mjh
Full Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by mjh on Aug 29, 2009 12:19:41 GMT
But all of those hints appear after the fact. They do make apparent that Rey "cares deeply for" Annie. But they don't challenge what actually happened. What actually happened is that Reynardine did not possess Annie. And whether he tried to is hotly debated. Upon their first meeting, Reynardine asks Annie about her toy. Isn’t that highly suspect, given the situation he is in? He doesn’t try to possess her then and there which would have been easy enough, he doesn’t seize her, threatening to harm her if Eglamore should come near. No, he takes great interest in some stuffed toy the little girl is carrying. If that doesn’t count as a hint (before the fact!), I don’t know what does. In this context, Reynardine’s exclamation “What I need is your body!” appears delightfully ambiguous. Of course it was taken to mean he wanted to possess her, but “your body” could also refer to some body in her possession, namely that of her toy. Reynardine might have used his menacing announcement to attract Eglamore’s attention and to mislead him regarding his real intention, and on a meta-level, Tom may have employed this device to similarly lead his readers up a garden-path. As a reader who likes his stories a bit more complex, I would certainly appreciate to be given just some subtle hints to some not so obvious twist, rather than a story where everything is best taken at face-value.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Aug 29, 2009 12:45:48 GMT
Something unapparent to Eglamore and Annie was that Reynardine jumped to the stuffed toy. That this wasn't unplanned is hinted to the readers by the fact that Reynardine is seen noticing the toy earlier on.
Other than those two, I still don't understand what sort of "unapparent" thing you would have wanted to actually be apparent to us but not the character. Can you give me an example of how you would write the clue you're talking about, if you had been the writer?
That is weak - I've detailed the reasons why: If a prisoner is desparate to take one of two possible ways out, then you still need to account with reasons OTHER than desparation about why he would choose the path that required the murder of the child of a loved one, rather than the path that required no murder at all.
If Annie's body was his *only* way to escape, then her murder can be accounted for by desparation. Since it wasn't his only way to escape, then it is not accounted for.
It's not the scene that you're taking for what it shows, you're taking Reynardine's word for truth instead -- at a moment where he was not bound to speak the truth at all. The only real reason you have to think he would possess Annie is because he loudly CLAIMED to want to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Aug 29, 2009 12:49:29 GMT
That's a bit more complex than is needed -- at that point in time Reynardine is still able of straight-out lying.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 29, 2009 12:55:56 GMT
Upon their first meeting, Reynardine asks Annie about her toy. Isn’t that highly suspect, given the situation he is in? He doesn’t try to possess her then and there which would have been easy enough, he doesn’t seize her, threatening to harm her if Eglamore should come near. No, he takes great interest in some stuffed toy the little girl is carrying. If that doesn’t count as a hint (before the fact!), I don’t know what does. Reynardine has no reason to threaten Annie. He knew that Eglamore would not come while she is there. He says as much. He takes intrest in the stuffed animal to dodge the subject of Surma. I do not find that behavior suspect. Forshadowing, the importance of the toy, yes, but not suspect on Rey's part. The best twists are those that you don't expect, but in retrospect feel like you should have. Tom has dropped hints in the past. He is capable of writing good twists. But here he shows a fairly strait forward scene. Sometimes it is hard to lay out in a few panels what one imagines happening. Hard even if people don't doubt what is happening. Hard in this case to convey from a third person perspective Annie's perception and fear, and then showing what Annie does not see. To convey Reynardine's own eagerness, and later frustration. But tom lays out scene plainly. It is clear what is going on. Rey is impatient to take Annie's body. He tries to take it, fails, and is frustrated in having no option but to possess Annie's toy instead. No need to question what the artist drew. It's in the comic -- it happened as he shows it.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 29, 2009 13:30:17 GMT
Something unapparent to Eglamore and Annie was that Reynardine jumped to the stuffed toy. That this wasn't unplanned is hinted to the readers by the fact that Reynardine is seen noticing the toy earlier on. Other than those two, I still don't understand what sort of "unapparent" thing you would have wanted to actually be apparent to us but not the character. Can you give me an example of how you would write the clue you're talking about, if you had been the writer? It's hard to say given that it's something that's not present. Perhaps if there was a moments pause, in Rey's attack. Perhaps if he tried more obviously to scare her. But whatever it could be, it's not there. Although Rey's possession of Annie's toy ultimately worked out for the better, being under somebody else's authority is not an appealing escape. If Rey was desperate to escape, then jumping from one prison to another is not an appealing option. Even as it happened, she did initially lock him in a box when she first found out. So what we have are two plausible motives for what happened. Eagerness to escape a prison, and premeditated deception. The scene itself supports the former. Nothing about the scene puts that into question. Not at all. Reynardine's actions count as much as his words. First he impatiently tell's Annie that he needs her help. Then it looks like he proceeds to posses her he come out of Sivo's eyes and goes for hers. Eglamore stops him, and he curses as he possesses the toy. Actually the impatience is a further point against you. If Rey were so calculating in his emotional response when he, as you claim pretended to die, then why was did he let his impatience show in the beginning? I take Rey's emotions at face value: things did not go according to plan. Also, what kind of death wail is "NO - Arg damn it". That's not what you'd expect a dieing being to say at all.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Aug 29, 2009 16:01:14 GMT
Why? Because of the tv trope "hesitation equals deceit"? If he had hesitated he'd obviously not have meant it, but since no hesitation is apparent, he obviously meant it? That's the sort of clue you seek?
