Gunnerkrigg Court 6: Fire Away [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

screwtape2

2015-08-18, 08:55 AM

from other thread:

Your tone is different, but you aren't actually saying anything very different.

I actually am.

You are still describing someone who is an emotional wreck.

I'd say "emotional wreck" is an overstatement. So is "dangerously ignorant and unstable", as well as saying he has "lost the right to take the high ground on how anyone should deal with anything" and "he should not have so much power over Annie." Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on the matter. I just think those particular opinions are excessively harsh.

I get it. Tony's easy to hate after the way he vanished and then barged back in, completely turning over Antimony's life. Plus, he's not much of a charmer. But that's good literature. That's Tom doing a good job messing with our emotions. I don't think Tony's the villain. He's just a flawed guy.

Remember Reynard's history. He killed a guy and is widely considered "the demon Reynard". Yet we know he's a good guy. Had his story been told with a different perspective, we might not see him that way.

Should someone who is "desperate, credulous and grasping at straws" and who tends to be "blinded or easy to fool" be the completely unsupervised guardian of a child?

They are all the time, no? They do not make perfect or ideal parents, but that in itself does not make them villains who should have their children taken way. Granted, Tony is a schmuck for a lot of reasons. But let's just see where this goes before passing judgment and jumping to conclusions with incomplete information.

Shouldn't some other relatives or therapists be called in to take a look at things for the good of both Tony and Annie?

Sure. But that's a far cry from saying the guy's a scoundrel and dangerously unstable.

And what's to say the Court hasn't already taken that precaution before letting him have authority over his daughter and a classroom full of other children? The Court has it's flaws, but it does seem to take pretty good care of the children.

eschmenk

2015-08-18, 10:38 AM

Also of note and possibly repetition: Annie pretty much immediately reverted back to her old Little Girl persona the moment he assumed authority of her life in one fell swoop. Cut the hair, get a little girl dress, wear the mask, don't talk back. She is falling back into old behavior patterns and has no idea what to do about that, which is quite bad. :smallmad:

I think that only part of Annie did that. The fire elemental part didn't. I think that's just something that she's doing superficially and temporarily until she (both parts) comes up with something better; therefore, it looks worse than it really is. Keep in mind that she was willing to deceive her father with respect to Rey. I think she's letting her father see the Annie that he wants to see, while she's keeping the other part of herself safe from him.

Lethologica

2015-08-18, 12:31 PM

I think that only part of Annie did that. The fire elemental part didn't. I think that's just something that she's doing superficially and temporarily until she (both parts) comes up with something better; therefore, it looks worse than it really is. Keep in mind that she was willing to deceive her father with respect to Rey. I think she's letting her father see the Annie that he wants to see, while she's keeping the other part of herself safe from him.
I feel the hair-cutting scene suggests a good deal more internal friction than that. To what end, I'm not sure.

Aldrakan

2015-08-19, 12:55 AM

from other thread:

I'd say "emotional wreck" is an overstatement. So is "dangerously ignorant and unstable", as well as saying he has "lost the right to take the high ground on how anyone should deal with anything" and "he should not have so much power over Annie." Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on the matter. I just think those particular opinions are excessively harsh.
...
They are all the time, no? They do not make perfect or ideal parents, but that in itself does not make them villains who should have their children taken way. Granted, Tony is a schmuck for a lot of reasons. But let's just see where this goes before passing judgment and jumping to conclusions with incomplete information.

He severed his own arm! What kind of parents are you hanging out with for that not to raise serious questions over whether this guy should be in charge? :smalleek:

The point is not that he shouldn't be able to see Annie, but whether someone recently in a mental space where he'd remove a major body part cause someone told him to should be in a position of seemingly unquestioned authority. He doesn't even appear to have talked to anybody close to Annie before making these changes, which is something most parents would do before taking such drastic action even if they weren't just returning after more than two years absence. Complete authority over another person isn't something that should just be handed out in perpetuity by dint of being a parent, especially if the parent in question abandoned their child without explanation for years.

I'm not declaring him evil. When he returned I assumed there would be a reason for how he's acted. The question is whether it would justify them, and thus far the answer is a resounding no. In fact his case is weaker than I was guessing; he didn't leave looking for a way help Annie, he just couldn't face her. And his actions in Divine were not some attempt to cure her; he probably almost killed her by acting in reckless ignorance.
The fact that he feels super bad about the situation is nice, but it doesn't really mean anything unless that at some point translates to not being such a terrible father.

Emperordaniel

2015-08-19, 02:14 AM

So at least now Anthony knows what the consequences of his actions were for Annie. And we see that Annie now knows what he did, as well.

The next few pages should be interesting.

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-19, 02:21 AM

I don't hate Tony any more.
I think he's a massive idiot, but that doesn't mean I hate him any more. He's just someone who misses his wife, a lot, and has no idea how to approach his daughter.
I'm also inclined to think that his jerkishness to Annie might in part be due to pressure from the Court, but that's just conjecture.

Giggling Ghast

2015-08-19, 03:28 AM

The question is: why? Why play this cruel game? Were they simply malevolent spirits?

eschmenk

2015-08-19, 07:41 AM

The question is: why? Why play this cruel game? Were they simply malevolent spirits?

It could be. It could be that they are like most mythical gods and spirits -- they don't care what the consequences for others are much of the time. They could be allies of the spirits that Annie helped Ysengrin defeat. Who knows? Maybe we'll find out. Maybe not.

So at least now Anthony knows what the consequences of his actions were for Annie. And we see that Annie now knows what he did, as well.

The next few pages should be interesting.

Yet, as far as Annie knows, he didn't check to see if Annie was OK afterwards and didn't apologize to her or act as if he was worried about what he had done to her. She even sees him laughing about it. Hopefully she will interpret that correctly, but IRL, there would be a large chance that she wouldn't.

I thought it was pretty reckless of Donnie let Annie see this without knowing in advance what Tony would say. I realize that this is a children's story, but it did strike me as odd.

eee

2015-08-19, 09:04 AM

He knows what he did. He knows what he almost caused. And yet, he's STILL treating Annie like SHE'S the one who has done horrible wrong?

Urge to kill, rising...

The question is: why? Why play this cruel game? Were they simply malevolent spirits?

Annie is potentially a game changer. She has a fire elemental's power, combined with a keen mind and a willingness to interfere. And Coyote looks upon her with favor. I can imagine that some of the factions in the Etheric Community might decide, she has to go before she grows too strong. And if it can be done through a third party and not traced back to them...

Or maybe they're Moon worshipers and REALLY upset about the fingerprint.

Typewriter

2015-08-19, 09:18 AM

I'm sort of expecting that he had to do something bad when he realized what was going on. Like maybe he had his wife back with a moment, but realized that it was hurting Annie so to protect he had to banish or destroy his wife's spirit or something. I could see that causing a bit of resentment in him towards Annie - like, "I had to choose between you and your mother, I chose you but I can't deal with you right now". Obviously this wouldn't justify his bad behavior, but it would explain it a bit.

eschmenk

2015-08-19, 10:48 AM

He knows what he did. He knows what he almost caused. And yet, he's STILL treating Annie like SHE'S the one who has done horrible wrong?

Kind of like a parent who can't kick the cigarette habit overreacting to make sure their kids don't pick up that or a different habit?

I doubt that's a particularly large part of what's going on, actually, but things like that happen.

Or maybe they're Moon worshipers and REALLY upset about the fingerprint.

Funny! :smallbiggrin:

screwtape2

2015-08-20, 02:44 PM

I think that only part of Annie did that. The fire elemental part didn't. I think that's just something that she's doing superficially and temporarily until she (both parts) comes up with something better;

You could be right. But, I think she's doing it because she genuinely wants to please him to keep him from leaving again. As I said in a prior post, it is about her abandonment and daddy issues.

Keep in mind that she was willing to deceive her father with respect to Rey.

Yes, but only sort-of-kind-of. I would guess Kat figured large into the decision and convinced her to do it. If left to her own devices, I think she would have handed him over to Tony.

I think she's letting her father see the Annie that he wants to see, while she's keeping the other part of herself safe from him.

I don't think that's it at all. I think the flashback to Ysengrin shows how she sees the situation. She has conflicted but deep feelings about her father. She believes that her temper could be a problem maintaining their relationship. So, she sees her temper as "a personal demon" "with which she must fight," because her "love for him is far deeper than the hate." At least, it was when she did it. Now, who knows? Only, unlike Ysengrin, her temper really is a demon.

Anyway, it was not done to protect the elemental. It was to protect Tony and the human Antimony, to make sure she does not do anything to make him leave. Abandonment and daddy issues.

After this conversation with Donlan, who knows? Maybe she'll reduce him to a small pile of ash?

http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1538
http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1539

eee

2015-08-20, 10:30 PM

A thought occurs to me. Could Tony be deliberately trying to make Annie hate him? His misadventure with the fake psychopomps and nearly killing her might have convinced him he is an unfit parent; but talking with the Court, he finds just walking out of Annie's life didn't work and has merely made her more focused on him. If he bullies her and destroys the grandiose picture of him she's built up, though... It doesn't exactly fit, because if he wanted to anger Annie he'd bully Kat, too. But it at least provides a rational explanation for what he's doing.

Other than he's a jerk.

Lethologica

2015-08-20, 11:29 PM

Hanlon's Razor.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-21, 01:05 AM

Emperordaniel

2015-08-21, 02:01 AM

Slasher-smile Anthony is scaring me... :smalleek:

Giggling Ghast

2015-08-21, 02:04 AM

Do you want to know how I got these scars ...? :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma

2015-08-21, 05:04 AM

Can I just say that Zimmy is still my favourite character?

Thank you.

eee

2015-08-21, 07:05 AM

Two four six eight,
Who do we appreciate?

ZIMMY-ZIMS!!!!

Now if she'd just hit the stupid mother's son again...

Domochevsky

2015-08-21, 08:31 AM

...heh, I do come to like Zimmy more and more, yes. Weird how that works. All you have to do is punch someone who has caused grief for the main character. Months ago. :smallamused:

turbo164

2015-08-21, 09:13 AM

*recognizes name of comic in http://webcomicsworthwreading.blogspot.com/2013/09/archive.html
*starts at the beginning
*2 days of archive binging pass
*puts self in coma so I can wake up to another 1500 strips

Holy crap.

screwtape2

2015-08-21, 10:57 AM

And Antimony is seeing all of this.

Hopefully, it will do some good.

edit:
also, not very nice of him to refer to a student as a "thing".

Qwertystop

2015-08-21, 11:03 AM

And Antimony is seeing all of this.

Hopefully, it will do some good.

edit:
also, not very nice of him to refer to a student as a "thing".

Well, how is he to know Zimmy is a student? At least, when that happened, before he was a teacher. What her knew is that something intercepted his vision, then punched him in the face. People do not usually come in gray with pointy teeth and [void] eyes, it's not unreasonable for him to assume that Zimmy only looks human, or even that the human shape was only due to the intercepted vision being human-shaped.

Cuthalion

2015-08-21, 11:39 AM

Also, how else would he refer to Zim?

