|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 17:01:29 GMT
I'm more interested in what do you guys and gals think will happen in the next page? Something tremendously exciting![/i] Alright, more likely just that we'll be having a little discussion with Jack, but I like him, so it's exciting for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Sept 19, 2009 17:07:39 GMT
I thought I'd be able to help here in a constructive manner but it didn't work out. I apologize to everyone for the derail and I hope the discussion of the comic can resume now.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Sept 19, 2009 17:07:56 GMT
Discussing Casey's faults really should be done via PM, instead of derailing the whole thread for it. If at all, that is.
So to return to the main subject I'll add my opinion.
I agree that Jack wasn't steeling. I think he intended to return the stone after he was done examining it. I don't see anything wrong with anything Jack has done, except that he was coming on a little strong in the last chapter. Annie hasn't done anything wrong either. Reynardine was overly protective of Annie in that scene; he needed to warn, not scare off, as he tried to do.
I don't agree that Jack thought the stone was disposable. I think that he thought that it shouldn't be left out. I's also likely that he was just very curious and took the stone for that reason. But I don't see any indication that he did not instead to return it.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 17:16:39 GMT
You know, the fact that Annie treated it as almost 'disposable' would really add to the intrigue of the thing, in my opinion. I'm not sure if he was stealing or not, and I find myself straining to believe he would, but it is clearly a rather valuable item. If someone just started tossing precious gemstones on the ground without any real regard, I would probably be very curious as to why they would be doing that, and if the stones were imperfect, or perhaps some sort of trick. If those stones could be used to create fire, and are quite plainly very useful as well as valuable, that'd just add to the allure.
I'd like to compare it to someone knowingly leaving a solid gold swiss-army knife on the ground. I'd certainly be wanting to examine it, at least to see why it was left in such a manner.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 19, 2009 17:18:24 GMT
I'm fervently looking forward to Kat and Annie and Jack having a little discussion, honestly. Something that clears things up for them a little bit, anyway.
At the end of power station, while Annie and Kat seem to be standing near Zimmy and Gamma just before Jack and Zimmy have their exchange, there doesn't seem to be anything indicating they noticed it.
Jack doesn't show up again until four chapters later. The hall incident. Something I'm noticing reading these panels is there seems to be a distinct change in affect on Jack.
I'd rather have them talk then just move away awkwardly just to have more opportunity to study him. Ha. Edit for clarity: Change of affect here is me saying that his mannerisms and such are altered. We've already noted the Jack Bauer impression.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 17:19:36 GMT
I'm certain that, considering they initiated the conversation, and are probably a little too involved as a result, at least some form of verbal exchange will occur. Seems like they already broke the rule. My my my... (Have been thinking of saying something funny to cool down the thread, but failed miserably) I believe that this would have been appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Sept 19, 2009 17:46:30 GMT
I read Tom's post to mean he'd beat someone who talked to him like Jack did to Annie.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 19, 2009 18:14:51 GMT
I read Tom's post to mean he'd beat someone who talked to him like Jack did to Annie. If you are right, then I am terribly sorry for jumping to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 19, 2009 18:58:47 GMT
I'm fervently looking forward to Kat and Annie and Jack having a little discussion, honestly. Something that clears things up for them a little bit, anyway. Jack doesn't show up again until four chapters later. The hall incident. Something I'm noticing reading these panels is there seems to be a distinct change in affect on Jack. I'd rather have them talk then just move away awkwardly just to have more opportunity to study him. Ha. Well, now that he's more paranoidal than overexcited, and girls sort of got a reason to cool down a bit, so the only question is whether they will talk or walk away (or run away to some distraction). I'm certain that, considering they initiated the conversation, and are probably a little too involved as a result, at least some form of verbal exchange will occur. Probably. The only question is, do we have to roleplay such things here every time they are invoked or only when it's possible to get something on the level of the City Face comments?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Sept 19, 2009 19:07:07 GMT
I am sorry, Guttang Gottong.
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 19:12:42 GMT
I'm certain that, considering they initiated the conversation, and are probably a little too involved as a result, at least some form of verbal exchange will occur. Probably. The only question is, do we have to roleplay such things here every time they are invoked or only when it's possible to get something on the level of the City Face comments? I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand that last bit. Could you please clarify?
|
|
thor
Junior Member
Your personal text will be displayed underneath your avatar.