And why in the world would he seek more obviously to scare her? Isn't declaring he needs her body indication enough of his purposes? Do you think he'd be more convincing if he had said "wooo!" to her, like Mort?
You're not acknowledging the actual clues, and you seek to find clues that would be utterly counterproductive to Reynardine's purposes. He ought have *hesitated* and therefore cause them to think he didn't mean it? He ought have tried to scare Annie more obviously and therefore given them clues that he was *only* trying to scare her, that his real goal was different?
"Deception" isn't a motive, it's a means.
A death wail that convinced Eglamore and Annie. An argument that Reynardine wasn't convincing enough in his performance (he didn't hesitate enough to be convincing, he didn't scare Annie enough to be convincing, he didn't wail convincingly enough) fails from the fact that Eglamore and Annie were indeed convinced!
I think I've reached my limits of discussing this. I'll read any rebuttal you may have, but I doubt I'll respond further in this thread. Take care
|
|
mjh
Full Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by mjh on Aug 29, 2009 18:08:58 GMT
That's a bit more complex than is needed -- at that point in time Reynardine is still able of straight-out lying. Sure he is, but it is always neater when you can say later: “See, I told you so. You just weren’t paying attention.” Like the witches in Macbeth: they tell the truth, only Macbeth is bound to misunderstand and be deceived. Anyway, instead of leaving Sivo’s body and entering Annie’s straight away, he makes it a point of announcing his intention loudly, lest nobody might take notice, then taking his time hovering body-less in mid-air until Eglamore gets a chance of snatching Annie away. In retrospect it was too much of a show to be taken for the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 29, 2009 18:57:20 GMT
You know, guys, when there was a question about whether or not Surma gave Annie her lockpicks--something that there was no real reason for Tom to reveal--Tom volunteered, in the thread, the information that Surma did in fact give Annie her lockpicks.
The fact that Tom HASN'T stepped in and said anything one way or another in this thread could be an indication that this is one of the "great mysteries" that we are SUPPOSED to wonder about. (It could also be that Tom just has other things to do this weekend, but go with me here for a moment.)
If it was always Tom's intention that we should wonder which of these two possibilities is true, and we accept that that was his intention, then we must also accept that every scene that we're using as evidence, either way, was intentionally drawn by Tom to be vague and unclear so as not to tip the mystery one way or another.
In other words, if the "evidence" at hand is so equally weighted that either side could make an argument in their favor (in their minds, at least) then I would argue that we're not SUPPOSED to be able to "know" based on the evidence, and that Tom has succeeded in portraying the events JUST balanced enough that we can't really tell either way.
I think it would be a greater credit to Tom for us to just agree that we are not supposed to be able to tell one way or the other, and that we can't tell who is wrong and who is right, and just appreciate the inscrutable mystery that Tom was able to create. And we should just be satisfied with that, and let that mystery hang out there, until later in the story when we find out for certain in the natural course of things. Assuming we ever do.
Cheers then to Tom, and let's stop arguing about something where neither side is ever going to convince the other side to budge.