"Girl"? Not quite. "Student"? No. "Demon"? Not tactful.

eschmenk

2015-08-21, 12:33 PM

OK, so not the broken nose, but I'm glad that Tony has something to remember Zimmy by. :smallsmile:

I don't think that's it at all...

I think you read too much into what I was saying. I thought that Annie was "letting her father see the Annie that he wants to see" so that he wouldn't leave. That meant not letting him see Annie reacting emotionally, as she would have done if the fire elemental stayed inside of her.

Based on the most recent updates, it may be that the fire elemental side would be in less danger than I originally thought, but I had thought there might have been a theoretical danger that Tony might want to make sure than Annie never changes back and that he might choose to do something harmful to keep that from happening. My intended point was that we probably didn't need to worry about that, though. If Tony never spots the fire elemental, it should be safe from whatever he might have done if he had seen it. Hiding it where Tony never looks should keep it safe. It does amount to keeping another secret from him. I wasn't trying to say much more than that.

It may be that I was reading the comment I was responding to too literally, but it had said, "She is falling back into old behavior patterns and has no idea what to do about that, which is quite bad." IMO, removing the fire elemental part of her and hiding and preserving it counts as a pretty good idea that she wouldn't have thought of when she was younger.

So, she sees her temper as "a personal demon" "with which she must fight," because her "love for him is far deeper than the hate."

I don't quite agree with this, though. I agree that Annie learned from Ysengrin, but Annie's solution was more clever than his. Annie apparently figured out that she didn't actually need to fight her temper; she could simply remove it instead. She is not trying to beat it down and weaken it like Ysengrin does. It's still at full strength. It was able to help her use the blinker stone just now. If she ever needs to pop it back inside of her, presumably she can do that. That gives Annie flexibility that Ysengrin doesn't have. Since she's not fighting her temper, I don't think she'll need to worry about completely loosing to it like Ysengrin apparently looses to his occasionally.

IMO, Annie's solution was significantly better and more clever than Ysengrin's. Ysengrin's solution was all about fighting and strength because that's the way Ysengrin is. Annie needed to come up with something a bit different for herself. I do think that her solution is based on Ysengrin's, though. She just took what he said and tailored it to herself.

Ellen

2015-08-23, 11:21 PM

Tony as the Joker: "Want to know how I got this scar. . . ?"

I am coming to like him and feel sympathy for him. But, he's still done huge damage to his daughter. He is to childcare what zero is to Kelvin scale. I don't want to let him off the hook.

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-24, 02:07 AM

With the current update...

More and more sympathy for Tony. He's still a terrible parent, but I would like to have a happy/not terrible ending to this story if possible.

The_Snark

2015-08-24, 03:15 AM

Antimony has always had difficulty expression her emotions; we knew she got this from Tony, but this is really driving home how bad he's got it. Until this scene he hasn't displayed so much as a hint of sentiment, but now that he's unwinding with one of his few (only?) real friends he's pouring everything out. The blend of laughter and self-loathing comes off as almost manic.

I have hopes that seeing this will be good for Annie, though. She's invested in her dad to a degree that isn't really healthy, and I feel like this might moderate that a bit. Not make her care about him less - if we the audience are feeling sympathy despite ourselves, she probably is too - but maybe help her see him as a human being with feelings and flaws and everything, rather than a stern and distant idol who must be pleased at any cost. Maybe his approval isn't the Most Important Thing. Feeling sorry for someone who's abusing you can be dangerous, but in this case I feel like it'd be a positive change in her mindset.

Also, she's being reassured that he doesn't blame her for her mother's death. Given how Renard first told her about that ("You are the reason Surma died!" (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=804)), I'd be surprised if that idea wasn't floating around in her subconscious somewhere: he blames me, everything is my fault, I have to make it up to him by being the best possible daughter or he'll leave me again...

Lizard Lord

2015-08-24, 05:35 AM

With the current update...

More and more sympathy for Tony. He's still a terrible parent, but I would like to have a happy/not terrible ending to this story if possible.

If I am interpreting this right I believe Tony is cold and distant to Annie because he doesn't believe he deserves to have a father-daughter relationship with her and, although that's what Annie wants, in Tony's mind she deserves better.

In other words, at least part of the reason he is a terrible parent is because he believes he is a terrible parent. Vicious circles and all that.

Cyber Punk

2015-08-24, 05:55 AM

at least part of the reason he is a terrible parent is because he believes he is a terrible parent. Vicious circles and all that.

I concur. I also get the feeling that a part of him expects that if he had tried to be a loving parent, he'd be shot down. It seems like he's trying desperately to keep her, the only way he knows how: control. Sure, he's doing it badly, but still.

His banning her from her activities in the forest makes more sense, though, after all the psychopomps made him do, and did to him. He doesn't want the same thing happening to her, and it seems he hasn't considered for one moment that she might be able to handle it way better than he could.

screwtape2

2015-08-24, 08:11 AM

Well, how is he to know Zimmy is a student?

Fickle crowd.

I was only half serious when I said that. But he is a teacher where Zimmy attends school. And while he has only been there a short period of time and I do not expect him to instantly be aware of every single child in attendance, maybe he would have seen her and recognized her.

At least, when that happened, before he was a teacher.

yeah, well, he's a teacher now. And it's now that he's calling a student a demon. Calling her a demon when it happened would be sort of understandable. Though, it is apparent he knows the "demon" 1) knew his kid and 2) saved his kid's life from his blunder.

The rest of what you said was not unreasonable, but neither was it the point.

BannedInSchool

2015-08-24, 09:02 AM

If I am interpreting this right I believe Tony is cold and distant to Annie because he doesn't believe he deserves to have a father-daughter relationship with her and, although that's what Annie wants, in Tony's mind she deserves better.
"Hello, Annie dear. I'm killing your mother. Would you like some ice cream?" Yeah, no.

eschmenk

2015-08-24, 11:05 AM

"Hello, Annie dear. I'm killing your mother. Would you like some ice cream?" Yeah, no.

Where did you get the idea that he killed Surma?

Fjolnir

2015-08-24, 11:16 AM

He thinks he killed Surma, he might know about how the soul of a fire elemental transmigrates from parent to child but he puts the blame on himself...

BannedInSchool

2015-08-24, 11:57 AM

He thinks he killed Surma [...]
And I was thinking that as Surma was fading he was looking at it as his continuing failure to stop it as killing her at the time.

eee

2015-08-24, 06:11 PM

Still no sympathy for the Tony. He's pitiable, yes; but that's hardly the same thing as deserving sympathy. If he wanted to rot on that distant plain and leave Annie behind, he should have.

At least, that's what I was going to say. Then yet another thought occurred to me.

Is it possible Tony is a prisoner of the Court? They were the ones who picked him up, put him back together (as much as he could be) and indicated they wanted him to resume work on their Omega device. And they were sure he'd do it, because of gratitude for the enormous support they had given him with regard to Surma and the continuing support they've given Annie. Fed her, clothed her, not prosecuted her for the various thefts, crimes, and shenanigans (assault on a teacher) she's engaged in, tried to make sure that her habit of putting herself in danger didn't get her killed. Obviously, to make sure they continued that support and things did not take a bad - perhaps even fatal - turn, he'd be HAPPY to return to the Court and resume his work. He could even teach, as well, if he wanted, and maybe re-establish contact with his daughter; and of course, he and she would be staying at the Court as their guests from now on. They'd INSIST on it.

That... would change things. :smalleek:

eschmenk

2015-08-24, 06:42 PM

That... would change things. :smalleek:

It would? How? :smallconfused:

I think the court was keeping tabs on Tony somehow and they picked him up and treated him. Then they dragged him back and let him work as a teacher since they couldn't trust him to do much more than that. I don't think they are keeping him prisoner, he just wouldn't go anywhere else.

I think you need to remember that this is a children's fantasy story. Much of your analysis about leverage using Annie isn't appropriate for this sort of a story. Things like that might happen in a more adult story, but I think they would be out of place in this one.

I don't have any sympathy for Tony either. He's just boring me now.

Hiro Protagonest

2015-08-24, 06:45 PM

I think the court was keeping tabs on Tony somehow and they picked him up and treated him. Then they dragged him back and let him work as a teacher since they couldn't trust him to do much more than that. I don't think they are keeping him prisoner, he just wouldn't go anywhere else.

So they just had their top scientist who was assigned to work on some important invention reassigned as a teacher because they think he's mentally unstable? And despite the worry about his mental state, they'll let him leave whenever he wants?

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-24, 07:01 PM

I think you need to remember that this is a children's fantasy story. Much of your analysis about leverage using Annie isn't appropriate for this sort of a story. Things like that might happen in a more adult story, but I think they would be out of place in this one.

Since when has Tom ever suggested that Gunnerkrigg Court is a children's fantasy story? It's a fantasy story that involves children, but that is entirely different.

eee

2015-08-24, 10:15 PM

Since when has Tom ever suggested that Gunnerkrigg Court is a children's fantasy story? It's a fantasy story that involves children, but that is entirely different.

Hear hear. GC is no more a children's story than Harry Potter was. There is no assurance that this will end well, OR without lots of death and destruction. And from what we've seen of the Court, forcing Tony to resume working for them by making it clear that's the price for Annie's continued life is hardly beyond them.

Nor is following through on the threat if he balks. Or at least, trying to...

eschmenk

2015-08-24, 11:01 PM

Hear hear. GC is no more a children's story than Harry Potter was.

I would agree that that's true for he first few Harry Potter books, but in any case the Harry Potter books were classified as Juvenile Fiction (https://www.overdrive.com/subjects/juvenile-fiction), too! Adults can certainly enjoy reading the stories, but you need to read them as you would read other children's books, particularly the first couple of books. I think the last few Harry Potter books were intended for older children than GK seems to be, but that doesn't really matter. They all were intended for children.

GK is so obviously a children's story, it's bizarre that anyone would dispute that it is one, IMO.

The_Snark

2015-08-24, 11:12 PM

I think you need to remember that this is a children's fantasy story. Much of your analysis about leverage using Annie isn't appropriate for this sort of a story. Things like that might happen in a more adult story, but I think they would be out of place in this one.

This assertion baffles me. The comic has always contained stuff that doesn't belong in an Enid Blyton-esque sanitized kid's story: Jeanne's murder and the emotional abuse featured in the last couple of chapters, just off the top of my head. I don't see why the Court using Annie as leverage on her father falls into a different category.

eee

2015-08-24, 11:21 PM

Yes, and the Harry Potter books were certainly classified as Juvenile Fiction (https://www.overdrive.com/subjects/juvenile-fiction). Adults can certainly enjoy reading the stories, but you need to read them as you would read other children's books, particularly the first couple of books.

GK is so obviously a children's story, it's bizarre that anyone would dispute that it is one.

Be sure to tell Cedric Diggory that he died in a children's story. Or Snape. And consider Dolores Umbridge: SHE doesn't belong in ANY children's story. Even as a nightmare.

