|
Post by theoldwolf on Aug 31, 2009 14:52:02 GMT
Reading the strip again and again, I can't help but be left with the feeling that Reynard's intention was to possess Annie. Notwithstanding his love for Surma, at that moment Annie was not Surma, but just another pawn for his purposes. Over time, he's come to have great affection for Antimony, but only as he learned what a strong personality she has. Just my two penn'orth.
Reynard is one of my favorite characters, along with coyoty. They're related, and have many similarities, but Rey seems to have a moral underpinning that coyoty lacks. I look forward to learning more about both of these characters as the saga progresses.
Being a perpetual denizen of Confusionland, I can't back up my gut feelings with solid polemics, but one thing I do know - this is one of the best graphic novels I've ever been privileged to read. Can't wait to see what happens next!
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Aug 31, 2009 15:13:38 GMT
I want to echo mjh who comes the closest to non-speculation while describing the issue of Rey's possession and killing of the young man. We know next-to-nothing of the events surrounding. If I were to speculate, when we find out about them, the mystery of this thread will also be resolved.
First, devil's advocate to Casey's argument as to why Rey doesn't just possess Annie on the roof. Assuming he's the relentless murderer everyone on the "possess Annie" faction "dimensionalizes" him as, he's still smart and reckons he's got a better chance of getting away from Eglamore in Sivo's body than in Annie's. He wants to escape Eglamore, not just his current body.
Next, some observations of contradictions in the arguments others are putting forward:
1. The obvious impatience of Reynardine to act when Annie walks up. I find this to be supportive of the "doll by trickery" theory, though I can see the other interpretation now. As jon77 points out, the timing was crucial for the "doll by trickery" attempt; Reynardine's immediate segué into taking her body and loudly proclaiming so is because Eglamore had just walked out of the room and Rey needed to act fast while the timing was right. If he was a savvy but ruthless murderer, I'd imagine he'd gain her trust and wait until there was no chance of her being saved before making his move.
2. It's amusing that Reynardine might be considered forgetful that he can take anything with eyes but totally cognizant that possessing the doll would enslave him to Annie.
3. Reminding us that he's an amoral trickster god does not prove he's a murderer. Amoral trickster gods tend to act capriciously and unexpectedly, not immorally. I think if anything we should not be surprised when a trickster performs an elaborate scheme to escape rather than a straightforward, if unseemly, means.
4. "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." Um, exactly. I thought you were playing devil's advocate until I realize you were saying this was unbelievable.
|
|
cantabile
New Member
Never thought I'd be back on a forum...
Posts: 49
|
Post by cantabile on Aug 31, 2009 23:17:02 GMT
If Rey intended to possess the toy all along, who's to say that him being under Annie's control isn't a ruse as well?
That would change quite a few things, I'd expect.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Aug 31, 2009 23:43:38 GMT
Anja confirmed that Reynardine was telling the truth when he claimed that he was now under Annie's control. Therefore that can't be a ruse, unless Anja is also not to be trusted.
That way lies madness. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Mylian on Aug 31, 2009 23:52:11 GMT
Judging from what has been said in the comic, I think Coyote would express the belief that Reynard was going for the doll the whole time. And so far, Reynard himself has refused to confirm or deny one way or the other. So the real question becomes, is Coyote mistaken about Reynard? We won't know for certain until more data comes in.
We do know, however, that Reynard is not a random killer. He has only killed one human being, the unnamed boy.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Sept 1, 2009 0:20:34 GMT
One human being that we know about. It's never been said that he jumped straight from the unnamed boy's body to Sivo's (though it's never been said that he didn't, either).
|
|
|
Post by Mylian on Sept 1, 2009 1:02:28 GMT
Hmmm. In 495, Coyote says "He killed that young man." If he'd killed more, it would probably be "He killed those people." He may or may not have jumped straight into Sivo, but it is strongly implied that the only human he killed is the unknown boy.