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on Aug 29, 2009 20:39:14 GMT
I generally tend towards the theory that Rey was going to take Annie's body, but I'm not sure, so I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. In comic 53, panel 3, where is Rey looking? He's not looking at Annie. It may be that at this point he's noticed that Eglamore is in the room, and realized that he needs to put on a bit of an act for him if he wants to escape. That said, his not possessing Annie (or the doll) the first time he saw her isn't evidence either way. If he jumped out of that body and tried to possess either of them, Eglamore (who was /right there/) would have seen him do it and imprisoned who or whatever he jumped into. The only reason he was able to get away with it in Eglamore's presence later is that Eglamore was rather busy tackling Annie at the time. But that works for either the doll or Annie; he couldn't know that Eglamore was going to arrive right then, and the theory that he's making it appear that he's dead relies wholly on him stumbling in at exactly that moment. If he were after Annie, all he'd have to do is get Annie's body out of that room, and then he could either escape as her or become anyone else as necessary. If he's after the doll, in the absence of Eglamore he'd have to make some kind of deal with Annie and even then everyone would be under suspicion (particularly Annie, since him mysteriously dying just after meeting her would be too much of a coincidence). I think a lot of the evidence presented here is that way; depending on the perspective you look from, it can be interpreted either way. In some cases in this book, you can discern the author's intent clearly, but in this case he's left things deliberately muddled. I think we're supposed to see Reynardine this way; an ambiguous character, who may or may not be willing to kill the daughter of someone he loved for his own purposes. Regardless of your point of view, though, he's still a murderer; he was quite willing to sacrifice the life of some random young man to have a chance at Surma. (Even if that man weren't going to die when he left, what was the plan? Live with Surma as the man for the rest of his natural life? That's the same as murdering him.) He hasn't expressed any sorrow for that action anywhere I've seen. Reynardine is not a nice person. He is someone who is willing to kill for his own ends, and if he's treating Annie nicely because of feelings he has specifically for her, that's great, but liking one person and treating that person nicely doesn't make up for everything else you've done in your life.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Aug 29, 2009 22:10:48 GMT
My last remark was flawed, I'll admit. But I still suspect that we're more likely to argue that Reynardine never meant to possess Annie because we've developed a soft spot for him, than because the story as presented in Chapter Three supports that argument.
idonotlike peas makes a good point: Reynardine did already kill somebody else in order to get to Surma (the young man in the Chapter Twenty flashback), so he's got one murder on his record. Maybe we forget about it at times because we've never met his victim, and don't even know his name - but it's still murder.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 29, 2009 23:21:31 GMT
That was only a partial explanation he offered, and not even the primary reason. The primary reason was "you never told me not to". To me this seems more as if he was testing the boundaries and limitations of his actions, that he was also enjoying his newfound freedom to cause some mischief, with only a secondary or tertiarty reason that he might ingratiate himself to Annie (he didn't know Annie very well at the time). Fair enough. But winning Annie's favor was a consideration that was on his mind, so some explanation needs to be given for why he allows her to continue thinking he tried to kill her. Rey's "Don't be so melodramatic, child," can be taken one of two ways: Either Rey is an attempted child murderer who is trying to downplay the deed; or he's a trickster who's been mistaken for an attempted child murderer who, for some ulterior motive, never tries to correct his accusers. Rey is certainly very concerned about his appearance to others, and the strips you link to certainly demonstrate that he prefers to come across as stoic and aloof, and to downplay any affection he might feel for others. But there's a qualitative difference between seeming stoic and seeming a murderer, and I'm not aware of any independent evidence that Rey is a-okay with other people thinking he's a child-killer. In fact, given his complete silence to Annie regarding his murder of "that young man", it seems he would much rather that Annie not view him as a killer. Coyote is an egoist, a trickster, and a scatterbrain. I regard him as an expert on the subject of himself, and corroborating evidence at best on any other topic. Even though he's no liar, his words must be handled very carefully. Has Coyote, in all his centuries with Renard, seen Renard backed into a corner? Has he seen what Renard is capable of after he has abandoned those he knew for centuries, changed his name, and defected to the other side for the sake of love, only to be locked up over what he did to win his beloved's affection? After spending five years in chains, escaping one evening, and stumbling across an apparition of the woman he loved, only to realize minutes later that his beloved is dead, and then be retaken and imprisoned again? If Coyote has ever seen Rey that desperate, then I'll give his words about an event he didn't see a bit more weight. Well look, what I said was curt, I admit. But I mean come on, you've got a rationalization for everything... Doubtless this, puzzling that, sounds like this, probably that... I just feel like, rather than look at both possibilities and let logic decide, you've come up with an explanation for everything. You're discounting the possibility of their being any other explanation. So you're not really making an argument, you're stating your opinion with a lot of words. Which is fine, I guess... but your opinion is unassailable. No one can tell you your -opinion- is wrong, because it's your opinion. I'd be a pretty crappy analyst if I didn't try to explain all the relevant data in light of my working theory. If future data arises that simply cannot be reconciled with my theory, then I'll reconsider it. Fair enough. If we all have the same data and all that differs is the interpretation, then we can agree to disagree