classes for whom the convenient legal disposal of property was critical to dynastic stability. Peasants in Europe could suit themselves and, assuming the family and Church were amenable, normally did. Granted that courtly love was a medieval invention; ordinary happy marriages, including affection between mates, were hardly uncommon. It's a popular modern misapprehension that arranged marriages or marriages that didn't follow Valentine's-Day-card romantic patterns were devoid of true attachment or contentment. A very brief review of contemporary and earlier documents (contemporary, that is, to the early-to-mid Renaissance or so) will reward the interested scholar. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Oct 8, 2022 13:45:52 GMT
Attacked the Court for six months without communicating while he was time-splitting Annie. He didn't attack the Court, violent creatures that went through the tunnels did. Oh, ffs, in the corresponding myths both Coyote and Isengrim have had wives. As themselves, I mean, not as geese or whatever. Even Reynard had a wife. It seems uncontroversial and even pedestrian to think of any of them having loved and/or been loved before, even if Loup is thought of as a new-ish (recycled?) being. But Loup has no myth, right? And his inherited memories from Coyote seem to be imperfect at best; I'm not sure he has access to the more ancient ones. As for Ysengrin, even when Coyote first met him Renard seemed like his only companion. I think it's pretty plausible that in this continuity Ysengrin never experienced love. Edit: Or rafk just said it all better than I did. Are you talking about romantic love? Because I'm pretty sure Annie loved Ysengrin and Ysengrin loved Annie. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Oct 8, 2022 13:46:47 GMT
So, well, did the art style change again? Eglamore looks really weird here.
|
|
|
|
Post by drmemory on Oct 8, 2022 17:15:35 GMT
Pretty sure this is meant to be like The Grinch. His heart grew many times larger that day! Again, I say that he's finally learning what Coyote wants him to learn here. Which isn't so much about the court as about himself, it appears.  If this were strictly analogous to The Grinch, he would now turn good and try to undo everything bad he's done, hanging up stockings and making children stop crying and such, but I'm not sure Tom will go that far with it. This might change his interpretation of things though, and will almost certainly affect what he does next. |
|
heranje
Full Member
Oh super wow!
Posts: 176
|
Post by heranje on Oct 9, 2022 0:07:31 GMT
And you live in the modern day, where marriage no longer is an arrangement of convenience and/or politics by the parents of the married, but an arrangement between the married due to a mutual attraction and/or interest in each other. Going back to your earlier point that in the myths Ysengrim was married: that might be, but this is a comic where it turns out the Minotaur of the Labyrinth is not some monster set to kill anyone who enters his lair only to be slain by the brave Thesues, this is a comic where it turns out that those were party guests and Theseus got drunk and ruined the whole party. It wasn't normally convenience/politics then, either, except among the rich, ruling, or aspirational classes for whom the convenient legal disposal of property was critical to dynastic stability. Peasants in Europe could suit themselves and, assuming the family and Church were amenable, normally did. Granted that courtly love was a medieval invention; ordinary happy marriages, including affection between mates, were hardly uncommon. It's a popular modern misapprehension that arranged marriages or marriages that didn't follow Valentine's-Day-card romantic patterns were devoid of true attachment or contentment. A very brief review of contemporary and earlier documents (contemporary, that is, to the early-to-mid Renaissance or so) will reward the interested scholar. I suppose the more salient point, which Bedinsis also made, is that in general in Gunnerkrigg Court we can't know if elements of the real-life myths are true of the comic book characters until we have been told they are. Coyote certainly diverges a great deal from his real world mythological counterpart, as does the minotaur and several others. So, we don't know if comic Ysengrin or Coyote were ever married. Even if we were, they are not Loup, a creature who has only experienced mockery, scorn and hostility from others since he was born (when he was not masquerading as Jerrek). And I don't know that "the transformative power of first love" is really the message to take away from this, even. Seems to me more like Loup is in a semi-metaphorical ether-infused state due to being near the Ocean, and this combined with the fact that he is already a creature of volatile emotions and reactions meant falling for Lana hit him like... I was going to say a ton of bricks, but I suppose "a bunch of love hearts exploding out of his body" seems more apt. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Oct 9, 2022 10:37:23 GMT