As noted, you are confusing a story involving juveniles for a children's story. The Wizard of Oz is a children's story. Dreamland is a children's story. Gunnerkrigg Court... is an adult story involving juveniles. We've already had murder, lust, jealousy, self mutilation, and betrayal. And death, lots of death. Handled off-screen, mostly, but definitely death. God knows what's coming next. There is no assurance any of the leads are going to survive to the end of the book, and they'll probably not survive unscathed, given what we've seen so far. If you insist that Event A can not happen because this is a children's story, what are you going to do if it happens? We'll see what Tony's story reveals next; should it turn out the Court is holding a threat to Annie over his head...

eschmenk

2015-08-24, 11:50 PM

This assertion baffles me. The comic has always contained stuff that doesn't belong in an Enid Blyton-esque sanitized kid's story: Jeanne's murder and the emotional abuse featured in the last couple of chapters, just off the top of my head. I don't see why the Court using Annie as leverage on her father falls into a different category.

I don't recognize the name Enid Blyton and it's not about how "sanitized" things are. I think both things you mentioned have close parallels in the early Harry Potter books. There are old murders in both cases, Jeanne's murder and Harry's parents' murders. The emotional abuse of Annie is similar to the emotional abuse that Harry suffered. So, yes, those things do happen in children's books. Compare that with the court using Annie as leverage on the father in the way Eee said. That's much more complex and much more focused on the effect on the father, rather than the child. That's not the sort of thing that tends to happen in children's books, especially not ones aimed so much at fairly young children, like GK seems to be. (It took a Kat a few minutes to figure out something her mother never managed to figure out after years and years, so GK can be very simplistic with the way it treats adults. Look how simplistically Tony has been handled so far. The rest of the adult humans have probably been handled even more simplistically.)

Be sure to tell Cedric Diggory that he died in a children's story. Or Snape. And consider Dolores Umbridge: SHE doesn't belong in ANY children's story. Even as a nightmare.

My link PROVED that the stores are classified as Juvenile Fiction. After all, that is a share library resource that I linked to! If you don't like it, that's fine, but it's reality! I'd suggest that you might want to look at some old footage to see the ages of people who were lining up with their parents to buy the Harry Potter books when they came out, but of course that would lead to a conclusion that you wouldn't like, so that wouldn't do much good, either.

BTW, you are once again exaggerating what I said in order to try to pretend I'm wrong. Would you please stop doing that!!!

The_Snark

2015-08-25, 12:22 AM

So, yes, those things do happen in children's books.

Okay, in that case I'm less baffled; but the distinction you're drawing between children's books and non-children books is still not entirely clear to me. I have read children's books which address adult issues, and portray adults as complex people. If you're asserting that this isn't 'appropriate' for children's books, whatever that means, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

My link PROVED that the stores are classified as Juvenile Fiction.

Correction: your link proved that the OverDrive website classifies them as juvenile fiction. I don't actually disagree on that*, but that is not a good way to phrase your argument.

*Although there's a lot of range between 'stories aimed at very young children' and 'young adult fiction', and Harry Potter falls more towards the latter.

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-25, 01:38 AM

I am not going to consider Gunnerkrigg Court children's fiction unless Tom explicitly states that that is how he intended it.

I do not feel that it fits the criteria of children's fiction. You may disagree.

Thufir

2015-08-25, 02:50 AM

Harry Potter was children's fiction, and the death and destruction which occurred in it does not preclude that.
Gunnerkrigg Court is not children's fiction. It has elements which would suit children's fiction, but the style is totally different. Claiming GC is children's fiction based on those elements is like people thinking Watership Down is a children's book because it has talking animals (Just to pre-empt, I imagine there are shops/websites which classify it as a children's book, but try giving that book to an average child and see how they get on).

Lissou

2015-08-25, 02:56 AM

I don't think children's fiction means "story where nothing bad happens". Take the Roald Dahl stories. They're intended for children, but horrible things happen in all of them if I'm not mistaken, usually involving children dying terrible deaths and the like. They're intended for children because they're less complex, but they can be scary and horrible.

Gunnerkrigg court has some dark themes, and some complex ones. I wouldn't say it's completely unsuitable for children, but I also wouldn't say it's specifically or even mainly intended for them, either. At any rate, I think Annie being used for leverage would not be a shift in tone with the rest of the story at all. It may not be what happened, but it could have.

The_Snark

2015-08-25, 03:12 AM

I don't think children's fiction means "story where nothing bad happens". Take the Roald Dahl stories. They're intended for children, but horrible things happen in all of them if I'm not mistaken, usually involving children dying terrible deaths and the like. They're intended for children because they're less complex, but they can be scary and horrible.

There's a not-quite-dead school of thought which says that children's fiction ought to teach moral lessons, avoid depicting anything family-unfriendly or disturbing, and in general be very clean (Enid Blyton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enid_Blyton) being the best example I could think of). Eschmenk's initial statement that he thought this was "inappropriate" for a children's story made me think of that position - incorrectly, as it turned out, he wasn't trying to imply that.

(I think I agree with you on whether GC is a children's story; it doesn't seem aimed at them, but some kids I've known would have liked it.)

Lizard Lord

2015-08-25, 03:59 AM

The connection to Harry Potter is a good point. GC and HP have similar tones, and the bad guy threatening a daughter to force her father into working for him is something Voldemort did in the books.

So yea, regardless of whether or not these are children stories, the Court threatening Annie to ensure Tony's cooperation is well within tone.

If I remember correctly Harry and friends went to the Lovegood household to get information on the deathly hollows, but it turned out to be a trap. Mr. Lovegood tried to poison and kill Harry and friends because Voldemort was holding "Loony" Luna Lovegood captive. Seems just as dark and complex as Eee's theory to me.

Cavelcade

2015-08-25, 05:51 AM

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 08:07 AM

I think you'll need to more precisely define what you mean by "children's story" and the why certain elements won't fit into that if you want to argue this point; right now it's all too vague to have a meaningful discussion, with everyone having their own idea of what's acceptable in "children's" story and what constitutes one anyway.

No. It's not necessary to define terms that already have established definitions. What is necessary is for people to stop ignoring the definitions that have already been established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_literature:

Children's literature or juvenile literature includes stories, books, magazines, and poems that are enjoyed by children.

The Wikipedia article goes on to include Young Adult Fiction (appropriate for children ages 12–18) as a subcategory. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-adult_fiction) for Young Adult Fiction isn't very good, but it lists a bunch of recommendations of Young Adult books that can be used in classrooms. It also has a link to the Young Adult Library Services Association's website (http://www.ala.org/yalsa/). You can click around there to see what sort of books they are recommending. Both locations include a lot of things that adults would enjoy, so clearly appealing to adults doesn't exclude a book a being considered to be children's literature.

One of the things that help make it obvious that GC is children's literature is that the story revolves around children. (The story doesn't just contain children; it's about them.) The amount of material where one or more children are present without any adults greatly outnumbers the material where one or more adults are present without any children. Recently, the story covered the impact that Tony had on Annie. Now the story is about what Annie is learning about Tony's recent history. The story is more about an adult than normal, but still we have repeated been reminded that Annie is observing. This is to be expected. As Wikipedia said, one of the prevalent situational themes in Young Adult Literature is parental conflicts and relationships. Tony's relationship with his employer is much more of an adult theme, so it would probably get short shrift. Tony being some sort of a prisoner of the court would be an odd sort of problem for Annie to solve. Tony being a prisoner might actually serve her interests since she seemed to want him to be nearby, not that there would be all that much danger of him leaving now, anyway.

Marcelinari

2015-08-25, 09:49 AM

The definition you are using is incredibly vague. I 'enjoyed' the Lord of the Rings trilogy at the age of 5 or 6 - my dad read it to me. Does that mean the LOTR books are 'Children's fiction'?

Cavelcade

2015-08-25, 09:50 AM

No. It's not necessary to define terms that already have established definitions. What is necessary is for people to stop ignoring the definitions that have already been established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_literature:

Sure, but that's not the only definition it's possible to accept. So you're defining it as being "...enjoyed by children." What about that precludes the situations discussed above as being the reasons for Tony's return/work/continued existence (choose you theory)? This is what is being debated: you're saying "If GC is children's fiction that can't be the explanation", others are arguing it's not c-f, and others (myself included) think it doesn't hugely matter whether it is or isn't, as that wouldn't stop it from including that element.

Also, it's probably worth noting that this is a descriptive label, not prescriptive. If Tom doesn't view GC as specifically aimed for children, then at any time he can decide to do a story that they might not enjoy (and judging from the complaints about the previous chapter on this forum, I'd say that he has with these). There's nothing wrong with that, if he hasn't set out with that in mind, it would just mean that rather than describing it in that way, we'd choose some other sector (which could also be wrong).

TheEmerged

2015-08-25, 10:26 AM

\hopes to rerail thread from this definitional stuff
So, how about them psychocomps?

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 11:35 AM

The definition you are using is incredibly vague. I 'enjoyed' the Lord of the Rings trilogy at the age of 5 or 6 - my dad read it to me. Does that mean the LOTR books are 'Children's fiction'?

That's where the books were located in the library when I read them for the first time. :) I don't remember where they were the second time.

If you read the Wikipedia pages I linked to, you would have read this: "The distinctions among children's literature, YA literature, and adult literature have historically been flexible and loosely defined." As far as I am concerned, your point was already acknowledged so there was no need to bring it up. Nor was it particularly relevant. Some cases might be difficult to classify. Others, such as "The Hobbit" and GC are very easy. Both are clearly children's literature.

The fact that you put "enjoyed" in quotes may indicate that you didn't really think you had a valid argument, anyway.

Ibrinar

2015-08-25, 11:37 AM

Eschmenk the part you quoted isn't a definition meant as sufficient condition to qualify. It's an informal, lose description. (If you defined it like that it is just about useless for making predictions. That some children have enjoyed a great many books that are hardly children literature aside, that something was up to a certain point enjoyable for children doesn't mean it has to stay that way. It can just be a side effect of not having reached a part that is unsuitable for many children.)

Here from the same article "There is no single or widely used definition of children's literature.[1]:15–17 It can be broadly defined as anything that children read[2] or more specifically defined as fiction, non-fiction, poetry, or drama intended for and used by children and young people."
Your own link says there it is not clearly defined and gives a a super broad one with little predictive power. (If it is explicitly aimed at children that has some predictive power but you haven't proven that that is the case for GC.)

(And one should never forget that when one uses a wide definition of something none of the traits it may have with a more narrow definition automatically transfer. Or rather they never automatically transfer between definitions. Except if one definition is strictly a subset of another.)

halfeye

2015-08-25, 12:14 PM

Where did you get the idea that he killed Surma?
The people who made Surma a parent killed Surma. Surma was one, he was the other. It takes two to tango?

Surma presumably knew what she was doing.

Does this mean that Jones could die if she procreates?

Books for children are inherently not for adults. Potter sort of breaches that, but only because the children grow up. I do wonder what Rowling will write next.

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 12:34 PM

Books for children are inherently not for adults. Potter sort of breaches that, but only because the children grow up.

That's wrong. Even the first Harry Potter book by itself, was enjoyable for many adults, including this one.

Have you not heard the expression, "inner child," before? You should read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_child) and other sources if you are unfamiliar with the concept. The inner child is what allows adults to enjoy things that are typically enjoyed by children.

halfeye

2015-08-25, 12:47 PM

That's wrong. Even the first Harry Potter book by itself, was enjoyable for many adults, including this one.

