|
|
Post by warrl on Dec 15, 2009 5:24:13 GMT
I think the most logical and responsible thing that Kat and Antimony can do now is to report this to a grown-up. But Kat and Annie are low-level player characters. If they give the information to the authorities it'll be all "thank you for the information, we'll take care of it, back to class kids" and they'll have no story. HIGH-level player characters would be different; then the authorities would thank them for the information "and please tell us what you're going to do about it, and if we can assist in any way." It is the proper duty of low-level player characters to grab hold of a plot hook and run with it, on their own, at least to the point where the authorities would not be expected to immediately take it away from them. If that were the plan, the word they would use is "bait". Not "sacrifice". |
|
|
|
Post by judgedeadd on Dec 15, 2009 6:16:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cherubiel on Dec 15, 2009 7:52:17 GMT
Maybe it doesn't mean that this is the cause of Jeannes death? The Beethoven guy does call her sacrifice, but what if that's not literally? If Jeannes lover was one of the forest people, she could be used as bait maybe? They let it look like she's in danger (like she's about to get killed) to lure her lover out of the forest. And then shoot him with their weighty arrow (or use it in some other curious way). That's why it must be Jeanne. And Diego is totally in for this, 'cause it'd mean his competition will get wasted. And then poor Jeanne (who didn't really know about that big plan of the Court) is forced to see her lover die. Suicide follows, and since the newly erected force-field deflects etheric energies, she's caught down in the ravine. Just a guess. I like thine theory. The only thing that I can see working against it is they seem to be specifically targeting doing something to the river itself, in today's comic. Well I guess we'll see what happens. Well, he only talked about taking steps to fortify the annan waters, so it could be everything. Maybe the whole plan went horribly wrong or even Diego was decieved by someone else (possibly Sir Young?) and the outcome was different from what it should've been. Obviously they needed his help, because he has that awsome engineering skills, but knew that he was in love with Jeanne (which is usually obvious with this type of madly-in-love-guys) and so coaxed him into helping them in some other way. But you're right, it doesn't seem that the arrow is made for killing. The strange tip rather looks like it's made to cut something, maybe a rope or roots. I thought maybe it purpose was to anchor itself into the cliffside of the ravine, but the tip doesn't seem to be fitting for that either. |
|
Luxa
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Luxa on Dec 15, 2009 10:24:57 GMT
But why would Diego even care? If he is so concerned about the future, why wouldn't he just reprogram the robots to not love Jeanne? If he doesn't do that because of guilt, why shift that to Sir Young? Honestly I don't quite get it, so is he between the "oh my god, what have I done" and "I'm completely innocent, all was the fault of that Young" states? One possibility that occurs to me is perhaps he goes into (or is already in, for that matter) a dissociative state, that a part of him really does think it's all Young's fault and completely blocks out his own involvement in it. Oh, that's a completely possible idea, I like it.  This is a very good point! Annie has been asked to help the Psychopomps with retrieving the soul of Jeanne from the river. If she succeeds, and Jeanne really IS what makes the Annan waters Impassable, then holeh crap. This is a significant thing. It might be endangering the Court, but I think that Annie should still help Jeanne - it really isn't right to leave her in that limbo state, no matter what. Besides, she can always (as the most probable candidate for the Court's next medium) find a way of achieving genuine peace and understanding between the Court and the Wood so that the Court wouldn't need the barrier to protect itself. (And if the Court had tried making peace with the forest-folk, they wouldn't have seen a need to murder Jeanne.) I also think that they should help her, but I doubt that everyone in the court would think so. With all the stuff going on with Ysengrin, they could fell kind of threatened... |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Dec 15, 2009 14:31:57 GMT
That word choice could be a grim joke. The only thing that phrase confirms is that Jeanne isn't going to like her role in the plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Dec 15, 2009 15:17:41 GMT
But you're right, it doesn't seem that the arrow is made for killing. The strange tip rather looks like it's made to cut something, maybe a rope or roots. I thought maybe it purpose was to anchor itself into the cliffside of the ravine, but the tip doesn't seem to be fitting for that either. Perhaps the split arrowhead is for cutting some sort of spiritual or etheric bond. Post #1138, wooo. |
|
|
|
Post by Rasselas on Dec 15, 2009 15:21:37 GMT
Perhaps the split arrowhead is for cutting some sort of spiritual or etheric bond. Ooooh, nice guess. They'll have to have a way to see this bond as well. Maybe something like a blinker stone. |
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Dec 15, 2009 15:54:28 GMT
You have to remove Diego from the creation of the robot play and the shrine to make sense of some of this speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Dec 15, 2009 16:51:01 GMT
You mean like, rather than the S1/Bullbot battle being a scene that Diego programmed to be what he wished he could do, it is instead a scene that the robots programmed to be what they wished Diego had done?