for now. I have to say Mezzaphor, in support of Casey's words, that such things as "His familiarity with possessing living things might mean that he occasionally forgets about the other things with eyes he can possess. " were so arbitrary and unsubstantiated that I saw no possible way to respond to them. We have no reason to believe Reynardine had ever forgotten the extent of his capabilities. "Forget" was probably the wrong word for what I was trying to get at. My thinking was akin to the space battle simulations from Ender's Game. Ender Wiggins was a far better team leader because he saw that it was a 3-D battlefield and made strategies to take advantage of this, while his peers were still thinking in two dimensions. Even when they tried to switch to 3-D thinking, it was something they had to consciously keep in mind, whereas for Ender it was second nature. Rey has a 3-D ability to possess anything with eyes. Clearly, Eglamore and the Donlans were using 2-D thinking about it (i.e. they regarded Rey's power solely as the ability to possess living things). However, the fact that they were completely unaware that Rey has the ability to possess inanimate objects raises the possibility that Rey had never done so prior to taking the wolf doll, which is consistent with the theory that Rey himself was used to thinking about his power in 2-D as well. While there is certainly no explicit support for this idea in the comic, it doesn't contradict canon as far as I can see. Hardly. The beginning of my earlier post, before the quotes, is the crux of my position. Everything else is me interpreting other events in the light of this position, and applying fanon scotch-tape of varying strengths over any remaining anomalies. "Rey doesn't always remember the full extent of his powers" is just one of several bits of scotch-tape that serve as potential answers the question of why Rey would prefer Annie's body over the wolf toy. If you still don't like it, I had several others in that same post. If I may be so bold, your theory requires an explanation for why Rey is simultaneously fine with being accused of a murder he didn't attempt, and reluctant to reveal a murder that he did commit. It requires us to believe that something that looked like a possession attempt to both witnesses was actually an elaborate ruse.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Aug 30, 2009 2:02:55 GMT
Why? Because of the tv trope "hesitation equals deceit"? If he had hesitated he'd obviously not have meant it, but since no hesitation is apparent, he obviously meant it? That's the sort of clue you seek? And why in the world would he seek more obviously to scare her? Isn't declaring he needs her body indication enough of his purposes? Do you think he'd be more convincing if he had said "wooo!" to her, like Mort? You're not acknowledging the actual clues, and you seek to find clues that would be utterly counterproductive to Reynardine's purposes. He ought have *hesitated* and therefore cause them to think he didn't mean it? He ought have tried to scare Annie more obviously and therefore given them clues that he was *only* trying to scare her, that his real goal was different? Perhaps these things are not the most prudent for Rey, but unlike the way the current scene, they would challenge what apparently happen. And it's not that hesitation equals deceit, its that hesitation means he is giving Eglamore time to get there. This is splicing words. It the reason why he first went after Annie, then went into the toy. Don't want to call it a motive, fine, use another word. Just because they did not scrutinize over what he said, doesn't mean it was prudent of him to say something that is inconsistent with dieing. We have no reason to believe Rey's emotions are less then genuine. He was not giving a fake death wail. He was cursing a that he jumped from one prison to another. Holding suspect a character's emotion is something I am particularly hesitant to do, because often it they can be hard for the artist to convey in the first place. Fair enough. Anyway, instead of leaving Sivo’s body and entering Annie’s straight away, he makes it a point of announcing his intention loudly, lest nobody might take notice, then taking his time hovering body-less in mid-air until Eglamore gets a chance of snatching Annie away. In retrospect it was too much of a show to be taken for the real thing. It's hard to say how long he hung there. Tom showed it in several panels, but that could be because there is a lot going on, not because things are happening slowly. The declaration of intent, I grant you is a little suspect. But it can be explained away very easily -- it is not strange for someone to talk about what one is about to do as one is about to do it. People are talkative in general, and often will talk unless they consciously think it imprudent. Perhaps I'm too used to Hollywood villains though. Compared to all the other evidence, this is definitely your strongest. Still I don't see it as enough to overcome A) how he seemed to go for her eyes B) how he was impatient to start, suggesting strong emotion, not tactful tricker and C) How he curses as he enters the toy. CaseyI think if Tom is reluctant to answer this question for us, it is only because it is plot centric. The question of where Annie got her lock-picks is background info. The art needs to stand on its own if Tom is to accomplish telling the story though the comic alone. MezzaphorApplying so much scotch tape may undermine the strength of your original points.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 30, 2009 2:41:20 GMT
CaseyI think if Tom is reluctant to answer this question for us, it is only because it is plot centric. The question of where Annie got her lock-picks is background info. The art needs to stand on its own if Tom is to accomplish telling the story though the comic alone. I understand, but that's my point. If we accept that this mystery is plot centric, then we must also accept that Tom intentionally made it as inscrutable as possible to know which was the truth. And if we accept that, then we must accept that any evidence that WE see supporting one side of the argument or another must therefore be biased by our own seeking of confirmation of our own theories. I'm content at this point to just accept that Tom wants us to not be able to tell, and that every scene related to the argument therefore can't be used to afffirmatively support either side of the argument. In other words, the only evidence that exists here is evidence that makes it evident that nothing here is evident. See?