Have you not heard the expression, "inner child," before? You should read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_child) and other sources if you are unfamiliar with the concept. The inner child is what allows adults to enjoy things that are typically enjoyed by children.
For Children means "does not include some content that is allowed for adults, particularly sex". There was a time it meant no violence too, but that was too limiting, and kids like violence, so that was changed to make more money.

Ellen

2015-08-25, 01:04 PM

I think the practical application of "Children's Literature" is "something that is likely to get checked out more if in the Children's Section of the library than in another," with reasonable allowances made for the possible wrath of parents who will want to know where their kids got that book. As such, it is variable in terms of local culture and time period.

BannedInSchool

2015-08-25, 01:40 PM

Claiming GC is children's fiction based on those elements is like people thinking Watership Down is a children's book because it has talking animals (Just to pre-empt, I imagine there are shops/websites which classify it as a children's book, but try giving that book to an average child and see how they get on).
I'd imagine the animated movie of Watership Down was sometimes put in the children's section of video rentals too, as it's a cartoon with talking bunnies. Talking bunnies ripping each other's throats out and spilling blood. :smallwink: Hmm, now I have to mention one detail of the book that might be missed. When Bigwig's making his final stand that's the first time he calls Hazel his Chief Rabbit when saying his Chief Rabbit told him to hold that position. That gets me all verklempt. :smallfrown:

Lethologica

2015-08-25, 01:41 PM

Grimm's Fairy Tales, anyone? Also, there's that C.S. Lewis quote about putting away childish things, "including the desire to appear very grown up."

In any event, nothing about whether or not GC is children's lit precludes the Court holding Annie hostage for Tony's good behavior. I personally think it's more likely that the Court simply let Tony see what he wanted to see and let him loose on Annie, having the effect the Court desired. This is assuming the Court was pulling the strings in the first place, which I'm still only 50/50 on.

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 02:14 PM

For Children means "does not include some content that is allowed for adults, particularly sex". There was a time it meant no violence too, but that was too limiting, and kids like violence, so that was changed to make more money.

The correct meaning of "for children" is: for children.

I think the practical application of "Children's Literature" is "something that is likely to get checked out more if in the Children's Section of the library than in another," with reasonable allowances made for the possible wrath of parents who will want to know where their kids got that book. As such, it is variable in terms of local culture and time period.

That makes sense. I checked the catalog of the local public library system where I lived and they have the GC books (the have the first three) in their Young Adult section, right where they should be. (Is it too much to hope that the matter is closed now?)

FWIW, they categorized both Tales from Watership Down (the book) and the Watership Down movie as (adult) fiction.

Mono Vertigo

2015-08-25, 02:21 PM

On Anthony: poor, poor fool.
Poor self-centered fool who never quite manages to figure out that his attitude always impacts those he loves, even if it's an attitude as (theoretically) neutral as "no emotion or affection".
At least we're getting his half of the story, which was entirely needed, considering the picture we had of him. Great storytelling again, in that we have to revise judgment without invalidating anything we'd seen previously.

Books for children are inherently not for adults. Potter sort of breaches that, but only because the children grow up. I do wonder what Rowling will write next.

She has already written The Casual Vacancy, which is for adults.
... it's a depressing book. Not a bad one, mind, but crap, it's dark.

Kislath

2015-08-25, 02:32 PM

I'm completely lost.
Where did Zimmy come from? Why was Surma really Annie? Or was she?
If it was a trick, what was the trick? What is the "Annie's expense" that it all came at, according to him?

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 02:39 PM

In any event, nothing about whether or not GC is children's lit precludes the Court holding Annie hostage for Tony's good behavior. I personally think it's more likely that the Court simply let Tony see what he wanted to see and let him loose on Annie, having the effect the Court desired. This is assuming the Court was pulling the strings in the first place, which I'm still only 50/50 on.

I don't think anything actually precludes it; it would just seem out of place if it got as complex as was originally proposed. It the Court wanted Annie reined in, all they would have needed to do is to tell Tony that he needed to do it for Annie's own good.

Silfir

2015-08-25, 02:46 PM

I'm completely lost.
Where did Zimmy come from? Why was Surma really Annie? Or was she?
If it was a trick, what was the trick? What is the "Annie's expense" that it all came at, according to him?

Anthony is recounting the events of Chapter 38: Divine (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1026), from his side - re-reading that chapter should help.

Cyber Punk

2015-08-25, 02:51 PM

I'm completely lost.
Where did Zimmy come from? Why was Surma really Annie? Or was she?
If it was a trick, what was the trick? What is the "Annie's expense" that it all came at, according to him?

...

Did you start reading from the beginning? If so, you would know the role Zimmy had in curing Annie of her illness, the very same bonelaser-caused illness that affected her, about the time Tony thought he was seeing Surma.

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 03:03 PM

Anthony is recounting the events of Chapter 38: Divine (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1026), from his side - re-reading that chapter should help.

I think he/she would also need to read Chapter 31: Fire Spike (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=789). That explains how Surma was part fire elemental and Annie now has that part of her.

Lethologica

2015-08-25, 03:16 PM

I don't think anything actually precludes it; it would just seem out of place if it got as complex as was originally proposed. It the Court wanted Annie reined in, all they would have needed to do is to tell Tony that he needed to do it for Annie's own good.
I, uh. Is one of those significantly more complex than the other? Has GC shied away from complexity thus far? IDGI.

eee

2015-08-25, 03:47 PM

\hopes to rerail thread from this definitional stuff
So, how about them psychocomps?

Yes, this is another problem I have with Tony. He travels the world, investigates the Etheric, speaks to creatures on the borderline between worlds, and learns lots. But apparently, one of the things he does NOT learn - or that he ignores - are warnings as to the possibility that he will encounter creatures from the other side that will lie to and manipulate him. We've seen such things exist from the Wisp. Instead, the FIRST bunch of 'things' he meets who say they are psychopomps and he can see Surma again if he just cuts off his arm, he believes totally and without question.

(eye roll)

It's clear who's the real child, here.

They probably stole his watch, too... :smalleek:

eschmenk

2015-08-25, 04:14 PM

I, uh. Is one of those significantly more complex than the other? Has GC shied away from complexity thus far? IDGI.

Generally it's pretty simple to get someone to do something that they would be inclined to do anyway. If you try to force them to do it, then they tend to resist and there will be unintended consequences. If the Court tries to force keep Tony prisoner or make him do something by threatening Annie, could he transfer her to another school? Could he call the authorities? Could he find a some other solution that I'm not thinking of? How would the court prevent such things? I don't know, but I easily thought of a couple of different possibilities, so I'd say it's more complicated.

So far, the story has focused on the children much more than the adults. The relationships between the adult humans in GC have been very simplistic so far. Based on that, the relationship between Tony and the Court is one of the relationships that I think would probably remain simple. IMO, that's a reason to not expect that Tony is being forced to remain at GC or to do anything else.

NEO|Phyte

2015-08-25, 07:25 PM

Instead, the FIRST bunch of 'things' he meets who say they are psychopomps and he can see Surma again if he just cuts off his arm, he believes totally and without question.

Strictly speaking, do we even know that they presented themselves as psychopomps, or just that Tony was out looking for the 'pomps and found these guys?

For that matter, how do we know they aren't just some creepy psychopomps that we haven't met prior to this?

Cyber Punk

2015-08-25, 09:27 PM

I've been wondering that, too. So far, I've been tending towards 'he was looking for psychopomps, almost died and found these guys'. The guy was so desperate to see his wife again that he did as they asked without a second thought.

They're probably some sort of high-level fae-like psychopomps, though.

memnarch

2015-08-26, 02:13 AM

Lethologica

2015-08-26, 02:14 AM

*cough* I...guess everyone was sort of wrong? Tony is not a prisoner, Annie is being used as leverage, the Court isn't just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about Annie's behavior.

Though, man, if Tony thinks what he's been doing isn't as bad as having to leave the Court...but I guess there's still room for Tom to pile additional pressure on Tony in the next update if he so chooses.

Thufir

2015-08-26, 03:07 AM

However, from what I've seen of it so far, it could easily be classified as a kid's story - in the sense that it's a story that kids could read and derive satisfaction and ideas from.

I'm actually not sure about tht. Of course it's a while since I was a child, but I think children in general might lose patience with the very slow burn nature of GC's plot. That's one of the reasons I wouldn't consider it children's literature (the other big one being that it has a fair bit more moral ambiguity than I'd consider typical or fitting to children's lit, which tends to be more black and white). I suppose if we consider Young adult a subcategory I'd maybe fit it in there, but I'm not sure.

No. It's not necessary to define terms that already have established definitions. What is necessary is for people to stop ignoring the definitions that have already been established.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_literature:

Wikipedia is not in and of itself a credible source.

Others, such as "The Hobbit" and GC are very easy. Both are clearly children's literature.

Clearly GC is not clearly children's lit or we wouldn't be having this argument.

Have you not heard the expression, "inner child," before? You should read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_child) and other sources if you are unfamiliar with the concept.

Have you heard the term 'condescension'? You should look it up in the dictionary and then stop doing it.

I'd imagine the animated movie of Watership Down was sometimes put in the children's section of video rentals too, as it's a cartoon with talking bunnies. Talking bunnies ripping each other's throats out and spilling blood. :smallwink: Hmm, now I have to mention one detail of the book that might be missed. When Bigwig's making his final stand that's the first time he calls Hazel his Chief Rabbit when saying his Chief Rabbit told him to hold that position. That gets me all verklempt. :smallfrown:

I'd actually kind of agree with that, because the gore is fine for children. The film was much simplified compared to the book (though it's still a very good adaptation).

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-26, 04:34 AM

Worth remembering that we don't know very much about the Court at all.
Being expelled/removed from the program could be quite the punishment depending on what the court actually is

eee

2015-08-26, 07:15 AM

eschmenk

2015-08-26, 07:44 AM

I'm actually not sure about tht. Of course it's a while since I was a child, but I think children in general might lose patience with the very slow burn nature of GC's plot. That's one of the reasons I wouldn't consider it children's literature (the other big one being that it has a fair bit more moral ambiguity than I'd consider typical or fitting to children's lit, which tends to be more black and white). I suppose if we consider Young adult a subcategory I'd maybe fit it in there, but I'm not sure.

The publisher markets the books as children's literature. Reviewers say that it is. My library system classifies the book at Young Adult. Presumably other libraries do, too. (Did you check any libraries near you?) The American Library Association defines the young adult category as being for children between ages 12 and 18. The people who make the decisions about how to classify things (or are at least in charge of those who do) are often people with degrees in Library and Information Science or similar fields and take such matters seriously.

Sure, you can ignore all of that and the themes in GK that would cause librarian to classify GK as Young Adult literature. You can decide that your opinions matter more than the experts'. You can not bother to try to verify your opinions and even find ways to rationalize ignoring inconvenient facts. If you do those things, don't be surprised if someone treats you with a bit of condescension, though.