|
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Dec 15, 2009 18:05:15 GMT
Yeah. It's less strained of a speculation, in a bizarrely roundabout way. I still don't like it, but at least it doesn't give me a headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonsong12 on Dec 15, 2009 18:48:50 GMT
It's just so weird to reconcile with the earlier play. This flashback seems to indicate that Diego is responsible, but in the play, Bullbot (a.k.a. Sir Young) is very clearly blamed. it's not even just in actions, Robot flat out says to bullbot "you will pay for what you did to her." I don't blame kingbot for being confused, I can't make any sense of this! ...and that's awesome, by the way. There's got to be more to the story. ...I guess if bullbot wasn't really Young, it might make some sense? But that wouldn't explain the laser cows' ignoring of the monument and dislike of Eglamore, so the original interpretation makes the most sense. Man, I don't even want to speculate really, myself. I'm just enjoying the ride! |
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Dec 15, 2009 18:52:10 GMT
Man, I don't even want to speculate really, myself. I'm just enjoying the ride! That's hot. Wanna catch a movie later? |
|
|
|
Post by spanky on Dec 15, 2009 19:24:00 GMT
Haha, I was referring to the fact that Diego seems to be behind Jeanne's death as making no sense at all. The robot's confusion over the matter makes perfect sense. People have come up with some pretty good explanations as to how Diego might be pushing the use of Jeanne as a sacrifice and still blame someone else, but these are still only predictions. In the context of the comic, Diego's actions are still confusing as crap. Well, just a few pages back, Annie and Kat were talking about love and how it makes people do strange things. Although they were talking about Parley and Smith, I can't help but wonder if it's an intro to the story that minicam bot has to share. www.gunnerkrigg.com/archive_page.php?comicID=643 |
|
|
|
Post by romangoro on Dec 15, 2009 20:07:47 GMT
One possibility that occurs to me is perhaps he goes into (or is already in, for that matter) a dissociative state, that a part of him really does think it's all Young's fault and completely blocks out his own involvement in it. I don't really like that theory because I feel that it's not Tom's style. The characters in GC are very complex, but I think that such psychological conditions (dissociative states, memories blocked out) are ... I don't know, kind of out of character for the whole story. It's just so weird to reconcile with the earlier play. This flashback seems to indicate that Diego is responsible, but in the play, Bullbot (a.k.a. Sir Young) is very clearly blamed. it's not even just in actions, Robot flat out says to bullbot "you will pay for what you did to her." Let's not forget that the association Bullbot -> Sir Young and Diego -> S1 whas made entirely by Annie. She could be wrong and the right association be Bullbot -> Diego (Big and clumsy) and S1-> the shadowy man. |
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Dec 15, 2009 20:14:32 GMT
Good point, spanky. That's something to chew on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Dec 15, 2009 21:14:44 GMT
Let's not forget that Tom has also demonstrated on many occasions that he knows where his Occam's Razor is, and he isn't afraid to use it.
The number of genuine psych-outs pales in comparison to the number of theorized psych-outs. GC is a story that stays incredibly interesting by revealing its layers slowly, and adding more questions each time more answers are given. But how many genuine twists have there been, where things have been implied to be one way and then switcheroo'd to end up being something else entirely? Not many, that I can think of. I think Tom's storytelling style is has more finesse and sophistication than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on Dec 16, 2009 0:44:04 GMT
Well, back before this page a lot of people took it as a given that Annie was angry at the Guides for taking her mum away. And when this page went up, just about everyone assumed that the god in question was The Very Nice Man, rather than his canine companion. I agree that Tom doesn't do the "imply one thing, then reveal something else" deal very much, but he is good at making ambiguous pages where the most immediately obvious interpretation later turns out to be false. |
|
|
|
Post by idonotlikepeas on Dec 16, 2009 1:47:47 GMT
The thing that strikes me is that, implicitly or explicitly, the source of the robots' confusion is the same as the source of Annie's a few pages back, and they're even talking to the same person about it. "I thought love was supposed to be a /good/ thing."