|
|
|
Post by Mylian on Aug 30, 2009 3:31:50 GMT
No need to question what the artist drew. It's in the comic -- it happened as he shows it. Ever seen The Usual Suspects? The movie is filled with carefully crafted scenes that appear one way on first viewing, but after you see the entire movie and know the truth are suddenly filled with new layers of meaning. Implying that the only meaning in this comic's pages is that of face value is severely insulting to Tom's talent, I think. And when the artist drops hints leading the reader to question the sequence, then there undoubtedly is a need to question it.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 30, 2009 4:03:58 GMT
I think Mylian put it better than I did. Why can't we just be satisfied with the idea that Tom has crafted a mystery that we are supposed to wonder about but not supposed to figure out?
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 30, 2009 4:26:19 GMT
Something interesting about the two theories. The "Rey wanted to possess the doll" theory says that the events of Ch 3 are more complex than they appear, that Rey looks like he was trying to possess Annie at first but it's actually an elaborate ruse. At the same time, it simplifies Rey's character: Coyote was absolutely right when he said that Rey would never hurt the daughter of someone he loved.
Opposite that, the "Rey tried to possess Annie" simplifies the events of Ch 3 (Rey looks like he's trying to possess Annie because he is). Yet it also makes Rey and his relationships more complicated: Rey has depths that Coyote doesn't know about, that when backed into a corner, Rey will try to kill the daughter of someone he loves, yet afterwards he'll grow to care for her enough to risk mutilation to save her life.
So with the current data, there's no way to give a simple explanation for both the characters and the plot at once: one or the other has to be complicated.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 6:43:23 GMT
Here's my view, paraphrased from the previous thread:
The "doll by trickery" theory goes something like this:
Reyndardine wanted to escape. But possessing Annie directly, even with no witnesses, wouldn't work, because he would have been discovered. Possessing the doll directly also wouldn't work, because he would have been discovered. Therefore, he pretended to try to possess Annie, announced his intention out loud, waited until Eglamore jumped in to save her, and then quickly possessed the doll without being seen.
(I agree that we have very good reason for doubting that Reyndardine wanted to kill Annie - this I will discuss in a separate post.)
The problem with this theory is that it supposes that a complex chain of events was forseen by one of the characters, and forseen with such certainty that he chose to act upon it, when any mistake would have cost him his life - especially when a less risky option was available to him.
If Eglamore comes in a second earlier, and blocks the transfer with Annie behind him - Reynardine dies. If Eglamore comes in two seconds earlier, before Reyndardine has separated from Sivo, and kills Sivo to save Annie - he dies. If Annie doesn't drop the doll - he dies. If Eglamore, in grabbing Annie, also grabs the doll - he dies. If Eglamore and Annie land facing the doll - he lives, but he ruined his chance. If the doll lands next to Annie and Eglamore, and they see him transfer - he lives, but ruined his chance. If Eglamore sees him possess the doll, and strikes at him in the heat of the moment - he dies. If Eglamore doesn't come in quickly, or doesn't come at all, Reynardine has to possess the doll, because he can't stay disembodied forever. Annie sees this, is frightened and mistrustful, tells Eglamore - he ruined his chance.
Assuming Reynardine even thought of this plan, then all these risks were evident to him. Only the precise sequence which actually happened could have saved him. And suppose it succeeds, what would he gain? Since Annie owns the doll (and he knows this), he would be unable even to move to another body without her permission. Is he planning to hide from Annie the fact that he possessed the doll? Then he can't move or talk. If he runs away he's stuck in this body for ever. Is he planning to tell her that he possessed the doll? Then pretending to try to kill her - and not denying it afterwards! - is not the best way to start. This is not exactly the most brilliant escape plan.
Would he really choose to do this? Let's examine his alternatives:
Option #2 ("Annie by force"): He can try to grab Annie's body. If he succeeds, he has a chance to escape. If he wooed Surma using someone else's body, doubtless he can fake being a young girl, at for a while. If he can do it well, he might not mind living as Annie for the next sixty years. Of course, when Sivo dies, there will be a search for him, but nobody knows Annie was there, and they might not detect him. And if worst comes to worst, he can leave Annie (and kill her), and possess the doll, and hide with impunity without any limitations.
(The only problem with this - and it is a weighty problem - is that from what we see of Reynardine later on, we find it hard to believe he would have killed Annie. This is a very serious objection - I will address it separately.)
