|
Post by Afalstein on Mar 18, 2010 0:32:41 GMT
call me paranoid, but the first thing that came to my mind when the note said to bring the wolf along is that Jack wanted Annie and Reynard at a specific place and time where he knew they couldn't be protecting Kat. Doubtful. He doesn't know if the wolf has any connection to Kat. He knows Annie and the wolf are connected, and he knows Kat and Annie are connected, but that's not really enough for him to insist on the wolf coming along. After all, he doesn't know who Reynardine is, he just knows Annie has a big wolf thing with her. Besides, why would Jack be interested in Kat right now? He doesn't have technical difficulties, he has etheric ones.
|
|
|
Post by mirkwoodelf on Mar 18, 2010 0:58:54 GMT
is she going out sans lipstick? *gasp* Surely not! I think it's just because her mouth is closed. Wondering about possible connections between Surma's make-up penchant and her daughter's... Anyway... There's a print on the moon! (Just call me Captain Obvious). Reynardine and Kat should form a society for the preservation of Annie and the disregard of spelling. (SPADS?)
|
|
|
Post by asianborat on Mar 18, 2010 3:02:01 GMT
Uhh....in what panel did jack get a spider condition again? All I remember is when he got sucked into Zimmy's world.
|
|
four
New Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by four on Mar 18, 2010 3:12:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by chiparoo on Mar 18, 2010 4:56:31 GMT
THERE'S A PRINT ON THE MOON (there's a cut on her face)
Edit: OH GAWD MY AVATAR IS BROKED nooooooooooooooooooo
|
|
|
Post by jimbobbowilly on Mar 18, 2010 5:23:56 GMT
THERE'S A PRINT ON THE MOON (there's a cut on her face) Edit: OH GAWD MY AVATAR IS BROKED nooooooooooo oooooooo
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 18, 2010 10:23:51 GMT
You have to wonder what the world's astronomer's outside of the court have decided was the cause of the moon-print... "Hope there wasn't any expensive equipment up there." Though I still wonder whether Annie ought to inform the Court about the side-effects of that experiment by the lake on Zimmy (and eventually, on Jack); it could be that they don't realize the damage that it's causing, and need to be informed. (Assuming that they aren't doing it on purpose as a horrible experiment on Zimmy to study her - after what we saw of the Founders, I'm not entirely certain that we can dismiss that theory.) Of course, the drawback of that is that Annie would have to admit that she and some of the other children were sneaking about after bedtime. Eh, wait. cannedbreadmaker already used this joke.
|
|
|
Post by shouqi on Mar 18, 2010 21:50:49 GMT
Uhh....in what panel did jack get a spider condition again? All I remember is when he got sucked into Zimmy's world. We saw the aftereffects of his time in Zimmytown, then we saw him during the camping trip with an etheric spider on his face. He's subconsciously aware of it, but that hasn't crossed over into reality.
|
|
|
Post by romangoro on Mar 18, 2010 23:31:28 GMT
I think that by this point we shouldn't be expecting any character (in this case, Jack) nor hers or his actions to be evil. I think that one of the main themes of this story is that there is no good nor evil, just different points of view. And Annie and the mediums are precisely the ones to, well, mediate between this points of view. I wouldn't be at all surprised if down the road comes a chapter showing Diego's story from his point of view showing him in a much better light.
In fact one of the things I like best abut GC is that it constantly breaks the usual tropes of fantasy stories, especially the conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist. It's obvious that we all root for Annie and Kat, but there is never someone to root against. There is no conflict, just the dicotomy between ethereal and technological, and it's more of a duality than a dicotomy.