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Sept 1, 2009 2:46:53 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. If Rey simply seized upon the doll as the first new topic of conversation in eyesight, so as to dodge Annie's question about Surma, then that would serve as jon77's foreshadowing and your character-intrinsic motivation. 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. Even so, he didn't share. The obvious impatience of Reynardine to act when Annie walks up. I find this to be supportive of the "doll by trickery" theory, though I can see the other interpretation now. As jon77 points out, the timing was crucial for the "doll by trickery" attempt; Reynardine's immediate segué into taking her body and loudly proclaiming so is because Eglamore had just walked out of the room and Rey needed to act fast while the timing was right. If he was a savvy but ruthless murderer, I'd imagine he'd gain her trust and wait until there was no chance of her being saved before making his move. I don't see Rey as "ruthless but savvy"; I see him only considering possessing Annie as a last resort. And in his desperation, he acts impulsively and accidentally bungles it. As for Rey's declaration, it's pretty consistent with some of his other overdramatic exclamations. "Or", not "and". I'm the only one who's suggested the "forgetful Rey" hypothesis, and I don't think that Rey was fully aware of the consequences of jumping into Annie's doll. And with that, I'm arguing about the argument itself. Renard was immoral in some of the older stories: "In one of the very first stories that makes up the Roman de Renart , she [Hersent, Ysengrin's wife] seduces Renart, and soon afterwards, when Ysengrin knows about her adultery with Renart, the fox rapes her in full view of her helpless husband: hence the never-ending hatred of the wolf for the fox, and their enduring enmity." (xv)"For the second time, Reynard is brought to trial at the king-lion's court, this time on a charge of murder, the murder of Chantecler's close relation, Couppée. Prior to this, the wolf had once more brought the charge of rape, and other animals have brought other charges. ...Eventually, after much entertaining and intriguing debate, Renart is condemned to death. But he gets off." (xvi)
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 1, 2009 3:50:16 GMT
Whoever is agueing that Rey is not a cold blooded killer, is making a strawman. Renard loves humans, and no one is denying that. The question is, how does he act when pressed into a corner? 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? The problem is, little the evidence for the other side actually concerns the events of the scene. It instead arguments of how a Rey would act if we hadn't seen the scene, and sketchily tries to make that fit the scene. 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. Mezzaphor's post quoted bellow, addresses this. I do not think it is an insult to call Tom's characters complex. 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. Well put. Go simple scenes and complex characters. 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. Yes, that's what I mean by the fact that Rey noticing the doll is foreshadowing. Sometimes literary terms confuse more than simplify. _________ To the other side: I've been asked what kind of hints would have convinced me to be on your side. I gave a few examples: more hesitation in Reynardine, and Rey being more overty scarry. What about you guys? How would the scene or story have to be different to convince you? Is it all motive, such that you would never, in principle convict a man if you did not understand his motive? Or is there some evidence missing from the scene that would make the point for you?
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 1, 2009 6:02:08 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. Someone else (sorry, I forgot who it was) suggested a reasonable intrinsic motivation - wanting to avoid Annie's question about Surma... EDIT: I see mezzaphor has already made this point.
|
|
amy
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by amy on Sept 1, 2009 10:26:18 GMT
Personally I think he was really hoping to get a chance to get Eglamore's body and the doll was his backup plan.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 1, 2009 14:30:14 GMT
Reynardine already knows that it is not possible for him to possess Eglamore and the Donlans, so no.
|
|
cantabile
New Member
Never thought I'd be back on a forum...
Posts: 49
|
Post by cantabile on Sept 1, 2009 15:21:01 GMT
I wonder if Sivo was involved in this 'trickery' that Coyote mentioned. I don't think that he'd sacrifice himself, but what if the parties involved simply forgot to give Sivo the protective eye symbol before they set their trap?
For the time being I am going to assume that Eglamore and the Donlans were the ones who snared him.
|
|
|
Post by pepoluan on Sept 1, 2009 15:22:28 GMT
This might be non-sequitur to whatever's currently being discussed, but here's a copy of what I posted in the "reread" thread:
Reynardine's body is now a stuffed animal which Surma made for Annie. Maybe that's playing with his mind a bit? If so, getting a new body might change his character completely. As Eglamore said - "Reynardine is not to be trusted". That's a brilliant idea! Perhaps Reynardine's affection for Antimony is the byproduct of having taken possession of an object that was made as a gesture of love for her. Goodness, good observation there! Word of Tom (found in "Questions to Tom #2") :There. (Sorry can't give a direct link; searching from Google gives me the "print" page which shows the thread in its entirety, not split by pages)
Besides, if he has planned to enter the toy in the first place, wouldn't he have examined it long enough to notice Annie's mark on it? His mistake makes more sense if he chose the body under duress. Actually, there is no mark on the plushie. I think the so-called 'mark' is 'expressed' by Reynardine *after* he possessed the plushie, as an 'indication' (etheric tag, if you will) that the plushie belongs to Annie. Proof: here, here, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, here, here, here, and so on. .