Option #3 ("Doll by consent"): He can try to possess the doll with Annie's permission. She spoke to him on the roof. She wants to learn about her mother. He's crafty fellow. She's a little girl. Surely he can talk his way into getting what he wants. Even if he can't, surely he would believe he could - after all, he believed he had a chance with her mom. He could tell her that he can hop into her toy, and ask her to hide him for a few days, and let no-one know that she was there. When Sivo's body is discovered, there is a red alert, but it dies down after a few days. She thinks Sivo was his body, she doesn't realize he's murdered him. He can then ask permission from her to move into an animal's body, and escape. This would parallell what happened with Shadow 2. But if he is discovered, he can live as her doll without the acrimony caused by having pretended to try to kill her.
To summarize. Reynardine had two options other than "Doll by trickery" - "Doll by consent", and "Annie by force". Both of these had much fewer uncertainties than "Doll by trickery", and would have left him in a better or equal position. The choice would depend on Reynardine's character. If he's a ruthless psycopath, he would choose "Annie by force". If he's a sweet talker, we'd expect him to choose "Doll by consent". From what we learn of him later, he's not a psycopath at all. We would expect him to choose "Doll by consent". The fact that he seems to have chosen "Annie by force" is the source of our confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 30, 2009 7:14:05 GMT
Listen. You're talking about a chapter where Reynardine encounters Annie on the roof of the dorm, and Eglamore is watching them, knowing that Reynardine could attempt to possess Annie at any moment, and yet he stays far away... because he doesn't want her to know yet that her games teacher is the guardian of the court.
My point is twofold. On one hand, maybe not everything was so cut and dried and laid out for the long haul when Tom was drawing only his third chapter. On the other hand, if you do believe he had it all planned out, then there's no explanation, based on what you just wrote, for why Reynardine wouldn't have just tried to possess Annie or her doll there on the roof of the dorm.
I mean if you're ONLY looking at what would be best for Reynardine, then he would have possessed Annie the instant he saw her. Eglamore wouldn't kill his own orjak, even though Sivo was effectively dead the moment Reynardine possessed him... so he's CERTAINLY not going to kill Annie, the daughter of his lost love... plus he can't shackle and imprison an 11-year-old girl in a holding cell. So strictly from a Reynardine-selfish point of view, the best thing for him to have done would have been to possess Annie immediately. There was no advantage to waiting, because Eglamore was right there in the holding cell as well. Furthermore--and this is a point no one has chosen to address yet--Reynardine had NO POSSIBLE WAY of ever guessing that Annie would A) have the gumption to come looking for him, or B) succeed in finding him if she did. So already there, you can see that Tom was playing a little fast and loose with the Deus ex Machina in the beginning... yet you're all prepared to take everything else so seriously on a frame-by-frame basis? Just let it go and sit back in freaking enjoy the story. I'm sure all the answers will eventually be revealed, and then half of you can point and laugh at the other half if that's the sort of thing you're inclined to do. But this conversation grows tiresome.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 8:08:32 GMT
Now for Reynardine's motives. The biggest problem for the "Annie by force" theory (that Reynardine tried to possess Annie, and only jumped to the doll at the last resort) is that we can't believe Reynardine would do that. There are three strong arguments against this: 1) Coyote's says that doesn't sound like him at all! 2) Reynardine knew at the time that Annie was Surma's daughter, and we know that he loved Surma (we trust Coyote on this point). 3) Reynardine risks his life to save Annie (from Ysengrin), and defends her honor (chasing the 3 taunters), and protects her from Jack. They have already become friends. Against this we can only place Eglamore's (totally objective! )warning: "Reynardine is never to be trusted". So: Now he's nice, but back then he was nasty. How can we resolve this? It's very difficult to do so with our current state of knowledge. If we try to force the issue, we have three options: 1) He was nasty back then, and is nasty now. We don't believe this, because we're convinced he's nice now. 2) He was nice back then, and is nice now. This leads to the "Doll by trickery" theory - Reynardine did not actually try to possess Annie, but just pretended to. 3) He was nasty back then, and is nice now. This means Reynardine has changed drastically since possessing the toy. Either he's fallen for Annie, or his character has changed to match the body he possess. Remember when he says "The mind is a plaything of the body"? Usually people say "The body is a plaything of the mind". Maybe it's different in Gunnerkrigg Court, and having a new body has changed his character. I think the choice between these three options is why many people go with the "Doll by trickery" theory. If we could find a way to make Reynardine nice from the beginning, it would explain everything. But we should keep in mind that we actually know very little about Reynardine's ability, and even less about what actually happened when he pursued Surma, and that future revelations may change our view drastically. Everything we know we learned from a few sentences of Coyote's. There are revelations which might come up to resolve this satisfactorily. Here are a few examples. I'm not claiming these are true. I'm just showing how much information might be missing, which might cast everything we know in a completely different light. First, possession of bodies may be much more complicated than what we've been told so far, and possessing Annie may not have lead to her death. Maybe there are degrees of possession, and he was just going to ride along inside her head instead of grabbing the controls? Maybe possessing humans, as opposed to animals, doesn't invariably kill them, and Coyote only told us part of the truth? An analogy: In the Harry Potter series, Wands started in book 1 as a tool which chooses its owner, and ended up in book 7 as almost fully sentient beings. There might be a lot we don't know about possession, which changes our outlook completely. As for the man which Reynardine killed, we know nothing more than that. Maybe he was deliberately murdered by Reynardine, as opposed to dying when the possession was released? For all we know