PS: This post should have been in monday's comic, but I refuse to post in a trolled thread.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Mar 19, 2010 10:26:10 GMT
I think that by this point we shouldn't be expecting any character (in this case, Jack) nor hers or his actions to be evil. I think that one of the main themes of this story is that there is no good nor evil, just different points of view. ...I completely disagree. Or at least I completely disagree with the way you just stated it. Somehow from "there's good in pretty much everyone, and nobody is completely evil" you ended up going to "there's no good nor evil". Don't you see the contradiction here? If you had said that the message was "there's no evil" I might agree -- again not completely, but some. But how can you see the depiction of some goodness in EVERYONE as evidence for the non-existence of goodness? That seems to me like a fish claiming there's no such thing as water, simply because everyone is swimming in it. We've seen good, brave, loving individuals, risking themselves for the sake of others. I can't remotely see how a theme of the story could be that "there is no good". There IS good. There ARE good individuals. As for whether there are completely evil individuals, that remains to be seen (my money's on Moneyspider, no pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by linnabean on Mar 19, 2010 13:24:42 GMT
I think we have seen bad - maybe not necessarily evil - characters. Diego? Sure, he felt bad about sacrificing Jeanne later in life, but he still did it because she spurned his love. Sir Young? Totally on board with the plan that calls for human sacrifice and covering it up.
Those are not "good" actions, even if the men thought they were protecting the court.
So yes, there are elements of good and evil in this comic. What I think we have really seen so far is that not everything is as it seems - all good or all bad.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 19, 2010 17:37:40 GMT
I think that one of the main themes of this story is that there is no good nor evil, just different points of view. [...] In fact one of the things I like best abut GC is that it constantly breaks the usual tropes of fantasy stories, Oh. If here's no cardboard villains, it's already shocking twist and main feature. That's rather sad state of affairs, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by romangoro on Mar 20, 2010 13:24:03 GMT
Somehow from "there's good in pretty much everyone, and nobody is completely evil" you ended up going to "there's no good nor evil". Yeah, I see how it could be read that way, I should have written "no absolute good and evil[/i]". And I my point wasn't about moral stances but about how no character is unidimensional, as is usual in fantasy stories. I mean to talk about GC the comic, not GC the place and it's characters. Since English is not my first language, it was poorly written. My bad. My main point is that we the readers seem to be conditioned to find a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist in the stories we read, and Tom breaks that in GC. I don't know if that's a conscious decision he made, but I really don't think there is an antagonist to Annie i.e. the protagonist, which is not surprise if you think that she is (growing up to be) a medium, a mediator. And every other chapter I see posts trying to pin some character as the antagonist, and I think that's kind of odd by now. [Diego & Sir Young's actions in Chapter 25] are not "good" actions, even if the men thought they were protecting the court. What I think nobody really considers himself evil. We all have justifications for our actions, and I don't think there is anybody (in the real world) who can say what's good and what's bad in absolute terms. But fiction is not the real world. There is someone who can: the author. And I love that Tom does not do that and writes "real" characters with real inner conflicts, so to speak. Am I overanalysing this? Maybe I just like to write too much
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 22, 2010 7:08:29 GMT
The only truly evil people in real life are murderous psychopaths.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 22, 2010 8:41:37 GMT
My main point is that we the readers seem to be conditioned to find a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist in the stories we read, and Tom breaks that in GC. I don't know if that's a conscious decision he made, but I really don't think there is an antagonist to Annie i.e. the protagonist, which is not surprise if you think that she is (growing up to be) a medium, a mediator. I'll disagree. I think there is an antagonist, and I'm pretty sure that antagonist has appeared in every chapter so far. (Although in the last chapter it was just in the background of a couple scattered individual frames.) I'm even more sure that no chapter so far would have worked as well and in the same way if this antagonist were replaced with another. This antagonist is not a character in the common sense. Although very much so in the literary sense: this story is about the antagonist nearly as much as about the protagonist, and there are hints of many past stories about it. Also "antagonist" doesn't have to be "enemy". And certainly doesn't have to mean "bad guy" or "evil". The antagonist is simply the biggest challenge the protagonist faces. (By the way, kudos to Tom for pulling this off so well.)
|
|
|
Post by avurai on Mar 22, 2010 10:26:48 GMT
My main point is that we the readers seem to be conditioned to find a conflict between a protagonist and an antagonist in the stories we read, and Tom breaks that in GC. I don't know if that's a conscious decision he made, but I really don't think there is an antagonist to Annie i.e. the protagonist, which is not surprise if you think that she is (growing up to be) a medium, a mediator. I'll disagree. I think there is an antagonist, and I'm pretty sure that antagonist has appeared in every chapter so far. (Although in the last chapter it was just in the background of a couple scattered individual frames.) Surely you are talking about Ketrak.
|
|
|
Post by linnabean on Mar 22, 2010 14:03:17 GMT
Ah, I like that idea of the court itself as the antagonist to Annie. That certainly makes sense, and there definitely is a lot about the court, not specific characters, that drives the plot. Cool! I never thought of that before.