It is possible to have arguments over things that are obvious. Sometimes people aren't rational. Sometimes people argue for the sake of argument. Some people tend to act like belligerent ignoramuses. Sometimes people are just mistaken. Whatever. It happens. The fact that there were some arguments about it does not mean that it's not obvious that GK is children's literature.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-26, 07:53 AM

Cavelcade

2015-08-26, 08:01 AM

The fact that there were some arguments about it does not mean that it's not obvious that GK is children's literature.

Okay, that's fine and all (although, again, the label is descriptive and prescriptive), but you were using that point as evidence that events wouldn't play out a certain way, which is what (most) of the arguments have being about, and is why I was looking to see what exactly you were using to define it that would cause you to make that prediction. You've revised it to being "unlikely", but I still disagree about that conclusion, and I think the other examples of YA back that up.

eschmenk

2015-08-26, 08:15 AM

Program? What program? Tony seems to think not being in the program would be very bad. To the point he's stomping on Annie to make her conform so she can stay in. Given Tony's demonstrated amazing lack of good judgement, however...

Annie is being told the Court is her enemy. This may not be good. For the Court.

And she might have a lot of help. In addition to generating a lot of sympathy for Annie, Tony was acting like a jerk to the rest of the class when we first saw him. Presumably the syllabus was difficult enough, but Tony substituted a more difficult one. I wouldn't be surprised if Annie's classmates help somehow. Of course, Kat, Parley and Smit are already helping. The robots and forest creatures would help if they could.

I have no idea why leaving the Court would be such a bad thing, though. Surma and Tony left it (Tony may not have completely left it) and Surma didn't seem to want Annie to get involved with the Court, so why would it be bad for Annie to leave the Court and its "program" once she graduates? Kat probably wouldn't leave it, but wouldn't they still be able to visit? Could the Court keep Annie out of the Forest if Coyote allowed her there?

Why did Tony's hair darken and start to turn grey just temporarily? Is he coloring his hair now?

You've revised it to being "unlikely", but I still disagree about that conclusion, and I think the other examples of YA back that up.

I don't view that as being a revision. "I don't think" was meant to be different than "it's obviously not...". And I said "most of" not "all of". Basically, when I was reading Eee's prediction, I thought he was just going a little too far, rather than thinking that there wasn't any basis at all for his expectation. I was trying to point out that the story's emphasis was going to be on Annie and the other children, rather than on Tony's relationship to the court. I don't think "appropriate" was the best word to use, but I still haven't thought of a better one. I'm sorry about not being more clear about that.

But yeah, I can understand people reading that differently than I had hoped. I really don't understand how anyone could think of GC as not being children's or young adult literature. To me, it seems to be squarely aimed at that group. (Of course, older people can enjoy it, too.) It never occurred to me that anyone could question that GC is children's literature, so wasn't worried about mentioning it. I admit that I was unfortunately being imprecise, though. The issue wasn't really that it was children's literature; it was that, as with much children's literature (admittedly, not all children's literature), the emphasis was on the kids, not the adults.

AdmiralCheez

2015-08-26, 08:32 AM

Why did Tony's hair darken and start to turn grey just temporarily? Is he coloring his hair now?

It might just be the light reflecting off his greasy, unwashed hair. In that condition, he probably doesn't shower every day; just when he needs to.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-26, 10:14 AM

I take that as a yes to previous question.

Cavelcade

2015-08-26, 10:31 AM

To me, it seems to be squarely aimed at that group.

Interestingly I don't exactly disagree with this, but I have a different take on it. It's aimed at this group, sure - but it's also aimed at people who have ever being in that group and who get...something out of examining that time from a different perspective (fantasy/different person/different gender). If a story of that type is told well, people will be able to relate their own experiences to what is going on and form a connection with it - and then examine their own life. It's a different way of reading the same story, and is what any story should really hope to be.

Paranorman and Toy Story are two movies I'd give as excellent examples of that type of story. Harry Potter to a degree and from a personal perspective Lord of the Rings (the books in both cases).

Thufir

2015-08-26, 11:29 AM

The publisher markets the books as children's literature. Reviewers say that it is. My library system classifies the book at Young Adult. Presumably other libraries do, too. (Did you check any libraries near you?) The American Library Association defines the young adult category as being for children between ages 12 and 18. The people who make the decisions about how to classify things (or are at least in charge of those who do) are often people with degrees in Library and Information Science or similar fields and take such matters seriously.

I literally said at the end of that quote you quoted that I could possibly agree with classifying it as Young Adult. Since I would expect it to have notable adult appeal as well and for adults to be less likely to frequent the Young Adult section I still would rather just classify it by genre rather than age group.
Some of the confusion may come from the fact that I would consider Children's Lit and Young Adult to be separate categories, partly because they carry different connotations and partly because it's just confusing otherwise, unless you have another name for the category targeted at younger children.
On your specific points, technically the publishers say it's for ages 9 and up, which includes children but it doesn't say an upper limit, so I'd still say it's not an absolute (I'm also not so sure about going as low as 9, but whatever). And I'm pretty confident that my local libraries do not stock the Gunnerkrigg Court books.

You can not bother to try to verify your opinions and even find ways to rationalize ignoring inconvenient facts. If you do those things, don't be surprised if someone treats you with a bit of condescension, though.

Just going to cut you off there - that post was the first time you actually offered any 'inconvenient' facts. Prior to that you hadn't backed up your assertion that GC is Children's Lit any more than I backed up mine that it isn't (except for the reference to your local library which I missed originally), you just repeatedly restated it, so no, I consider your condescension rude and uncalled for. Especially when it hinges on differing interpretations of a term which has a rather vague and nebulous definition.

It is possible to have arguments over things that are obvious. Sometimes people aren't rational. Sometimes people argue for the sake of argument. Some people tend to act like belligerent ignoramuses. Sometimes people are just mistaken. Whatever. It happens. The fact that there were some arguments about it does not mean that it's not obvious that GK is children's literature.

Obvious to you, maybe. If people are arguing about it and they're not just trolling, it clearly isn't obvious to them.

Regardless, I can accept a YA classification though I still think it would be better served by a genre-based distinction rather than an age-based one, and the latest update has clearly disproven your initial contention that the story wouldn't go in this direction. (And if that was not in fact what you initially meant, then you phrased it poorly)

eschmenk

2015-08-26, 12:28 PM

*cough* I...guess everyone was sort of wrong? Tony is not a prisoner, Annie is being used as leverage, the Court isn't just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about Annie's behavior.

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage, though. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.

I didn't think that anyone thought that the Court was just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about her behavior. She really did copy from Kat's work. She really hasn't been obedient. She really did need someone to discipline her, since the teachers hadn't been doing their jobs. It's just the way that Tony went about it was way overboard.

Lethologica

2015-08-26, 12:29 PM

GC is listed in my local library system as 'teen', FWIW. Which is...compatible with a "children's lit" label, but certainly doesn't imply the characteristics that eschmenk has associated with that label (tends not to grapple with complexity, doesn't have fleshed-out adult characters/relationships, and specifically renders unlikely the Court using Annie as leverage against Tony). However obvious the map looks to eschmenk, it doesn't mean much if the map doesn't reflect the territory.

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.
Is a hypothetical difference between "the Court using Annie as leverage against Tony" and "the Court giving Tony information about Annie's precarious status that led him to decide to accept their offer and rein her in for them" really the hill you want to die on? And is arguing such a subtle difference really supporting your argument that GC wouldn't portray such complexity because it's children's literature?

eschmenk

2015-08-26, 12:38 PM

@ Lethologica: You are misrepresenting what I've been saying. Please stop doing that.

Lethologica

2015-08-26, 12:46 PM

@ Lethologica: You are misrepresenting what I've been saying. Please stop doing that.
Well, gosh, do explain yourself at some point. Trying to determine your position has been like trying to make a footprint in loose sand.

Re: 'misguided beliefs about her behavior', that was shorthand for my own prediction, and I'm using 'misguided' broadly to include deliberate omissions (like, say, why it is that Annie's involved with the Forest).

Lizard Lord

2015-08-26, 06:36 PM

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage, though. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.

I didn't think that anyone thought that the Court was just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about her behavior. She really did copy from Kat's work. She really hasn't been obedient. She really did need someone to discipline her, since the teachers hadn't been doing their jobs. It's just the way that Tony went about it was way overboard.
Are you ignoring the fact that Harry Potter, a book series you also call YA literature, totally had a father being coerced into working for Voldemort because his daughter was being held captive by the death eaters?

To quote the wiki page since I don't have the book with me. Also spoiling it for those who didn't read it. If you don't want to read the spoiler you will just have to take my word for it.
It was believed that Luna was held captive at Azkaban, though she was actually imprisoned in the basement of Malfoy Manor, along with the famed wandmaker Garrick Ollivander, to whom she proved a great comfort. Her father was so desperate to get her back that he tried to turn Harry, Hermione, and Ron over to the Ministry in exchange for her freedom;

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

Hiro Protagonest

2015-08-26, 06:39 PM

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

You think forest activities are enough grounds to expel her? That's the reason they've been keeping a close eye on her, not the evidence they're going to use against her.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-26, 06:43 PM

You think forest activities are enough grounds to expel her? That's the reason they've been keeping a close eye on her, not the evidence they're going to use against her.

It may not be the reason they would use, but it is their motivation.

Also I actually suspect that the Court doesn't need much evidence or reasons to expel students. They don't seem to answer to anyone outside of the Court and the only outside pressure they experience is from the Forrest, which is pressuring them with the way things are now.

eschmenk

2015-08-26, 08:30 PM

Interestingly I don't exactly disagree with this, but I have a different take on it. It's aimed at this group, sure - but it's also aimed at people who have ever being in that group and who get...something out of examining that time from a different perspective (fantasy/different person/different gender). If a story of that type is told well, people will be able to relate their own experiences to what is going on and form a connection with it - and then examine their own life. It's a different way of reading the same story, and is what any story should really hope to be.

Yes, you do have a somewhat different take on it. :) I do agree that stories that are told well can have a broad appeal, but I think the best way to accomplish that usually is to try to do a really good job of serving a relatively narrow target group. If you create quality, the broader appeal will hopefully happen automatically. I think it's especially easy to attract adults with things targeted at children because it's possible to hook an adult's inner child. It is true that sometimes movies for children include humor intended for the parents, but outside of quick humor, I don't think that works very well. I think that if you attempt to increase the appeal my making things broad, you probably hurt yourself more than it helps. I do think that it can be important to not underestimate the target group, though. An author often can challenge them more that some people might expect.

It's not quite the same thing, but I read something not that long ago (that I unfortunately can't find) that was about an author asking for advice from an experienced editor. The author was talented, but hadn't narrowed down what he or she was trying to do. The editor used Chuck Jones's Nine Rules for the Road Runner cartoons (http://elitedaily.com/entertainment/chuck-jones-rules-for-road-runner-wile-coyote/956464/) as an example of how it's necessary to keep the focus narrow and let the readers know what to expect. Chuck Jones's rules is a very narrow set of rules that someone might think would limit the appeal of the cartoons, but I'd say that they did the opposite.