Posts: 58
|
Post by thor on Sept 19, 2009 19:23:16 GMT
You know, the fact that Annie treated it as almost 'disposable' would really add to the intrigue of the thing, in my opinion. I'm not sure if he was stealing or not, and I find myself straining to believe he would, but it is clearly a rather valuable item. If someone just started tossing precious gemstones on the ground without any real regard, I would probably be very curious as to why they would be doing that, and if the stones were imperfect, or perhaps some sort of trick. If those stones could be used to create fire, and are quite plainly very useful as well as valuable, that'd just add to the allure. I'd like to compare it to someone knowingly leaving a solid gold swiss-army knife on the ground. I'd certainly be wanting to examine it, at least to see why it was left in such a manner. How may of you could tell a precious gemstone from cut glass, just by looking at it? Also, all gemstones are not created equal. We can't if the blinker stone looks rose quartz or ruby, at least not from Tom's drawing. It might just look like a big chunk of colored plastic. For that matter, it might be a chunk of colored plastic. That aside, in this modern age, it is hard to tell if something is supposed to be disposable just by looking at it. A great deal of work goes into packaging for all manner of things. And if you did not know what a battery was supposed to be for, you would not assume that a dead battery was a piece of junk -- what with its careful manufacturing and its shiny metallic surfaces. And you wouldn't be able to tell a dead battery from a live battery just by picking it up and looking at it. If Jack doesn't know what the blinker stone is, there's no reason for him to assume that it is anything more remarkable than a dead magical firestarter, especially considering the way Annie casually abandoned it.
|
|
tictoc
New Member
1000 eyes and counting
Posts: 40
|
Post by tictoc on Sept 19, 2009 19:25:28 GMT
I read Tom's post to mean he'd beat someone who talked to him like Jack did to Annie. thats what I saw too.. especially since the quote above his statement actually references the page.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Sept 19, 2009 19:33:02 GMT
I actually read Tom's comment both ways, and don't know which one is the correct one. Nor do I care to speculate. Edit: We've already noted the Jack Bauer impression. And to expunge the thought from my head:
|
|
|
Post by Jiminiminy on Sept 19, 2009 19:57:16 GMT
How may of you could tell a precious gemstone from cut glass, just by looking at it? Also, all gemstones are not created equal. We can't if the blinker stone looks rose quartz or ruby, at least not from Tom's drawing. It might just look like a big chunk of colored plastic. For that matter, it might be a chunk of colored plastic. Under extensive analysis, [The Blinker Stone] appears as nothing more than a simple monocrystal, but it is clearly much more.That is to say, it is most certainly not a chunk of plastic. That aside, in this modern age, it is hard to tell if something is supposed to be disposable just by looking at it. A great deal of work goes into packaging for all manner of things. And if you did not know what a battery was supposed to be for, you would not assume that a dead battery was a piece of junk -- what with its careful manufacturing and its shiny metallic surfaces. And you wouldn't be able to tell a dead battery from a live battery just by picking it up and looking at it. If Jack doesn't know what the blinker stone is, there's no reason for him to assume that it is anything more remarkable than a dead magical firestarter, especially considering the way Annie casually abandoned it. See, this argument goes two ways. One is the way you intended, stating that the stone might well be a piece of Quartz that looks rather nice, and convincingly like a ruby. Second is the way I see it. Considering pretty much everyone around the forum naturally assumed it was an at least semi-precious stone, why wouldn't the characters? If Jack doesn't know what it is, there's certainly no reason to assume the best, but there's just as much lack of reason to assume the worst. And when presented by a good and bad option, people generally like choosing the good one, it's almost a part of human nature. The only real reason for him to think it more remarkable than a magical firestarter, is that, at first glance, it looks more interesting than a magical firestarter. "And if you did not know what a battery was supposed to be for, you would not assume that a dead battery was a piece of junk -- what with its careful manufacturing and its shiny metallic surfaces." If you didn't know what a Blinker Stone was for, you would likely not assume that it's a piece of junk, what with its somewhat uncommon characteristics and apparent beauty.
|
|
tictoc
New Member
1000 eyes and counting
Posts: 40
|
Post by tictoc on Sept 19, 2009 20:02:39 GMT
it's been made to be special even if they wouldn't have seen it that way originally. It was burning with undetectable fire that still produced heat. that is special.
|
|
|
Post by Ulysses on Sept 19, 2009 20:28:45 GMT
What if the whole of the next page is just Annie and Jack giving each other the ol' stink-eye, dramatically zooming in on their eyes and in the last panel they just walk away from each other? It would be terrible but I'd also find it quite amusing. Guys guys! So blinker stones are monocrystals, right? But look what monocrystals are grown from! Am I just getting unnecessarily excited about a possible link with the word 'Seed'? Or could I be onto something? (I'm probably not.)
|
|
thor
Junior Member
Your personal text will be displayed underneath your avatar.