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Dec 17, 2009 13:41:34 GMT
Oh and the other huge revelation is that, somehow, Beethoven was at the Court in its founding days... ...as an alien spy? Of all the things, Ulysses, you're wondering about the gruesome details. Actually, Ulysses worries about the ear muffs. An old habit.  I think it's "She died [and in the process protected the Court from the woods] and [therefore] we did nothing [as the intended court warriors]." The issue isn't that Jeanne is dead, it's that the robots now have no real purpose. Good point. They were built, ready to stand... and then most of them were just cast aside or used as furniture (except a little shrub-dog alert now and then). (And they could still love her, despite this. Why "despite"? It's even worse when they know that instead of allowing them to do their job Court's Big Boys sacrificed Jeanne... whom they wanted to protect most. No wonder Court robots tend to shun humans. but he is good at making ambiguous pages where the most immediately obvious interpretation later turns out to be false. Here's a random guess: what the Court war council wanted was not mere lockout, but something else, likely more offensive. And then Jeanne did "stuck" in order to (or as a result of trying to) subvert their plan when she understood what's really going on. Isn't it a justifiable " neutral no longer" situation? Also, the one to whom she was supposedly dangerous is a Court student while she completely ignored two fairies right next to her. Does this fit in "screw you, jerks!" as the last will? |
|
|
|
Post by amantis on Oct 5, 2010 20:28:43 GMT
gosh golly, F*ck your "she died and we did nothing." Looks to me like it's directly you're fault she died! "we did nothing." Pha! Interesting thought you just gave me: What if its not an admittance of guilt "We did nothing to save her" but a denial "We didn't kill her" |
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 5, 2010 20:42:31 GMT
HOW ABOUT CONTRIBUTING TO RECENT THREADS?
This was a public service announcement from the Ministry of Life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 5, 2010 22:40:35 GMT
amantis: three posts so far, every one a necro of an old thread. I just want to ask, why? Why, O merciless sky, Why?
|
|
percival
Full Member
there's a storm a-brewin'
Posts: 119
|
Post by percival on Oct 5, 2010 23:32:49 GMT
Perhaps amantis is reading the comic via The Ultimate Listing Of Comic Episode Threads, and wants to make page-specific observations.
|
|
|
|
Post by therocksayz on Oct 6, 2010 13:12:15 GMT
Perhaps amantis is reading the comic via The Ultimate Listing Of Comic Episode Threads, and wants to make page-specific observations. The Rock Says IT DOESN'T MATTER if amantis wants to make page specific observations! If he actually reads any of the replys after his own he'd know how rude and self serving he's being by continually doing this and stop. Why not just ask Tom directly on Formspring if you have questions about old pages? If he can't comprehend what the Rock Says and keeps it up he should be banned! |
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Oct 6, 2010 14:22:00 GMT
I guess I don't understand why it's rude. It's not a duplicate thread, and the page number is on the thread title, so it's obviously old. If you don't want to read threads on old pages...don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Oct 6, 2010 14:36:39 GMT
I don't have a problem with necro'd threads either. If you want to discuss something that happened two years ago, its better to read the whole thing in context.
I guess you could start a new thread and point to the old one but I don't see much benefit to doing that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 6, 2010 15:09:38 GMT
Hm. Maybe you guys have a point. Why does the Internet have a thing against bringing up old threads, as long as the new post is relevant to the topic and adds something to the conversation? I mean one can debate about whether the particular posts in question are actually contributing to the conversation, but perhaps we shouldn't dismiss any resurrection of an old thread out of hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by legion on Oct 6, 2010 17:31:19 GMT
Well, you pointed out the problem yourself Casey: in this particular case, amantis' contributions are nothing but necroing, and he clearly isn't interested in contributing productively, since he doesn't answer to the answers made to his necroing; as soon as one thread is brought back from the dead, he moves on to the next corpse.
|
|
Fen
Junior Member
Posts: 86
|
Post by Fen on Oct 6, 2010 17:44:17 GMT
Raising an army of the Unthread, so to speak.
...
*runs*
Yeah, I don't mind thread necromancy if you want to talk about an old topic, but simply continuing the conversation when it ended almost a year ago is weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 6, 2010 17:53:04 GMT
Well, you pointed out the problem yourself Casey Subtle, wasn't it? |
|