there was a "Cyrano de Bergerac" scenario: Sweet talking Reynardine and hot-but-stupid Joe Bloggs make a pact to share a body and win Surma together. When they fail, Joe commits suicide and Reynardine jumps to another body, and is blamed for the death of his host. Let me repeat: These are just examples of how much might be hiding behind the two sentences we were told. I am not claiming that any of these scenarios is correct, or even likely. But there are many such scenarios, and it is likely that amongst them, there is the one which Tom has chosen. To summarize: I think the "Doll by trickery" theory is intrinsically unlikely because of the risks it entailed, and the alternatives available, and there are not enough supporting facts to outweigh this unlikelihood. The contradictions which make us want to reject the "Annie by force" theory can be resolved in many ways by future revelations, but not by our current knowledge. Therefore, I personally do not accept the "Doll by trickery" theory, and will wait patiently until Tom resolves the contradictions we've seen. It may be that what he reveals will be exactly what I have rejected - in this case, I will attempt to maintain an air of dignity while eating my hat. So be it!
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 8:12:01 GMT
Something interesting about the two theories. The "Rey wanted to possess the doll" theory says that the events of Ch 3 are more complex than they appear, that Rey looks like he was trying to possess Annie at first but it's actually an elaborate ruse. At the same time, it simplifies Rey's character: Coyote was absolutely right when he said that Rey would never hurt the daughter of someone he loved. Opposite that, the "Rey tried to possess Annie" simplifies the events of Ch 3 (Rey looks like he's trying to possess Annie because he is). Yet it also makes Rey and his relationships more complicated: Rey has depths that Coyote doesn't know about, that when backed into a corner, Rey will try to kill the daughter of someone he loves, yet afterwards he'll grow to care for her enough to risk mutilation to save her life. So with the current data, there's no way to give a simple explanation for both the characters and the plot at once: one or the other has to be complicated. That's a very nice observation. Personally, I prefer complex characters to complex plots.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 8:17:59 GMT
Upon their first meeting, Reynardine asks Annie about her toy. Isn’t that highly suspect, given the situation he is in? He doesn’t try to possess her then and there which would have been easy enough, he doesn’t seize her, threatening to harm her if Eglamore should come near. No, he takes great interest in some stuffed toy the little girl is carrying. If that doesn’t count as a hint (before the fact!), I don’t know what does. Reynardine has no reason to threaten Annie. He knew that Eglamore would not come while she is there. He says as much. He takes intrest in the stuffed animal to dodge the subject of Surma. I do not find that behavior suspect. Forshadowing, the importance of the toy, yes, but not suspect on Rey's part. I think your explanation is good, but I would add something to it: The author needs to make sure the readers have noticed the toy before Annie drops it and Reynardine possesses it. Otherwise it might look like a Deus ex Machina dropped out of nowhere to save Reynardine when his possession of Annie fails. So he makes Reynardine ask about it, to call our attention to it, and this breeds in some minds a suspicion that he plans (or will later plan) to possess it.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 8:22:44 GMT
You know, guys, when there was a question about whether or not Surma gave Annie her lockpicks--something that there was no real reason for Tom to reveal--Tom volunteered, in the thread, the information that Surma did in fact give Annie her lockpicks. The fact that Tom HASN'T stepped in and said anything one way or another in this thread could be an indication that this is one of the "great mysteries" that we are SUPPOSED to wonder about. (It could also be that Tom just has other things to do this weekend, but go with me here for a moment.) I think this is a good point you're making. This is one of the mysteries we're supposed to wonder about - the mysteries which make this comic so engrossing. But I also think that Tom did not predict that the argument would go so far, or in which direction it would go. One of the pleasures of being an author, I suppose.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Aug 30, 2009 8:33:39 GMT
That said, his not possessing Annie (or the doll) the first time he saw her isn't evidence either way. If he jumped out of that body and tried to possess either of them, Eglamore (who was /right there/) would have seen him do it and imprisoned who or whatever he jumped into. Perfectly stated. There was no way Reynardine could have possessed either Annie or the doll at that point, and the fact that he didn't tells us nothing. I agree with you completely, except for one quibble - nobody knew that Annie had visited him, so she would not have attracted special attention on that account. In general I think what you said is true, but in this case I think the muddle the author intended was more along the lines of "how could he have tried to do that?" rather than "did he or did he not do it?" Again, agreed, and well put.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Aug 30, 2009 21:49:00 GMT
Listen. You're talking about a chapter where Reynardine encounters Annie on the roof of the dorm, and Eglamore is watching them, knowing that Reynardine could attempt to possess Annie at any moment, and yet he stays far away... because he doesn't want her to know yet that her games teacher is the guardian of the court. I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. I had always assumed that since Eggers was far away to begin with, and he saw Rey and Annie conversing peacefully, he assumed that Rey would threaten her if he came too close, so he kept his distance until Annie fainted.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 31, 2009 2:25:09 GMT
Listen. You're talking about a chapter where Reynardine encounters Annie on the roof of the dorm, and Eglamore is watching them, knowing that Reynardine could attempt to possess Annie at any moment, and yet he stays far away... because he doesn't want her to know yet that her games teacher is the guardian of the court. I'm curious how you reached that conclusion. I had always assumed that since Eggers was far away to begin with, and he saw Rey and Annie conversing peacefully, he assumed that Rey would threaten her if he came too close, so he kept his distance until Annie fainted. Because Tom said so.