Posts: 58
|
Post by thor on Sept 19, 2009 21:59:30 GMT
Fine, then. It's a shiny chunk of transparent crystal, and doesn't appear to be anything more, even under extensive analysis. So? All this means is that to the untrained eye, it looks like a pretty bauble. If Jack doesn't know what the blinker stone is, there's no reason for him to assume that it is anything more remarkable than a dead magical firestarter, especially considering the way Annie casually abandoned it. See, this argument goes two ways. One is the way you intended, stating that the stone might well be a piece of Quartz that looks rather nice, and convincingly like a ruby. Second is the way I see it. Considering pretty much everyone around the forum naturally assumed it was an at least semi-precious stone, why wouldn't the characters? [/quote] Er, what? The characters, by definition, have a much better and more thorough understanding of the world they live in because they are immersed in it and can experience it directly, as opposed to us readers who can only observe their world through a necessarily crude 2-D rendering of very specific frozen moments of time. That's like saying that all the forumites agree that Anja has black apostrophes instead of eyes, because that's the way it looks to them, so why wouldn't the characters see it that way? The drawing are necessarily abridged and representational depictions of the GK world. The characters have a much fuller and more complete set of nuances and details -- not to mention context and common knowledge -- to base their conclusions and observations on. The natural assumptions of the forumites are far less likely to be valid. Another example: If it wasn't for the more detailed picture of the blinker stone on the title page of the "Blinking" chapter, which showed evidence of refraction, the reader should have logically assumed that the blinker stones were opaque, as they had otherwise never been depicted as transparent. The only real reason for him to think it more remarkable than a magical firestarter, is that, at first glance, it looks more interesting than a magical firestarter. We don't know if he knows what a typical magical firestarter looks like. We don't even know if he knows if there is such a thing as a typical magical firestarter. We don't know if he even knows that there is magic. He might be just trying to find evidence of the chemical accelerants Annie used to catch the shiny rock on fire. My point is, we know very little about Jack, and trying to make assumptions about his knowledge and motivations is dubious sport at best. And claiming to have reliable group consensus is even more tenuous.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Sept 19, 2009 22:56:25 GMT
So, let me get this straight. Having some personal issues gives you permission to corner someone in a hallway, demand information from them, getting right up in their face, and later steal their belongings? Really?? Quibble: nobody is accusing Jack of stealing the blinkerstone. Annie hadn't been back to get it yet after leaving it there. Aside from that, I totally agree with what you are saying. Nobody was accusing Jack of being evil, either - just of overstepping some boundaries, probably due to the stress of dealing with whatever he encountered in Zimmingham. And nobody has been responding to Jack in an evil manner - just being sensibly protective of themselves and their friends. (And Annie did not sic Rey on Jack - if anything she was more polite and respectful than he deserved, and Rey intervened on his own.) We have reason to think that Annie can handle Jack, both etherically and physically, once she recognizes the need to do so. Kat, not so much, and she'd be an obvious way to get to Annie. So if Annie does not trust Jack at the moment - which would be perfectly understandable - it makes a lot of sense for her to advise Kat to stay away from him.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Sept 19, 2009 23:50:55 GMT
The only question is, do we have to roleplay such things here every time they are invoked or only when it's possible to get something on the level of the City Face comments? I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand that last bit. Could you please clarify? I expressed doubts that it would make sense for us to do things like playing in conclusion-jumping or "caught you!" (here or in comments) every time these issues are mentioned in the new GC strip... unless we can do a piece of art from it as well. ;D Of course, i realize that this notion is biased by my perfectionism. That aside, in this modern age, it is hard to tell if something is supposed to be disposable just by looking at it. A great deal of work goes into packaging for all manner of things. And it's the Court, after all, with antigrav thermos and laser cows -- one never knows. I actually read Tom's comment both ways, and don't know which one is the correct one. Nor do I care to speculate. I wouldn't put it past Tom to do it as a pun either... depending on how annoyed he is. But either way, that's the funny part, given who tried to read Tom's thoughts in every other thread. But look what monocrystals are grown from! Am I just getting unnecessarily excited about a possible link with the word 'Seed'? Or could I be onto something? (I'm probably not.) You Watch Too Much W. We don't know if he knows what a typical magical firestarter looks like. We don't even know if he knows if there is such a thing as a typical magical firestarter. That was obvious reference to her last use of blinker, assuming he knows (from present kids) about it. My point is, we know very little about Jack, and trying to make assumptions about his knowledge and motivations is dubious sport at best. And claiming to have reliable group consensus is even more tenuous. We know he was little happy Mekboy until the incident on that roof with Zimmy. Which was so weird it left him without as much as enough of words to ask "what the hell" coherently, and to "knock a few screws loose" for more than few days.