It wasn't normally convenience/politics then, either, except among the rich, ruling, or aspirational classes for whom the convenient legal disposal of property was critical to dynastic stability. Peasants in Europe could suit themselves and, assuming the family and Church were amenable, normally did. Granted that courtly love was a medieval invention; ordinary happy marriages, including affection between mates, were hardly uncommon. It's a popular modern misapprehension that arranged marriages or marriages that didn't follow Valentine's-Day-card romantic patterns were devoid of true attachment or contentment. A very brief review of contemporary and earlier documents (contemporary, that is, to the early-to-mid Renaissance or so) will reward the interested scholar. I suppose the more salient point, which Bedinsis also made, is that in general in Gunnerkrigg Court we can't know if elements of the real-life myths are true of the comic book characters until we have been told they are. Coyote certainly diverges a great deal from his real world mythological counterpart, as does the minotaur and several others. So, we don't know if comic Ysengrin or Coyote were ever married. Even if we were, they are not Loup, a creature who has only experienced mockery, scorn and hostility from others since he was born (when he was not masquerading as Jerrek). And I don't know that "the transformative power of first love" is really the message to take away from this, even. Seems to me more like Loup is in a semi-metaphorical ether-infused state due to being near the Ocean, and this combined with the fact that he is already a creature of volatile emotions and reactions meant falling for Lana hit him like... I was going to say a ton of bricks, but I suppose "a bunch of love hearts exploding out of his body" seems more apt. The salient point, as you noted, is that this is a (remarkably well researched and internally consistent) comic book. Another, as has also been noted, is that readers are fallaciously applying an overlay of their own experiences and opinions to the events in it, instead of doing as the author clearly did and referring to the source material. As someone with a particular and lifelong interest in much of that specific source material, I admit it is a little easier for me to refer to it. |
|
|
|
Post by bedinsis on Oct 9, 2022 12:22:32 GMT
Another, as has also been noted, is that readers are fallaciously applying an overlay of their own experiences and opinions to the events in it, instead of doing as the author clearly did and referring to the source material. People watching the media they consume through their own experiences is only natural and par for the course. I however wonder what you mean when you say that the author clearly referred to the source material, since you and you alone in this thread have referred to it to claim that the characters ought to have been loved since in the background material they were wed. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Oct 9, 2022 14:24:38 GMT
Another, as has also been noted, is that readers are fallaciously applying an overlay of their own experiences and opinions to the events in it, instead of doing as the author clearly did and referring to the source material. People watching the media they consume through their own experiences is only natural and par for the course. I however wonder what you mean when you say that the author clearly referred to the source material, since you and you alone in this thread have referred to it to claim that the characters ought to have been loved since in the background material they were wed. Noted your usage there. I am putting forward a good-faith argument based on comparative literature, historical scholarship, psychology, and a certain amount of esoteric study. You are choosing to feel antagonised. See you in tomorrow's thread, where I hope we can start on fresh ground without prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by bedinsis on Oct 9, 2022 15:31:45 GMT
People watching the media they consume through their own experiences is only natural and par for the course. I however wonder what you mean when you say that the author clearly referred to the source material, since you and you alone in this thread have referred to it to claim that the characters ought to have been loved since in the background material they were wed. Noted your usage there. I am putting forward a good-faith argument based on comparative literature, historical scholarship, psychology, and a certain amount of esoteric study. You are choosing to feel antagonised. See you in tomorrow's thread, where I hope we can start on fresh ground without prejudice. I also had a point to make, but I didn't know how to make it without unnecessarily antagonize you(that's mean, contraproductive and unhelpful). I tried to formulate myself in a way not to do so but accidentally antagonized you in a different way, and I truly am sorry for that. My point is, could it be that you have looked at the external lore so much that you've forgotten that all of that might not end up in the comic? You said that people are "fallaciously applying an overlay of their own experiences and opinions to the events in [the comic]", the same is possible for someone whose experiences include studying the external lore. And I am not even saying that is the case, though if so I am hardly one to throw the first stone (lord knows I've made many bad calls on this comic). Getting personal and pointing to the relative presence of an argument was uncalled for, and for that I truly am sorry. I don't want bad blood with you or anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Oct 9, 2022 21:27:41 GMT
I claim a perfect record - every substantive and non-obvious call I've made about where this comic was going has been wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Oct 10, 2022 3:26:10 GMT
The best guestbook comment:
|
|
|
|
Post by jda on Oct 10, 2022 3:29:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ophel on Oct 10, 2022 8:11:16 GMT
You know, it's been a very long while since I've had any sort of theory about what may or may not happen.