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 1, 2009 20:05:04 GMT
To the other side: I've been asked what kind of hints would have convinced me to be on your side. I gave a few examples: more hesitation in Reynardine, and Rey being more overty scarry. What about you guys? How would the scene or story have to be different to convince you? Is it all motive, such that you would never, in principle convict a man if you did not understand his motive? Or is there some evidence missing from the scene that would make the point for you? This is a misunderstanding of our position. Anyone who began reading the comic at page 1 began in the camp that Reynardine was attempting to take Annie's body. It is the additional clues revealed later in the story that indicate the event should possibly not be taken at face-value. So you would need to present evidence after the event that confirms Reynardine's desperate and malevolent intent. Instead, we continue to get evidence that questions our initial presumptions. The taking of Annie's body argument always falls back to "desperation" in order to account for these new discrepancies. The irony is that I do believe Reynardine would take a human's life in a desperate moment -- and has -- but I do not believe his imprisonment under Eglamore alone would be enough to drive him to such desperate straits as killing his beloved Surma's daughter. I am of the opinion that immortals have more patience and pride than that.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 1, 2009 20:39:12 GMT
Ditto for me exactly what bandit said.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 2, 2009 10:44:57 GMT
This might be non-sequitur to whatever's currently being discussed, but here's a copy of what I posted in the "reread" thread:
That's a brilliant idea! Perhaps Reynardine's affection for Antimony is the byproduct of having taken possession of an object that was made as a gesture of love for her. Goodness, good observation there! Word of Tom (found in "Questions to Tom #2") :Reynardine's experiences will continue to shape his personality, no matter what body he is in. Despite what he said to Kat, he changes his body to suit his mood, not the other way around. Well, that sort of shoots down my pet theory. But the facts must win. Thanks for the link I had not seen it in this light at first, but your interpretation makes sense, and after reviewing your links, you've convinced me. I didn't remember that there were so many good close-ups of the toy's face without the mark, and assumed that its absence was because Tom doesn't always draw all the details on background objects. Also, I like the phrase "Etheric tag" I had originally thought that merely possessing an object belonging to Annie would not give her power over him, and only the bad luck of it having her mark on it gave her this power. But if her power stems from her ownership, and not from a fortuitious mark, then it makes even less sense for Reynardine to have deliberately planned to possess the toy. Thanks for the corrections.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 2, 2009 11:27:44 GMT
To the other side: I've been asked what kind of hints would have convinced me to be on your side. I gave a few examples: more hesitation in Reynardine, and Rey being more overty scarry. What about you guys? How would the scene or story have to be different to convince you? Is it all motive, such that you would never, in principle convict a man if you did not understand his motive? Or is there some evidence missing from the scene that would make the point for you? This is a misunderstanding of our position. Anyone who began reading the comic at page 1 began in the camp that Reynardine was attempting to take Annie's body. It is the additional clues revealed later in the story that indicate the event should possibly not be taken at face-value. Until this point, I agree with you completely. The motive of the suspect has been called into question. I myself no longer take the attempted possession at face value. I believe there is much that we do not know, and which will later be clarified. But there is a great distance between "I do not take the events at face value" and "I have a specific solution to explain the conflict: The entire event was orchestrated by one of the participants at great risk to his life and in the face of safer alternatives". The second statement does not follow from the first, because there may be many other solutions (random example: he was going to take her to the forest in the hopes