I haven't double-checked, but IIRC, based on interviews, I understood that J.K. Rowling exclusively targeted narrow age groups when she wrote each Harry Potter book. Granted, the later books were targeted at older children than the first books were, but the targeted age group for each book was narrow, IIRC. I don't recall her ever indicating that she consciously did anything in order to attract people outside the age group she was primarily targeting. What she did certainly worked out well for her. (If someone has a source where she talked about that, I would be interested in seeing it.)

Given that we now know what hold the Court has over Tony, I take it that the original point behind this argument is forever lost.

I admit that I was unfortunately being imprecise, though. The issue wasn't really that it was children's literature; it was that, as with much children's literature (admittedly, not all children's literature), the emphasis was on the kids, not the adults.

Are you ignoring the fact that Harry Potter, a book series you also call YA literature, totally had a father being coerced into working for Voldemort because his daughter was being held captive by the death eaters?

Actually, I just didn't remember that. Anyway, why in the world did you bring it up if you took it "that the original point behind this argument is forever lost?" I even had already clarified that the issue wasn't that it was YA literature, per se. The Harry Potter books, particularly the last few, handled the adults with more complexity than GC is doing, so what you reminded me of didn't surprise me. Anyway, so far it sure looks like things turned out basically like what I had expected, so it's a bit late for your argument, I think. The original point behind your argument is forever lost, isn't it? :smallsmile:

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

Well, technically, when she went against the headmaster's wishes, she was inside the school and in front of several teachers in addition to the headmaster. Anyway, even if the court's decision to banish Annie was motivated only by her business with the forest, and I agree that that's possible, that wouldn't have changed anything I said, though.

Zea mays

2015-08-27, 09:40 PM

Now I wonder if "The Court" knows that Annie & co. Are investigating Jeanne. Maybe they are afraid that the kids could actually undo whatever is keeping her ghost by the Annan river.

Hytheter

2015-08-28, 02:19 AM

Kat looks so good in panel 2. Really quality art.

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-28, 02:22 AM

Yeah I don't hate Tony anymore. He's just a guy who really misses his wife and can't deal with how much his daughter reminds him of her and goes blank to stop it.

I wish he'd do better. But I can't hate him. He's just...a broken man.

Lethologica

2015-08-28, 02:28 AM

I'm willing to meet you halfway and set him on fire out of pity rather than hate.

Giggling Ghast

2015-08-28, 02:28 AM

OH MY GOD!!! :smalleek:

ANTHONY IS GOING TO BREAK THAT CHAIR!

The_Snark

2015-08-28, 02:37 AM

... huh. I didn't really expect that. From the outside, his treatment of her at that point really did look like a calculated rebuke (on account of being disappointed in her cheating). Even once we learned he (thought he) was acting on her behalf, it seemed like he was being deliberately harsh with her "for her own good" (mixed with a little obliviousness, perhaps).

Except, no. I'm starting to think that 'deliberate' is not a word you can apply to anything he does now - he's reacting emotionally, moment-to-moment. No plan. He's very good at seeming cold and logical, but that is the only part of self-control he's good at right now.

Haruspex_Pariah

2015-08-28, 03:52 AM

Lizard Lord

2015-08-28, 05:58 AM

I'm a bit unsure of why banishing Annie from the court would be such a bad thing. Is there something in the world outside the Court that is dangerous? He talks about "the court and the program". What program? If they were planning to cast her out after graduation, it implies that he wants/needs her to stay in the court after that point? If their goal was just to get Tony back, why did Annie have to be held back a year? And why did he need to "escape the Court's eye" to do his research? This is why I post so infrequently; each page just raises more questions.

The only thing I can think of is it would be like banishing Harry from Hogwarts, Anthony is isolating her plenty already. Of course there is still plenty we don't know about the Court, and this could easily tie into that.

Anyway, so far it sure looks like things turned out basically like what I had expected

Well they are threatening her and it is at least slightly possible that removing from the program may not be survivable as we still know so little about the Court, but I could be grasping at straws there. Still complexity, and not dark tones, was the original point, yes? If so, how exactly is this whole mess less complex than "They are threatening my daughter, I have to do what they say to protect her"? (Which is still technically the case even if it isn't death she is being threatened with. Honestly, darker tones was the only thing separating the truth from the theory.)

Oh, and I brought up the Harry Potter thing before, but no one responded. Thought maybe I would try again for the heck of it.

Cavelcade

2015-08-28, 07:12 AM

Well, I agree that darker tones can easily be present in a children's story (or YA, or however you choose to categorize it). Coraline (book version) and Paranorman (the movie) are really extremely dark stories that are aimed at children. Paranorman in particular has...well, this is major spoilers for a movie I love and highly recommend so:

The main twist of the story isn't that the witch is real but that the "witch" was just a little girl who could see dead people, who they hung. The "zombies" are the ones who judged her, cursed to rise and be tormented.

It is an extremely complex story in a lot of ways, but one I feel children will get the general message of (don't be mean to things you're scared of) without necessarily having to look at the deeper social commentary that's going on.

Lissou

2015-08-28, 07:25 AM

Cavelcade, as an aside... when I look at your avatar, my brain keeps shifting between analyzing it as having no mouth and analyzing it as having no nose. She shifts from looking nonplussed to looking goofily happy.

eee

2015-08-28, 07:26 AM

Nope, STILL no sympathy for the Tony. Guilt, grief, and stupidity do not excuse acting like a **** and damaging your daughter psychologically. He's STILL doing the same thing as with the bone lasers: Inflicting harm without realizing he's doing so.

He doesn't learn. Or understand the consequences of his actions.

Where's Reynard? I thought he was on the desk, apparently inanimate, listening in on this conversation. Did Tony move him to another room before they started talking and drinking?

Lissou

2015-08-28, 08:06 AM

Nope, STILL no sympathy for the Tony. Guilt, grief, and stupidity do not excuse acting like a **** and damaging your daughter psychologically. He's STILL doing the same thing as with the bone lasers: Inflicting harm without realizing he's doing so.

He doesn't learn. Or understand the consequences of his actions.

He absolutely realises it, actually. And he probably understands the consequences, but finds them still preferable to Annie being expelled.

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-28, 08:32 AM

Tony entirely understands the consequences of his actions.

The tragedy is that that understanding doesn't change his course of action- he wants to be able to stop doing this, but he can't stop himself.

That's why I have sympathy for Tony. He wants to be a good father for Annie- but he feels he's locked into being a terrible one, feels that he can't make up for what he's done, and as such continues on the same course.

Domochevsky

2015-08-28, 10:14 AM

My current reaction: Begrudging acceptance that Tony's a human being with no idea what he's doing at any time.
He's way too damn similar to Anny in the "stone-faced to hide emotions" regard. Hell, she may even have gotten it from him, one way or another.

Hrrrm. Fine. You win this time, Tom. Still doesn't mean that I like Tony or find his behavior acceptable. :smallannoyed:

Haruspex_Pariah

2015-08-28, 10:30 AM

Morty

2015-08-28, 10:42 AM

Compare Annie's reaction on this page (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1503) to Tony's reaction in the classroom on today's page (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1559). Eerily similar. Both deal with extreme turmoil by shutting down and presenting a blank mask to the world.

Pretty much. Their approaches to dealing with emotional turmoil that they can't handle is very similar. And they don't have a good grasp on emotions in general. I think Tony's actions in the last two chapters are those of a man who has no idea what he should do and is making things worse by trying to figure it out.

eschmenk

2015-08-28, 11:25 AM

The only thing I can think of is it would be like banishing Harry from Hogwarts, Anthony is isolating her plenty already. Of course there is still plenty we don't know about the Court, and this could easily tie into that.

Maybe it could also be that Tony thinks that if Annie stayed, she would have more resources to study her condition and find a way to have children without dying? Tony obviously helped Surma leave the program, though. Maybe he thinks that was a mistake now?

Hopefully the story will explain it at some point.

Another question: Why did the court want Tony back? Why didn't they fire him, instead? (If they needed an excuse, they could have assigned him to an insignificant job at the court and fired him when he failed to show up.)

If so, how exactly is this whole mess less complex than "They are threatening my daughter, I have to do what they say to protect her"?

That's not quite it. It would have been "They are threatening my daughter. What should I do? Should I undermine them? Should I report them to the authorities? Should I do any of a number of other things to protect them from her?" I don't remember the Harry Potter books all that well, but I think I remember Mr. Malfoy reacting in a fairly complex way and eventually turning against Voldemort, didn't he? In addition to that, the original comment by Eee listed a variety of ways in which the Court could try to turn the screws on Tony via threatening harm to Annie. So that would mean that the Court had a bunch of options and Tony had a bunch of options, so it could be complex. Also, don't forget that the issue wasn't how complex the story gets, it's how much of the complexity involves which characters. I think I explained all of this before. Granted, there are a lot of comments to wade through.

Where's Reynard? I thought he was on the desk, apparently inanimate, listening in on this conversation. Did Tony move him to another room before they started talking and drinking?

We've seen the desk from several different angles. He didn't seem to be there. I don't know where he is. He could be listening from a drawer, I suppose. It might be interesting to get his take on this.

Lethologica

2015-08-28, 12:21 PM

A lot of things are being explained to us.

It's time for a plot twist!

Donald is secretly the bad guy. He was the bad guy all along. Ha ha ha. And the drink is poisoned. He's gonna kill Tony for blabbing too much.

Tony (dying): You were spying on me...for the Court?
Donald: I AM THE COURT
Then he turns to Annie, who he knows is watching in shocked horror because he brought her along, and says, "This is what happens to those who defy the Court. Now, we're going to allow you to be the Forest medium again, and you will be publicly happy about this. You'll be working for us, of course, but that'll be our...little...secret."

aaaaahhhh this is actually really creepy make it go away

Another question: Why did the court want Tony back? Why didn't they fire him, instead? (If they needed an excuse, they could have assigned him to an insignificant job at the court and fired him when he failed to show up.)
They want him to research something for them, probably.

That's not quite it. It would have been "They are threatening my daughter. What should I do? Should I undermine them? Should I report them to the authorities? Should I do any of a number of other things to protect them from her?" I don't remember the Harry Potter books all that well, but I think I remember Mr. Malfoy reacting in a fairly complex way and eventually turning against Voldemort, didn't he? In addition to that, the original comment by Eee listed a variety of ways in which the Court could try to turn the screws on Tony via threatening harm to Annie. So that would mean that the Court had a bunch of options and Tony had a bunch of options, so it could be complex. Also, don't forget that the issue wasn't how complex the story gets, it's how much of the complexity involves which characters. I think I explained all of this before. Granted, there are a lot of comments to wade through.
The example most people were referencing was Luna Lovegood's dad, but bringing up Lucius serves even better to illustrate that YA lit can handle complexity in the parent-threatened-with-child-hostage dynamic, right?

halfeye

2015-08-28, 12:29 PM

The example most people were referencing was Luna Lovegood's dad, but bringing up Lucius serves even better to illustrate that YA lit can handle complexity in the parent-threatened-with-child-hostage dynamic, right?
As I said, the difference is no sex. That's all the difference. There would have been a time, as in movies, when violence was excluded too, but now that's not X-rated any more.

eschmenk

2015-08-28, 12:47 PM

The example most people were referencing was Luna Lovegood's dad, but bringing up Lucius serves even better to illustrate that YA lit can handle complexity in the parent-threatened-with-child-hostage dynamic, right?