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on Mar 22, 2010 18:47:25 GMT
The court as an antagonist is an interesting idea. I'm not sure I agree, but it's a good thought.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 24, 2010 3:43:14 GMT
Reynardine was speaking ironically there. See definition 2 a here. I'm not sure from context: maybe both of you recognize that, but enough people on the board don't so I'm pointing it out, anyway. Sorry for the tardy reply but I just now noticed your post. I don't believe that Reynard's statement was ironic, though it was a bit of a cover. I think what he's saying is that a shift in consciousness brings about a change in the way things are perceived and thought about. Even though he is the same being in both wolf and stuffed toy form he will act somewhat differently. As a toy he will be more childish and as a wolf he will be more serious, or as Kat put it, nicer. What I was trying to say in my previous post was that the role of a stuffed animal is the comfort and protection of the child to whom it belongs. Though he may cover his real intentions in that toy body he still experiences reality through the eyes of a stuffed animal and his persona is shaped by it.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 24, 2010 3:54:52 GMT
I'll disagree. I think there is an antagonist, and I'm pretty sure that antagonist has appeared in every chapter so far. (Although in the last chapter it was just in the background of a couple scattered individual frames.) This antagonist is not a character in the common sense. Although very much so in the literary sense: this story is about the antagonist nearly as much as about the protagonist, and there are hints of many past stories about it. Also "antagonist" doesn't have to be "enemy". And certainly doesn't have to mean "bad guy" or "evil". The antagonist is simply the biggest challenge the protagonist faces. I'd rather say the central conflict of Gunnerkrigg Court is Man vs. the Unknown (Nature) instead of Man vs. Man. Who the pro/antagonist is can change from chapter to chapter.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Mar 24, 2010 17:52:28 GMT
Even though he is the same being in both wolf and stuffed toy form he will act somewhat differently. As a toy he will be more childish and as a wolf he will be more serious, or as Kat put it, nicer. Definitely. I just wanted to make it clear that as Tom said, because there seems to be some confusion on the matter. And sometimes I cannot repress the urge, though I try; gods, I try. Clues of the setting as the antagonist began from the very first pages, with perhaps the end of Chapter 8 as the strongest example of confirmation. Romangoro's spot on.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 25, 2010 0:48:40 GMT
Even though he is the same being in both wolf and stuffed toy form he will act somewhat differently. As a toy he will be more childish and as a wolf he will be more serious, or as Kat put it, nicer. Definitely. I just wanted to make it clear that as Tom said, because there seems to be some confusion on the matter. And sometimes I cannot repress the urge, though I try; gods, I try. True. He changes his body to suit his mood (or intention) but then his mind changes to suit his body. Clues of the setting as the antagonist began from the very first pages, with perhaps the end of Chapter 8 as the strongest example of confirmation. Romangoro's spot on. I agree with that as far as it goes but that leaves out the dynamic between Antimony and her father. Some people may want to argue that as a separate Man vs. Man sub-conflict but since we don't know that there is or should be conflict between them it's a mystery. That's why I stand by Man vs. Unknown (Nature) as the best description of what's going on in the narrative. And yeah I know I'm just arguing for a different subcategory of the same conflict scheme. It's what the forum is for.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Mar 29, 2010 23:03:12 GMT
Definitely. I just wanted to make it clear that as Tom said, because there seems to be some confusion on the matter. And sometimes I cannot repress the urge, though I try; gods, I try. True. He changes his body to suit his mood (or intention) but then his mind changes to suit his body. I'm not really following your logic there. If he changes his shape to suit his mood, then the differences in his behavior when comparing his two preferred shapes don't indicate that his shape alters his mind at all. Plus, the fact that Reynardine is able to possess hosts indicates that mind-body dualism is present in the Gunnerkrigg universe, so his shape should have no bearing on his mind.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 31, 2010 5:33:40 GMT