This is not one of those things I would think that would happen.
Moving on, the next chapter sees Annie finally using the tooth knife: To put a dying Loup out of his misery from the violent eruption of his insides by strange seed/leaf-shaped projectiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by silicondream on Oct 10, 2022 9:05:13 GMT
And you live in the modern day, where marriage no longer is an arrangement of convenience and/or politics by the parents of the married, but an arrangement between the married due to a mutual attraction and/or interest in each other. Going back to your earlier point that in the myths Ysengrim was married: that might be, but this is a comic where it turns out the Minotaur of the Labyrinth is not some monster set to kill anyone who enters his lair only to be slain by the brave Thesues, this is a comic where it turns out that those were party guests and Theseus got drunk and ruined the whole party. It wasn't normally convenience/politics then, either, except among the rich, ruling, or aspirational classes for whom the convenient legal disposal of property was critical to dynastic stability. I’d largely agree, but point out (as warrl did upthread) that the mythological Isengrim was a member of those classes. In some branches of legend he was a corrupt clergyman and in other branches he was a chief officer of the king, but either way he was portrayed as very concerned about property, family honor, and the good standing of his heirs. He wasn’t portrayed as very interested in his wife or concerned for her welfare…unlike Renard, who usually seemed to be genuinely fond of his wife despite his infidelities. There’s a fun 1983 paper by K. Varty on love and marriage within the Renard-Ysengrin myth cycle, available for free here. Attacked the Court for six months without communicating while he was time-splitting Annie. He didn't attack the Court, violent creatures that went through the tunnels did. Violent creatures which he acknowledged as his own armies, but I take your point that he wasn’t attacking personally. My point was just that that period of time existed; Loup’s chronological age as of this chapter is 7+ months, not a few weeks. …though now that I think about it, who knows whether his consciousness was running at “Forest Annie speed” or “Court Annie speed” for those six months. I’m talking about romantic love specifically, yes. Ysengrin and Annie certainly loved each other but I think it was more of a parent/child or mentor/student thing. I’d argue that Y loved Renard too, in a rival-siblings sort of way. Grumbled about him constantly, but very much wanted to be a part of his life. I think the closest the comic Ysengrin got to romantic love was probably with Coyote, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Oct 10, 2022 13:07:41 GMT
ok, here's a weird idea (probably totally wrong, as most of these types are):
We all know Coyote never lies, but can warp the truth into such a pretzel it's hard to recognize. What if it was his big plan was for him to experience death, and through Loup,
to experience love? And in experiencing love, Loup is "killed", in the sense that his Jerrek persona takes over completely, powered by that love? And Loup acquiesces,
thinking it a good plan, since he enjoys the experience too (it's more pleasant than being boring tantrum toddler Loup, who everyone dislikes...). And Annie has "killed" Loup,
in a very minor, accidental way, by stirring jealous feelings in Lana and facilitating this meeting of the two of them.
(maybe I should. have put this in Wild Spec...)