|
|
|
Post by jimbobbowilly on Sept 20, 2009 2:44:50 GMT
LC (Elsie) is also Lance Corporal. I never really realised it was a feminine name. Kind of bad for men of that rank in the US Marine Corps.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Sept 20, 2009 15:57:17 GMT
Wait. Why is his side "the good fight"? What kind of bias is that? My bias. Because I think he is right. Because he is. Because he matches my bias. See? [Also because he was a lone voice, and the underdog is generally regarded as virtuous.] Jack did bad things. Even those people who try to say that it was okay for him to do those bad things because he's messed up in the head, don't deny that Jack has done bad things. So really I see there are two points of disagreement here: One, whether or not Jack's "condition" excuses his bad behavior, and Two, whether or not what he did at night with the blinker stone constitutes stealing. Which one should we discuss first? I'm going to argue semantics: Jack's done one irrefutably desperate thing, pushing too hard for information. Even labeled as "crossing the line and unjustifiably bad," it's one bad thing which isn't so much bad as creepy and socially maladjusted. EDIT: I'm trying to say it's not a moral equivalency to stealing, rape, killing babies, etc. I'm agnostic on the stealing: it can't be proven either way. I'm guessing Annie will accuse him later and we'll get a better picture. Nobody's arguing that Jack's condition excuses his bad behavior. We're arguing that it causes it. We're contending that he didn't sudden flatten as a character when spiders invaded his psyche. We're annoyed that the board treats him as some fiendish villain and assumes the worst. That's what Annie and Kat are doing in this (Friday's) comic. And that's understandable. But a reader should recognize the meta-narrative, and know that attributing villainous traits to a story explicitly without villains does a disservice to your understanding of the exposition, especially when based on such equivocal foundations as the conversation in the hall and Jack holding the blinker stone.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 20, 2009 16:24:17 GMT
Wait. Why is his side "the good fight"? What kind of bias is that? My bias. Because I think he is right. Because he is. Because he matches my bias. See? [Also because he was a lone voice, and the underdog is generally regarded as virtuous.] I would beg to differ with you on whose voice is the lone one in this discussion. That is a subjective interpretation, not a fact. Again, that's a subjective interpretation. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what the first person to whom I responded was arguing. Further, they were also arguing that it was Annie's fault because Annie was being callous and unhelpful. In my opinion, you're saying "we" too much and you should be speaking only for yourself, because it's been my observation that everyone here is saying something slightly different from everyone else, as is the nature of opinions. It's a natural instinct to try to reinforce your position by positing that everyone else holds it too, but I don't see that to be the case here so please don't do it. Additionally, you are not specifying who exactly is treating Jack as a fiendish villain, nor quoting where that was said. That seems like a generalization to me and it is not a fair approach to other people's opinions. Furthermore if no one really said it, then saying people said it when they didn't is, as I said early in the thread, setting up a straw man: creating a position to argue against that no one really holds. And I find this passage to be a little bit derogatory and demeaning. I got taken to task for seeming to assault other people's basic comprehension of the material, so others should be held to the same standard. Fundamentally: My position is that Jack shouldn't be regarded as an innocent, misunderstood victim, because having personal issues does not excuse inappropriate behavior against others. We seem to agree that Jack has behaved inappropriately (I'm avoiding the use of the word "bad" in case that muddies the issue with its connotation) so the fundamental argument now seems to be whether or not having personal issues gives you the right to treat other people inappropriately. It is my position that having a need to have questions answered--even a desperate need--doesn't give one the permission to demand answers to those questions in a hostile manner, any more than a man who is starving has permission to rob me of my wallet at knife-point. I also contend that picking something up off the ground that you know does not belong to you, and taking it somewhere else where its original owner would not be able to find it, is the exact legal definition of theft, regardless of whether the perpetrator makes the excuse of "Oh, I was just going to borrow it" or "I wasn't going to keep it forever". Taking someone else's car even two houses down the street without their permission, with full intent of giving them the keys back, is still vehicular theft. These are my contentions and if someone wants to debate them, I will do so, but not with these generalizations about how "everyone" is trying to "villainize" Jack, or how "we" are annoyed at "their" lack of understanding the meta-picture. I see how not-fun it is to be on the receiving end of that, so, let that be water under the bridge and stop doing it. I hope everyone feels that my mannerism is improved in this post.
|
|
|
Post by garlicgreens on Sept 20, 2009 17:03:13 GMT
I wish I could bake a cake filled with rainbows and smiles and everyone would eat and be happy.
|
|