I'm not really following your logic there. If he changes his shape to suit his mood, then the differences in his behavior when comparing his two preferred shapes don't indicate that his shape alters his mind at all. Plus, the fact that Reynardine is able to possess hosts indicates that mind-body dualism is present in the Gunnerkrigg universe, so his shape should have no bearing on his mind. The strongest argument that I have that a *simple* mind/body dualism isn't in play in the GC universe is that Jeanne's ghost withered without her body. If the body (or lack of a body) doesn't cause changes in the mind then her ghost should stay unchanged forever. The cases of body changing from ch. 13 and 15 are inconclusive but I can build a case that supports *complex* mind/body dualism from them. Also, Robot acts very differently depending on what body his chip is plugged into, but that's inconclusive as well because we know robot bodies can be hardwired for behaviors as well as emotions. Note that I'm saying these are inconclusive, not that they don't support what I'm saying. In a *complex* mind/body dualism changes in the mind affect the body and vice versa. In this particular case I am saying that Reynard's perceptions and thought process do change when he changes forms, though he remains the same being with the same overall goals. When Tom said that is not the same thing as saying that the body has no bearing on the mind. What I'm saying is that what Reynard said is philosophically true but a dodge to hide his real intent behind.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Mar 31, 2010 17:54:38 GMT
The strongest argument that I have that a *simple* mind/body dualism isn't in play in the GC universe is that Jeanne's ghost withered without her body. If the body (or lack of a body) doesn't cause changes in the mind then her ghost should stay unchanged forever. Well, we don't really know what the founders of the Court did to Jeanne or how that affected her ethereal spirit, so we don't know how much Jeanne's ghost has changed since the initial incident. Furthermore, Mort has shown that ghosts can exist without withering away, as he has maintained a personality and grown as a character since dying. In a *complex* mind/body dualism changes in the mind affect the body and vice versa. In this particular case I am saying that Reynard's perceptions and thought process do change when he changes forms, though he remains the same being with the same overall goals. I can buy into a complex mind/body dualism in some ways, but Reynardine seems to show a simpler dualism, especially since when he alters his appearance, there is no real change in his physiology; he goes from being a stuffed wolf with cartoonish features to a stuffed wolf with more realistic features. The changes are very superficial. If form really had a strong effect on the mind, Reynardine would have the mental capacity of a shaped bag of cotton.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 1, 2010 1:20:59 GMT
Well, we don't really know what the founders of the Court did to Jeanne or how that affected her ethereal spirit, so we don't know how much Jeanne's ghost has changed since the initial incident. Maybe, but if you want to argue that then I think you have to admit that it appears the etheric technology of the Court did something to her ghost. The whole idea one can wed technology and magic and get something that effects ghosts is a strong argument for complex Mind/Body dualism by itself. Furthermore, Mort has shown that ghosts can exist without withering away, as he has maintained a personality and grown as a character since dying. Mort doesn't look like a boy, he looks like a classic sheet phantasm. He also has an official position with the etherium the details and effects of which remain to be seen, which is why I didn't cite him as an example. I can buy into a complex mind/body dualism in some ways, but Reynardine seems to show a simpler dualism, especially since when he alters his appearance, there is no real change in his physiology; he goes from being a stuffed wolf with cartoonish features to a stuffed wolf with more realistic features. The changes are very superficial. If form really had a strong effect on the mind, Reynardine would have the mental capacity of a shaped bag of cotton. You have a point in that Reynard is a shape-changer. Even the ability to add/remove thumbs based on need is sort of impressive. However Reynard's body isn't a bag of cotton, it's a child's stuffed toy owned by a young girl. The facial expressions he uses when he's changed into a "real" wolf as opposed to the cartoonish bipedal wolf are very different from panel to panel. The dialogue he uses to express himself seems to change as well, as Kat notes.