that Coyote could separate them). If this particular solution (doll by trickery) causes more difficulties than it solves, then maybe it's not the right one. This does not reflect the arguments I have read or made. The argument for "Annie by force" does not claim that we are certain about Reynardine's motives and character. It claims that the acknowledged doubts about Reynardine's motives do not outweigh the preponderance of evidence of his actions, and that the specific alternative suggested ("doll by trickery") was much riskier and no more beneficial than a safer alternative ("doll by consent"). On the other hand, the arguments for "Doll by trickery" have focused mainly on Reynardine's motives. The various factual points which were brought up (e.g. noticing the doll on the roof) have been dealt with sufficiently, in my mind. But doubts about the motive are not enough - just because we can't explain why he would do such a thing doesn't mean he didn't try.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 2, 2009 15:14:01 GMT
(moved) I, too, favor the philosophy that crafty Reynardine intended to fake his own death and hide in the doll from the start It's a more obvious option if we'll remember Renard was and is one of the great mythological tricksters, after all. No, he didn't ask for her body. He loudly proclaimed he was going to grab her body. Which only tells us that he wanted Annie to *believe* that he wanted to grab her body. And he gave that unnecessary cheesy scream, knowing that Eglamore just left and how fast he can run when really needed. It's the way of scam: the mark is allowed to ensure there's nothing wrong with A while con artist quietly takes B. Now, he got an unwitting witness and a distraction. If Rey shows an attempt to capture Annie, allowing Eglamore to play SZ7uperman and "save" her, he can get to his real target while no one is in position for a careful observation. Then his mark is likely to assume if he's neither here nor there, he must have failed and died. Being disregarded as dead was his best chance: if he only escaped, they could catch him again. He just didn't expect to get a leash. Or he knew, but having to accompany Surma's daughter for a change didn't looked all that bad. Why would he be desperate to jump from one prison to another? Annie's ownership of Reynardine can hardly be described in the same terms as the prison Eglamore held him in. And even it was irrelevant as long as no one knew Rey's there. He was caught so quickly only due to his plot to get a positive favour balance... though being tempted by new tricks perhaps counts too. If he got a lot of time and a choice when to show himself, he has a good chance to be released.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 2, 2009 15:50:11 GMT
Ah, i missed this bit. Actually, there is no mark on the plushie. I think the so-called 'mark' is 'expressed' by Reynardine *after* he possessed the plushie, as an 'indication' (etheric tag, if you will) that the plushie belongs to Annie. " This symbol means..." But if it's a mark of her ownership... What's the symbol present on the spirit-in-transfer form of Renard ( panel 5)? If it's the same with the allowance for extreme blur and symbol's own transitional state, this may mean... Rey already got "target locked" on the toy even before his cheesy proclamation? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Sept 2, 2009 15:55:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on Sept 2, 2009 16:27:21 GMT
For reference, in alchemy mercury is believed to be neither one thing nor another; it's not liquid or solid, and it symbolizes things that are in-between or both things at once (life and death, good and evil, male and female, old and young, etc). Alchemists thought that mercury was a basic element from which other metals could be formed through transformation.
In ancient times, it was used both as a medicine and a poison. (Note: it is not recommended to actually use mercury as a medicine, but the ancient peoples didn't necessarily know that.) Mercury is also a symbol of speed due to its association with the god Mercury the messenger. Mercury was also thought to be useful in the search for eternal life, although if anyone pulled that one off they're keeping very quiet about it.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 2, 2009 16:33:45 GMT
And Reynardine is a pretty mercurial character too, wouldn't you say?
By the way, I love the "Z7uperman" joke, I don't know who started that but I get a chuckle out of that every time.