EDIT: added " " to "killed" Loup, as per Pyradonis' comment below
|
|
|
|
Post by therationaldove on Oct 10, 2022 17:26:22 GMT
Oh, ffs, in the corresponding myths both Coyote and Isengrim have had wives. As themselves, I mean, not as geese or whatever. Even Reynard had a wife. It seems uncontroversial and even pedestrian to think of any of them having loved and/or been loved before, even if Loup is thought of as a new-ish (recycled?) being. The only way this makes mythological sense at all is if the transformative power derives from Lana. This is a cool fact that I personally did not know, but I am not sure how that applies to the comic in terms of reading Loup's behavior here. While Coyote and Ysengrin may have had wives in their originating myths, that doesn't necessarily mean that Tom's reinterpretation of the characters would retain that feature. And even if they did, that doesn't mean that Loup wouldn't still be overcome with these new emotions for this new element in his life. Up to this point, Loup is basically a rebellious teen in a god's body. Not many people have expressed uncomplicated adoration for him yet so Lana doing this is very new for Loup. So when only looking at the character as presented in the comic, I don't see how it would be out of character. I understand getting disappointed at deviations from source material, though, so it's fine to wish that Loup was more in with the mythology. Personally, I think omitting something like past partners isn't a huge deal in this case. I think Tom still retains the basic idea of the myths while also making them his own characters. In fact, I tend to enjoy stories that built off of myths and reinterpret the characters as opposed to stories that are rigidly faithful to the myth down to minute details. I mean, at that point, why not just read the original stories rather than a comic based off said myths? |
|
|
|
Post by foxurus on Oct 10, 2022 18:14:13 GMT
I interpreted the page as Lana's love for him causing him to explode, not his love for Lana. Maybe that's the aromantic in me, or more likely, the cynic. A lot of people get addicted to the high of someone caring about them without reciprocating it at all. Loup seems the sort.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Oct 11, 2022 1:29:42 GMT
I interpreted the page as Lana's love for him causing him to explode, not his love for Lana. Maybe that's the aromantic in me, or more likely, the cynic. A lot of people get addicted to the high of someone caring about them without reciprocating it at all. Loup seems the sort. Seems also quite possible! My reading was that Lana's love was enough to let the Jerrek persona "tip the balance", and take over control - we see his response. (Yes, Jerrek was keen on Annie before, but this was unreturned, and I was thinking mostly a reflection of Loup's feelings anyway. Young love being fickle, Jerrek's affections are easily rerouted to someone who actually responds to him [and even his surly over-self]). Or.... alternately, unloved Loup is touched by the first ever profession of love to *him* and it sort of blows his circuits! But I like your idea too... we shall see which it is soon, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Oct 11, 2022 11:33:08 GMT
ok, here's a weird idea (probably totally wrong, as most of these types are): We all know Coyote never lies, but can warp the truth into such a pretzel it's hard to recognize. What if it was his big plan was for him to experience death, and through Loup, to experience love? And in experiencing love, Loup is "killed", in the sense that his Jerrek persona takes over completely, powered by that love? And Loup acquiesces, thinking it a good plan, since he enjoys the experience too (it's more pleasant than being boring tantrum toddler Loup, who everyone dislikes...). And Annie has killed Loup, in a very minor, accidental way, by stirring jealous feelings in Lana and facilitating this meeting of the two of them. (maybe I should. have put this in Wild Spec...) Except that Coyote literally said he means for Annie to use the Tooth to kill Loup... |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Oct 11, 2022 14:41:48 GMT
ok, here's a weird idea (probably totally wrong, as most of these types are): We all know Coyote never lies, but can warp the truth into such a pretzel it's hard to recognize. What if it was his big plan was for him to experience death, and through Loup, to experience love? And in experiencing love, Loup is "killed", in the sense that his Jerrek persona takes over completely, powered by that love? And Loup acquiesces, thinking it a good plan, since he enjoys the experience too (it's more pleasant than being boring tantrum toddler Loup, who everyone dislikes...). And Annie has killed Loup, in a very minor, accidental way, by stirring jealous feelings in Lana and facilitating this meeting of the two of them. (maybe I should. have put this in Wild Spec...) Except that Coyote literally said he means for Annie to use the Tooth to kill Loup... Hmm, yes, I should have put that killed in " " as well. [now fixed, thanks!] You're right of course, she will have to actually kill him later with the tooth; this love explosion is only a metaphorical death... a death of his control over the Jerrek persona. Or ... if it *is* a real explosion, maybe she returns and performs a mercy killing on Loup's shattered remains? |
|