I don't remember Harry Potter well enough to remember which would serves as a better example, but Lucius was the example I thought of. Why would that matter which one is the better example? Everyone who has mentioned Harry Potter seems to agree that at least something in Harry Potter is a good example.

As I said, the difference is no sex. That's all the difference. There would have been a time, as in movies, when violence was excluded too, but now that's not X-rated any more.

That is still generally wrong. By your logic, everything that is currently being categorized as being for adults would have sex in it. That's not the case. But sex can be used as a reason to classify something as adult, and sometimes "adult" is a shorthand way of saying that something contains sex. It depends on the context. The way we are talking here, that's not the case.

Lethologica

2015-08-28, 01:30 PM

I don't remember Harry Potter well enough to remember which would serves as a better example, but Lucius was the example I thought of. Why would that matter which one is the better example? Everyone who has mentioned Harry Potter seems to agree that at least something in Harry Potter is a good example.
For all the nebulousness of your position, one thing that you seemed to be arguing against was the likelihood of complexity in "children's lit" particularly w.r.t. the wrinkles introduced by a potential holding-Annie-hostage-to-the-Court's-demands situation. Hence, the wrinkles introduced by holding-Draco/Luna-hostage-to-the-Death-Eaters'-demands situations in HP seemed like a counterargument to your position, in that it showed that "children's lit" is able to handle complexity of that nature, ergo that GC being "children's lit" was not materially relevant to the likelihood of the prediction that Annie might be used as leverage against Tony (which, let us not forget, actually happened).

If this is based on a misreading of your position, perhaps further elucidation of your position is in order.

BannedInSchool

2015-08-28, 01:33 PM

So let's see, from Anthony's perspective this is all reasons for Antimony to rightfully hate him, and from Annie's perspective it's all more things that are all her fault, eh? :smalltongue:

eschmenk

2015-08-28, 02:23 PM

If this is based on a misreading of your position, perhaps further elucidation of your position is in order.

I admit that I was unfortunately being imprecise, though. The issue wasn't really that it was children's literature; it was that, as with much children's literature (admittedly, not all children's literature), the emphasis was on the kids, not the adults.

I even had already clarified that the issue wasn't that it was YA literature, per se. The Harry Potter books, particularly the last few, handled the adults with more complexity than GC is doing...

Hopefully, that helps. If not, well, I don't think it's terribly important. I don't think we are viewing children's literature very differently. I need to do other things and I'm not sure that I can explain things any better than I already have without a huge investment in time. Even then, I'm not sure it would work.

FWIW, I still don't know if the Court intended to use the threat to banish Annie as leverage over Tony or not. I think Tom is keeping the ways of the Court mysterious. I don't even think we know exactly what the agreement was. It includes Tony working at the Court and Antimony retaking 9th grade, but does it include the Court promising to keep her after graduation, promising to reevaluate Annie at the end of the year, something else?

Nope, STILL no sympathy for the Tony. Guilt, grief, and stupidity do not excuse acting like a **** and damaging your daughter psychologically. He's STILL doing the same thing as with the bone lasers: Inflicting harm without realizing he's doing so.

He doesn't learn. Or understand the consequences of his actions.?

Well, he does understand after the fact, but that hasn't done any good so far. FWIW, one thing I missed at first was Annie reminded him of Surma, which was like rubbing salt in his wounds, so he became angry at Annie, and that's why he humiliated her. He now understand that that was a crazy and horrible thing to do, I think. That at least provides some reason for him behaving the way he did, even though, as he realizes, it doesn't justify it at all.

A thought that I had that I don't think we were supposed to think is this: If he had been a decent parent who had shown any interest in Annie, he probably wouldn't have been so shocked at what she looked like!

Lissou

2015-08-28, 03:07 PM

He hasn't seen her in a while (which may be your point?) and almost everyone is shocked because she looks exactly like Surma (probably a result of the elemental). Makes sense for him to have a strong reaction, so shortly after his previous trauma.

I think Annie and Tony are very, very similar. People mention how much she looks like Surma (and obviously she does), but emotionally, there is so much Tony in there.

eschmenk

2015-08-28, 03:51 PM

He hasn't seen her in a while (which may be your point?) and almost everyone is shocked because she looks exactly like Surma (probably a result of the elemental). Makes sense for him to have a strong reaction, so shortly after his previous trauma.

Well, yes, that was the point, or at least close. It's also that, even if he was too ashamed to be able to talk to her, one would think that he would at least try to get information about her and make sure that she was OK. He might have asked Donnie how she was doing. Donnie might have sent pictures. If he had asked for information from the Court, he at least would have known that they were becoming unhappy with her.

Apparently, he was at the Court for some time before the first class of the year. One would have thought that during that time, if not before, he would have at least tried to look for her from a distance or as she passed by a security camera or something like that. He could easily have visited Donnie and asked if he knew anything about her before classes started. Any talk with anyone who knew both Annie and Surma would have probably included some mention of how much Annie looked like Surma.

The fact that Tony didn't even know what his own daughter looked like is pretty bad.

Yet one more thought that we probably aren't supposed to think about is that Annie would have been humiliated by letting her show up for the class and only then telling her that she didn't belong there. If she was going to be held back, the right thing to do was to tell her privately in advance. It was incredibly insensitive to not handle it that way. If it had been done that way, then at least the class wouldn't have watched him treating Annie so badly.

Lizard Lord

2015-08-28, 04:03 PM

That's not quite it. It would have been "They are threatening my daughter. What should I do? Should I undermine them? Should I report them to the authorities? Should I do any of a number of other things to protect them from her?" I don't remember the Harry Potter books all that well, but I think I remember Mr. Malfoy reacting in a fairly complex way and eventually turning against Voldemort, didn't he? In addition to that, the original comment by Eee listed a variety of ways in which the Court could try to turn the screws on Tony via threatening harm to Annie. So that would mean that the Court had a bunch of options and Tony had a bunch of options, so it could be complex. Also, don't forget that the issue wasn't how complex the story gets, it's how much of the complexity involves which characters. I think I explained all of this before. Granted, there are a lot of comments to wade through.
.
(Bold mine)
But the complexity still involves the same characters the same amount in both the theory and what is actually happening. And Tony does still have lots of options as far as I can tell.

Rodin

2015-08-28, 10:12 PM

Lissou

2015-08-28, 10:21 PM

I'm a bit confused about the timeline here. Is this conversation between Donald and Tony happening prior to the dinner, or afterwards? If it happened afterwards, it leaves Annie's reaction of "That went quite well" to be rather mysterious, since by her perspective at the time it went pretty horribly. If it happened prior, it certainly explains a lot about her later reaction - she's much happier with her father, and her subterfuge at the dinner was pulled off well. That then opens up the question...why is she pulling the wool over Kat (and possibly Anja's) eyes? Or was the whole thing staged for the Court's benefit?

I'm pretty sure it all happens after the diner. The dinner happened, Donald noticed how Tony was behaving, worried for Annie and knew something was up, and decided to show Annie the Tony he knows, to help her understand he doesn't hate her, isn't disappointed in her, and so on.

"That went quite well" sounded to me like the kind of dry humour Tony also displays.

Qwertystop

2015-08-28, 10:22 PM

Yeah, I think it's either Annie displaying dry humor or Annie (sans fire) being really out of it.

eschmenk

2015-08-29, 11:01 AM

I think this is where Donnie starts planning (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1529) to do what he did.

Yeah, I think it's either Annie displaying dry humor or Annie (sans fire) being really out of it.

I think a third possibility is that Annie didn't feel comfortable complaining to Donnie about Tony, but she wanted Donnie to see what Tony was like, which is what happened during the dinner. Maybe all three to some extent.

BannedInSchool

2015-08-29, 12:16 PM

Or she really meant it went well because nobody had to go to the Emergency Room. :smallbiggrin:

Fawkes

2015-08-29, 01:16 PM

Lizard Lord

2015-08-29, 01:34 PM

ThirdEmperor

2015-08-29, 01:42 PM

But that's kinda the point of it? Not 'oh look this guy's the good guy' but the fact that he's destroying his relationship with her, what little he even had, by putting up this ridiculous face. That's why we're seeing it the way we are. Not to pull some cheap reversal of how we think of the Worst Dad, but to see how Tony tries to present himself and then his real, kinda sad, human face. It's about him manufacturing this disconnect.

BannedInSchool

2015-08-29, 02:26 PM

I never thought the story was going to be that Annie's father was an evil robot who hates her sent back from the future to make her suffer, so I've been expecting to see what's up with him. *shrug*

Kornaki

2015-08-29, 03:01 PM

I never thought the story was going to be that Annie's father was an evil robot who hates her sent back from the future to make her suffer, so I've been expecting to see what's up with him. *shrug*

I mean, the chapter was called Return of the Time Traveling Robot Dad. I guess this means there's still a lot of plot left to do.

Morty

2015-08-29, 03:17 PM

I'm not sure how people can look at this arc and manage to boil it down to something as simplistic as "making Tony a good guy".

Cyber Punk

2015-08-29, 06:24 PM

Rodin

2015-08-29, 09:50 PM

It's not about making Tony a 'good guy', whatever that means, it's about making Tony human. Humans are flawed, we do things thinking we're doing the right thing and end up making matters worse. Some of us will boycott the other for seemingly good reasons while adamantly refusing to see the other's point of view. That kind of thing.

This does not excuse what he's done, but now we get to see his reasoning and his thought process. It's devices like this that make me like Gunnerkrigg.

This. I rather disliked the previous chapter introducing Tony, because he was being nasty and villainous on a scale that really only Diego has managed to aspire to, and that sort of character just didn't fit in with the Gunnerkrigg universe. This one showing his motivations has made up for all that.

Tony still needs counseling and some help repairing his relationship with Annie (which Donnie is definitely helping with by letting her see what her father is like under the mask), but he's no longer the needlessly evil dude that he was portrayed as when he returned. That's been true of pretty much all the antagonists and seems to be a recurring theme within the comic as a whole.

eee

2015-08-29, 10:37 PM

He absolutely realises it, actually. And he probably understands the consequences, but finds them still preferable to Annie being expelled.

If Tony understands what his actions are doing to Annie and is still doing them, then he should be doused in gasoline and tossed to the Fire Elemental. The way he's going about this - humiliating her, destroying her sense of self worth, depriving her of support - is NOT necessary to keep her from being expelled. Unless the Court is forcing him to do it like this, although so far we've seen no evidence of that.

Consider this as an alternative. He contacts Annie before the school year starts, informs her he's coming back into her life, and he'll be a teacher at the Court. No emotional punch to the throat as he walks in the classroom door without warning. Still convinced she hates him* he keeps their relationship strictly formal and indicates she is not to ask about his face or missing arm; he does not want to discuss those. He also informs her the Court is aware of her cheating, and that to prevent her from being expelled she must take the previous year over, she must cease being Forest Medium, and for her own safety he will insist she turn Rey over to him. Same situation, handled differently, Annie is distressed but not crushed. This isn't good parenting, this is treating another human being LIKE a human being. Tony isn't doing that. I don't care how distressed he is, he's being a ****.