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 3, 2009 8:50:59 GMT
(moved) I, too, favor the philosophy that crafty Reynardine intended to fake his own death and hide in the doll from the start It's a more obvious option if we'll remember Renard was and is one of the great mythological tricksters, after all. And he gave that unnecessary cheesy scream, knowing that Eglamore just left and how fast he can run when really needed. It's the way of scam: the mark is allowed to ensure there's nothing wrong with A while con artist quietly takes B. Now, he got an unwitting witness and a distraction. If Rey shows an attempt to capture Annie, allowing Eglamore to play SZ7uperman and "save" her, he can get to his real target while no one is in position for a careful observation. Then his mark is likely to assume if he's neither here nor there, he must have failed and died. Being disregarded as dead was his best chance: if he only escaped, they could catch him again. He just didn't expect to get a leash. Or he knew, but having to accompany Surma's daughter for a change didn't looked all that bad. If accompanying Surma's daughter wasn't so bad, he could have just asked for permission to jump to her doll. It would have saved him the antagonism and the mistrust. I do not believe the con artist analogy is a valid one. The con artist has everything under control. He's got his 3 cups (or whatever), he's done his thing a thousand times before, and if he messes up and you guess right, then he loses $10. He does not perform a trick for the first time in circumstances outside his control where any mistake will cost him his life. He has no way of knowing at which second Eglamore will show up, now way of knowing exactly what he will do, no way of knowing that the doll will be dropped, no way of knowing he'll be able to enter it without them seeing it. If anythign goes wrong, he dies. If he doesn't mind being carried around by Surma's daughter, why not just ask her? No-one knows Annie was there. They'd come back and find Sivo dead. If they do a search and find him, he's still better off than if his dangerous trick succeeded, because Annie doesn't think he tried to kill her. If they don't find him, he can get away. Why not just ask her? It worked just fine for Shadow2.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 3, 2009 9:44:27 GMT
Because, Jon, that argument assumes something that wasn't stated here: namely, that Reynardine intended from the outset to be carried around by Surma's daughter.
There are a couple of factors that are being overlooked.
One, Reynardine has possessed inanimate objects before--he must have, or he would not know that he was able to--and he was able to leave them as well. Now every inanimate object can be said to be owned by somebody... even the garbage in the town dump is owned by the town. And yet he had no problems with being unable to do anything without the owner's permission before. Therefore, either there's something special about Annie's bond with the doll, or, this is a plot hole that we are intended to overlook for the sake of the story... which I'll cover in my next point. Either way, There's sufficient evidence to believe that Reynardine had no idea that he would become Annie's prisoner by jumping into the toy.
Next point: Something that you all REALLY need to consider here. You are looking so closely at all these little details that I still think you're missing the forest for the sake of the trees. Specifically this: How else could Tom have written Chapter 3, and the subsequent followup details, in such a way as to make the story work: to wit, how could he have written the events -just- ambiguously enough to make us wonder the things we're wondering now? The answer is he had to be nonspecific in order to be able to create the mystery. He does this throughout the comic, where things appear simple to begin with but only show themselves to be much more complicated as the story unfolds... and yet you're completely convinced, not by evidence but by your interpretation of images, that in this glaring case, he did not do the same? The only reason that both sides have enough "evidence" to "support" their claim is that Tom clearly made it ambiguous. And if he made it ambiguous, then we aren't supposed to be able to tell or know based just on what we've got thus far. That point makes this entire thread academic, and dare I say, pedantic.
Tom clearly writes in such a way that you are meant to think something is just what it seems on face value, and then you learn that it is much more as time goes on. You all know that, it's part of what we love about the comic and Tom's writing. Yet you all appear to be so quick to toss aside everything you know about how Tom writes, to insist that you can prove that he meant this thing to be plain, unquestionable, just what it appears to be on the surface, nothing more. Despite the hard fact that it has been -specifically said- later in the comic that that can't be right, and Reynardine would never do that. No, rather than take that as evidence that Tom is once again building mysteries that we are not meant to be able to solve yet, you find ways of explaining away, rationalizing away the very evidence that shows this incident to be another one of those impenetrable mysteries. I find that to be highly suspect and smacking of severe confirmative bias. You only see the things that agree with your point of view and rationalize away all the evidence to the contrary.
I still maintain that we are not meant to be able to know for certain one way or another on this issue, and I feel that any attempts to "prove" an argument in this case is both futile and rather absurd. Believe what you must believe, but don't try to "prove" it to others. That'll never get you anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 3, 2009 10:34:56 GMT
And I totally forgot to include another point.
When you are telling a story, one that you know from the outset you are going to present as being one simple thing and then reveal later on that it was actually something else, something more complex, you have to give enough information for people to be able to reach the initial false conclusion that you intend, but not so much information that you then create continuity errors with the final, fully revealed truth.
Here, then, you have to be able to excuse the seemingly wild chance that Eglamore would happen to save Annie at just the right moment. You can't dig too deeply to wonder how it was possible for Reynardine to know that the perfect moment to pull off his scam was going to come. Heck, as I've said before, Reynardine didn't even have any way of dreaming that Annie would even come looking for him, much less find him. But she did (on a literal Deus Ex Machina train, I might add) and we are clearly meant to overlook the probability of events happening the way they did, simply by understanding that they HAD to happen the way they did in order to be able to tell the story.