|
|
|
Post by Mylian on Aug 31, 2009 3:23:29 GMT
But this conversation grows tiresome. Then tell the person behind you holding a gun to your head and forcing you to participate in a tiresome conversation that you don't want to do it anymore. The rest here seem to be enjoying it.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Aug 31, 2009 3:39:18 GMT
That's an odd response coming from you to the person who wholly agreed with your last post. You yourself made the point, which I agreed with, that it was insulting to Tom's work/talent to argue such mysterious things as if they were easily penetrated and proved one way or another.
But point well taken. I don't have to participate in these conversations if I don't want to. You all just go ahead and tear it up. No skin off my nose.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Aug 31, 2009 9:27:49 GMT
I think the point when people start discussing the discussion instead of the point, is the moment when they need to take a breather. :-P
And as a general advice, I'd suggest to people not to get too emotionally invested in their preferred solution. Though I find one solution more likely than the other, that doesn't mean I would get upset if I was proven wrong: and I'd hope that not many other people would get upset if they were proven wrong either.
|
|
mjh
Full Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by mjh on Aug 31, 2009 10:10:24 GMT
I think your explanation is good, but I would add something to it: The author needs to make sure the readers have noticed the toy before Annie drops it and Reynardine possesses it. Otherwise it might look like a Deus ex Machina dropped out of nowhere to save Reynardine when his possession of Annie fails. So he makes Reynardine ask about it, to call our attention to it, and this breeds in some minds a suspicion that he plans (or will later plan) to possess it. Indeed this alternative explanation is just as valid. However, having one of your characters do something without any intrinsic motivation, just to serve you, the author – well, that’s a bit lame, no? A better author might still use this device to direct the reader’s attention to the toy, but would also provide some motivation for the character mentioning it. And since the author is my hero, more than any of his characters, I prefer him to be good. Now as literary analysis goes this would be neither here nor there, but I’m just a reader and like to have it my way.
|
|
mjh
Full Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by mjh on Aug 31, 2009 11:10:36 GMT
Rey is certainly very concerned about his appearance to others, and the strips you link to certainly demonstrate that he prefers to come across as stoic and aloof, and to downplay any affection he might feel for others. But there's a qualitative difference between seeming stoic and seeming a murderer, and I'm not aware of any independent evidence that Rey is a-okay with other people thinking he's a child-killer. In fact, given his complete silence to Annie regarding his murder of "that young man", it seems he would much rather that Annie not view him as a killer. He nearly volunteered to confess once: “Aren’t you going to ask me what I did? What law I broke?”. This was his wolf persona; the defiant “Don’t be so melodramatic, girl” was the toy persona. It is hard to reason about how he feels being seen as a killer (of the “young man”) when we still know next to nothing about what really happened. We have Coyote’s account which was second-hand at best. Eglamore might have something to say, but he doesn’t. And Reynardine hasn’t given Annie (and us) his own version of the story. When Reynardine learns that Annie is going to meet Coyote, he gets nervous, and after her return, they are “tiptoeing around each other for ages”. Why? Because Coyote might have told her about his killing the young man? Maybe, but what made this issue so touchy and resulted in the palpable awkwardness that ensued probably wasn’t the killing as such – Annie knew he had murdered Sivo and already suspected there was more –, but its motive. Reynardine had loved her mother, so much that he killed a man – something he had never done before – just to be near her. Both Reynardine and Eglamore had loved Surma and would have loved to be Annie’s father, and both would feel equally awkward admitting as much.
|
|