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on Apr 1, 2010 15:00:57 GMT
After all, what is the mind but the body's plaything?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 2, 2010 0:13:45 GMT
After all, what is the mind but the body's plaything? That turn of phrase has two other potential implications. 1. The sense organs are parts of the body and they are the exclusive sources of input for the mind in a materialistic context. Within a fictional complex Mind/Body dualism that may mean that the sense organs of one's astral self are in fact conventions the self projects and NOT direct contact between the mind and "reality." 2. With regard to consciousness, the mind can be seen as a mere organ of the body which it uses to contain an emulation of reality that it uses to achieve desired material ends. Any claim beyond that may be psychological egoism or some other rationalization. Submitted for your consideration.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Apr 2, 2010 8:52:39 GMT
Well, we don't really know what the founders of the Court did to Jeanne or how that affected her ethereal spirit, so we don't know how much Jeanne's ghost has changed since the initial incident. Maybe, but if you want to argue that then I think you have to admit that it appears the etheric technology of the Court did something to her ghost. The whole idea one can wed technology and magic and get something that effects ghosts is a strong argument for complex Mind/Body dualism by itself. I don't see how. The arrow obviously uses some etheric phlebotinum to trap the ghost, kind of like old fairy tale idea of nailing a shadow to a wall. It's magical, so it can affect the ether. The mechanical parts simply serve to help the magic work right. Mort doesn't look like a boy, he looks like a classic sheet phantasm. He also has an official position with the etherium the details and effects of which remain to be seen, which is why I didn't cite him as an example. Mort's a shape-shifter who usually chooses to look like a sheet phantasm. Note that his personality doesn't change with his shape. You have a point in that Reynard is a shape-changer. Even the ability to add/remove thumbs based on need is sort of impressive. However Reynard's body isn't a bag of cotton, it's a child's stuffed toy owned by a young girl. The facial expressions he uses when he's changed into a "real" wolf as opposed to the cartoonish bipedal wolf are very different from panel to panel. The dialogue he uses to express himself seems to change as well, as Kat notes. The fact that it's a child's stuffed toy only affects who can boss him around and the general gist of his shape. The fact that he can warp the form to an extent implies that he is the master of his form. His dialogue changes when he changes shape, but that's to be expected if he alters his shape with his mood. I know there's a marked shift in my personality and word choice between feeling manic sleep deprived playful and feeling somber. I see no reason why Reynardine's mood (which is confirmed to be behind his shifts in appearance) shouldn't be the underlying cause behind the changes in his demeanor.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 2, 2010 14:30:05 GMT
The mechanical parts simply serve to help the magic work right. Exactly. In a reality where simple Mind/Body dualism functions that should be completely impossible. Mort's a shape-shifter who usually chooses to look like a sheet phantasm. Note that his personality doesn't change with his shape. I don't know if he's held another shape long enough to say, but he doesn't look like a living boy in his default mode. Mort is a bad example anyway because there's too much we don't know about him. The fact that it's a child's stuffed toy only affects who can boss him around and the general gist of his shape. The fact that he can warp the form to an extent implies that he is the master of his form. Antimony owns his body so that would be consistent no matter what form he's in. If anything, bringing that up explains away consistency in his behavior As a side note, the fact that he's bound to something of a wolf form because he's occupying a stuffed wolf suggests that Aristotelian Forms are in play here. That means that there's something transcendental about the idea of a wolf that Reynardine has to adhere to. His dialogue changes when he changes shape, but that's to be expected if he alters his shape with his mood. I know there's a marked shift in my personality and word choice between feeling manic sleep deprived playful and feeling somber. I see no reason why Reynardine's mood (which is confirmed to be behind his shifts in appearance) shouldn't be the underlying cause behind the changes in his demeanor. Okay, check out comic 408, panel 1. Reynardine was annoyed that random people were teasing Antimony. She allowed him to chase them off in a threatening manner in the previous comic. His mood has now changed into something cheerful and perhaps irreverent but his form hasn't changed. He is heading back to Antimony at a self-satisfied trot that is very inconsistent with cartoon-wolf body but quite suited to full-size wolf body. True, people are capable of a wide range of emotions, but I think the above example is evidence that Reynardine- when the mood that caused him to change form has passed- then reacts somewhat differently to experiences depending on his form; ie, his mind changes his body and his body changes his mind.
|
|