You want to talk about the probability that Reynardine was able to time it so perfectly, etc... well what about the probability that Annie would just happen to stumble upon the "Train to Large Animal Holding Cells (very hush hush you know)"? It is clear that in this chapter the author is playing fast and loose with the probabilities in order to advance the story. Think of how Robot was built. It's just what you have to do in order to get your story moving. If you don't like it or think it is untidy, then take that up with Tom. But the fact remains that improbable things happened, because they HAD to happen that way in order to set up and kick off the story.
This is why I've been saying that there was no other way that Tom could have set up the story, and gotten all the details out that were needed in order to set up the plot, and yet NOT be so specific or obvious or detailed that he would make it impossible for himself to tell a different version of the same events later on.
...which if you think about it, is again proof that to do that (tell a different version later on) is exactly what he intended from the outset, and is the reason why the scenes are vague and can be interpreted in two different ways in the first place.
Same goes for the argument that Rey did not confirm or deny that he tried to kill Annie but instead just said "don't be so melodramatic"... he COULDN'T have said one way or the other, because to do so would be to spoil the later reveal. And the fact that he didn't clarify, when he could have, is not evidence that events are what they seemed... it's evidence that events were NOT what they seemed, for if they were, there would have been no reason to keep the mystery a mystery!
Now that I've used your own argument against you, I shall now proceed to prove that black is white and night is day and promptly get myself killed at the next crosswalk. (Douglas Adams reference)
|
|
jon77
Full Member
Posts: 245
|
Post by jon77 on Sept 3, 2009 14:44:29 GMT
Because, Jon, that argument assumes something that wasn't stated here: namely, that Reynardine intended from the outset to be carried around by Surma's daughter. If this was his intention from the outset, then why not ask her permission to possess the doll ("doll by consent")? Or even just possess the doll directly? Both ways would have gotten him into the doll to be carried around by Annie without risk and without antagonism. Pretending to murder Annie while deliberately alerting Eglamore so he would rush in and push her away while knocking the doll in a place where they wouldn't see it so he could possess it unseen - it just doesn't make sense when a safer and simpler alternative is available. Also, I got the impression that you are suggesting that he was planning from the start to reveal himself to her later. If I'm mistaken, please ignore this paragraph. But if he was he was planning to reveal himself, this makes even less sense. Why risk so much to possess the doll unseen, when he's planning to reveal the possession later anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 3, 2009 15:13:18 GMT
How do you figure? The worst-case scenario is that Eglamore sees him enter the doll, and his ruse fails. The second-worse scenario is that only Annie sees him enters the doll, and she runs away scared to tell Eglamore. Under what scenario would it cause Reynardine to die though?
Even if the doll somehow became unavailable to him to enter (and I don't see how that would happen), Tom has said that Reynardine would be able to reenter the corpse of Sivo, atleast until it decayed enough to lose its eyes.
The "doll by consent" idea doesn't look like what a trickster would do - when do tricksters ever beg for something when they can trick them out of it instead?
At this point in time Reynardine doesn't have any way of knowing that Annie would consent in releasing from prison a body-snatching demon either. Better to trick her out of it rather than risk rejection -- indeed we still can't know that Annie would have accepted such a proposal at the time.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 3, 2009 15:42:21 GMT
If [being under Annie's possession] was his intention from the outset This is the opposite of what Casey said. when do tricksters ever beg for something when they can trick them out of it instead? Quoted for truth. I wanted to clarify something about my position. I'm not saying "doll by trickery" is right. It's quite possible that NEITHER "doll by trickery" NOR "Annie in desperation" are the actual facts and heretofore unrevealed information will cast an entirely new light on the subject. "Doll by trickery" simply creates for me the most continuity given the current data set (the events in Chapter 3 + later comments). As Casey and others have pointed out, Tom is the maestro of this mystery and will conduct the revelation of facts in his precise and much appreciated sense of timing.
|
|
|
Post by garlicgreens on Sept 3, 2009 21:32:04 GMT
You could just edit the first post to remove the question. I think deleting it would delete the entire thread.
|
|