(* - Note that Tony doesn't ASK Annie how she feels about him (or anything else, as far as I can tell), he just assumes. He seems to see the world through the distorting prism of his own ego; since he failed to save Surma and hates himself for it, naturally Annie must hate him, too. It might be that same mental myopia that was behind his freaking out over Brinnie: He didn't love her, so how could she love him? I don't think he's got a Narcissistic Personality disorder, but there's certainly SOMETHING wrong with the way his brain operates.)

Ellen

2015-08-29, 11:48 PM

It's unclear why Tony feels being cut off from the Court at graduation would be such a terrible thing. So far as we know, the Forest remains an alternative that would welcome her. So, is something at stake that we don't realize? Obviously, he feels he's protecting Annie. But, at this point, it seems like, with supportive relatives like this, who needs enemies?

I don't know how I feel about Tony. He's got good, understandable reasons for the things he's done. But, so far, he got tricked into sucking Annie's soul out of her (or something more or less like that) by one supernatural group who played on his guilt and lost to convince him he'd be doing something for his dead wife.

Now, the court is getting him to destroy Annie's spirit by playing on his guilt and bad parenting to convince him he's doing something good for her.

I'm noticing a trend.

Actually . . . could the court have arranged for the psychopomp impersonators? It seems more like something entities from the Forest/like ones from the Forest would do, but maybe that's what we're supposed to think.

Annie wants to free Jean, who guards the division between the court and the forest, and she might be able to do it. Surma, on the other hand, was loyal to the court--she flirted with Rey at least partly on their orders. She might have had the ability but not the desire. Annie's a threat (in this way and maybe in others) that Surma wasn't.

Rodin

2015-08-30, 04:18 AM

Do we know that the psychopomps were impersonators? Okay, they weren't ones we recognized, but there are tons out there - some from every religion/region, unless I'm missing my guess. Tony sought them out, asked to see Surma again, and they gave him exactly what he asked for in a Literal Genie sense. Annie has a special connection with them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they felt any need to play nice with Tony. The one discrepancy is that it doesn't pay for the psychopomps to hurt Annie when they're relying on her to deal with Jeanne, but it's easily possible to have divisions within the psychopomps.

Lissou

2015-08-30, 06:27 AM

Bluhhh I hate this arc. I hate this device. 'Oh, look, Professor Snape isn't really evil, it's an elaborate scheme to make him a secret hero.' No, he's still a petty abusive jerk, no matter how much you contrive post-facto to make him look like the good guy.

I understand hating the device, but you shouldn't call it "contriving post-facto". In both cases, the story was planned in advance, meaning the "device" is "I'll make this guy seem as horrible as possible when I introduce him so that people can hate him, and only later, when people hate him, will I reveal important information about why and how he did what he did". So it's not a post-facto "making him look like the good guy", it's a "giving a horrible first impression on purpose to cloud people's judgement". And then, I guess, sucker punch them with more information to make them feel ****ty about assuming stuff. But at any rate, I don't think either of those characters is a "good guy". They're both complex characters with very real flaws that aren't made up by the things we learn later. And in the case of Snape, I found the hints pretty obvious so it was neither a big reveal nor a reversal for me, just a confirmation.

The thing is, abusers are often portrayed as completely evil people with no redeemable qualities. This is a problem. It leads, for instance, to people refusing to believe that someone is abusing someone else because they know them to be "a good guy". But you can be a good person in some aspects or with some people, and a horrible one in other aspects or with other people. You can also be an abuser and, with the appropriate help (and with everyone you may hurt appropriately protected and supported), learn not to be one. At any rate, abusers are people, and they act because they have reasons. Their reasons do not justify their abuse. Not to other people. But they may use those reasons to feel justified. They may use them as an excuse. I think it's good that people are being shown in a more complete manner, without simply showing only one aspect of them.

Tony has issues with emotions. He could, should have talked to people. He's talking to Donald now, but only because Donald showed up. Why didn't he go to him? Because he's Tony. That's not an excuse, of course. If he had, he could have avoided acting this way towards his daughter. Here, Donald is the one showing care (for Tony, for Antimony), and Tony is giving us the backstory, but it does not make him "the good guy" and I doubt Tom was trying to make him "the good guy" either.

eschmenk

2015-08-30, 08:03 AM

And in the case of Snape, I found the hints pretty obvious so it was neither a big reveal nor a reversal for me, just a confirmation.

Right, well, at least there were major hints that there was more that we hadn't been told yet.

With GC, we are usually experiencing things as Annie experienced them. For the most part, if Annie doesn't know about something, we don't know about it. Annie didn't know why her father was acting the way he did, so we didn't know. Personally, I think it would have been better to have had some foreshadowing, for example, we could have seen Tony crying or looking dismayed after the first classroom scene. Annie wouldn't have seen that, though, so I guess the author decided to not show it.

Do we know that the psychopomps were impersonators? Okay, they weren't ones we recognized, but there are tons out there - some from every religion/region, unless I'm missing my guess. Tony sought them out, asked to see Surma again, and they gave him exactly what he asked for in a Literal Genie sense. Annie has a special connection with them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they felt any need to play nice with Tony. The one discrepancy is that it doesn't pay for the psychopomps to hurt Annie when they're relying on her to deal with Jeanne, but it's easily possible to have divisions within the psychopomps.

No, but because we don't even know if they were pretending to be psychopomps. Tony said that he went looking for psychopomps, but he said he found what he was looking for, rather than who. He might have meant that he found a different source for the knowledge that he had expected the psychopomps to have had. He never referred to the creatures who mislead him as psychopomps. He either called them creatures or he used vague pronouns.

Lissou

2015-08-30, 08:19 AM

With GC, we are usually experiencing things as Annie experienced them. For the most part, if Annie doesn't know about something, we don't know about it. Annie didn't know why her father was acting the way he did, so we didn't know. Personally, I think it would have been better to have had some foreshadowing, for example, we could have seen Tony crying or looking dismayed after the first classroom scene. Annie wouldn't have seen that, though, so I guess the author decided to not show it.

Yeah, I think foreshadowing would have been good. I get annoyed when something seems completely out of the blue and it looks like the author came up with it at the last minute, even if they say they've been planning it for years. It should be reflected in the story. Some of it has (for instance the phone call, the surgery, etc, we knew something was up with that) but the hints weren't as obvious, even in retrospect, about Tony's thoughts, intentions, feelings, etc.

And I think you're right, it's because Annie is pretty much the narrator in the story. We very rarely see things that don't involve her at all. This being said, sometimes we do. So it could have happened. I think I would have preferred hints to show up earlier than that, though. We had a lot of foreshadowing of Annie's cheating for instance, so the reveal that she was in a lot of trouble over it isn't surprising. Tony, however, was just a big mystery so the most you can say counts as foreshadowing is the things Don said about him, and they're second-hand stories.

I don't know what kind of "hints" I would have dropped, mind you. I think him breaking down after the class may have been too much. I just would have wanted something to make me know something was up with him without knowing what. Something that made me think "there is more to this", before he even showed up.

But yeah, I guess the goal was to make us feel what Antimony was feeling, and there are many things she just couldn't have been aware of.

eschmenk

2015-08-30, 08:33 AM

And I think you're right, it's because Annie is pretty much the narrator in the story. We very rarely see things that don't involve her at all. This being said, sometimes we do. So it could have happened.

Right, and we did get some nice foreshadowing that Donnie would become involved, but Kat was there. The rarest type is when no child would know about it. It occasionally happens, for example, IIRC we saw Jones give her recommendation to the headmaster regarding who should be the next medium, but I think that sort of thing is the rarest. Sometimes things happen with children other than Annie, particularly Kat, but mostly it's stuff that involves Annie.

And really, Annie could have looked back through the door and seen Tony react, for that matter.

Cavelcade

2015-08-30, 11:38 AM

I think the issue is partly down to reading at the pace of updates instead of the pace of reading. This is a three chapter segment that I think would read a lot better once archived.

Fawkes

2015-08-30, 11:42 AM

I understand hating the device, but you shouldn't call it "contriving post-facto". In both cases, the story was planned in advance, meaning the "device" is "I'll make this guy seem as horrible as possible when I introduce him so that people can hate him, and only later, when people hate him, will I reveal important information about why and how he did what he did". So it's not a post-facto "making him look like the good guy", it's a "giving a horrible first impression on purpose to cloud people's judgement". And then, I guess, sucker punch them with more information to make them feel ****ty about assuming stuff.

Yeah, this is a much better description of what's going on. I still find it annoying and manipulative.

Kornaki

2015-08-30, 11:45 AM

The foreshadowing was when we saw that girl have a crush on Tony. And Tony freaked out over what he should do and treated her like crap. This is the exact same situation.

spectralphoenix

2015-08-30, 08:31 PM

It's unclear why Tony feels being cut off from the Court at graduation would be such a terrible thing. So far as we know, the Forest remains an alternative that would welcome her. So, is something at stake that we don't realize? Obviously, he feels he's protecting Annie. But, at this point, it seems like, with supportive relatives like this, who needs enemies?

Keep in mind that Coyote apparently has plans for Annie relating to the Court. I get the feeling that if she suddenly became useless for those plans, the Forest would be a lot less whimsical fun. Or roughly the same whimsical fun, until one day Coyote whimsically decides that being refused a story or smacked on the rump or whatever is a mortal insult, not funny.

And even not knowing what we do, the adults (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1086) certainly seem to think she'd get herself killed behaving as she does in the Forest. (Incidentally, this is another reason not choosing Annie as medium was an entirely justifiable course of action on the Headmaster's part.)

Shadow of the Sun

2015-08-31, 02:44 AM

Emperordaniel

2015-08-31, 02:53 AM

Lissou

2015-08-31, 04:25 AM

I think it was a good set up of the kind of person he is, but it was a second-hand account of him as a teenager. I was thinking more something being shown at the same time as he was doing all these things in the present (well, very recent past, now). The fact that he shut down when he was a kid may explain why he's a cold person, but it doesn't really explain why he would operate on Antimony or call on the phone but not talk to her, or any of the things that were explained later not by his personality, but by magical events we had no way of guessing.

Chromascope3D

2015-08-31, 07:55 AM

No wonder Tony's so grumpy, what with all those neck cramps he should have...

eschmenk

2015-08-31, 08:49 AM

No wonder Tony's so grumpy, what with all those neck cramps he should have...

...and a hangover. If it's not a weekend, he's likely to miss showing up for class, too. When Donnie arrived it was dark outside, but it's light now, so it must be the next morning. I think Donnie probably did this on a weekend so that it wouldn't be a problem, though.

At least Annie knows how to handle her father now. She needs to have Kat set up a moonshine still or use her robots to steal all the whiskey in the Court and keep Tony drunk all the time. It seems as if he can only tell that he's screwing up when he's drunk.

NEO|Phyte

2015-08-31, 09:33 AM

but it doesn't really explain why he would operate on Antimony
Did you miss the part where he didn't know Antimony was being affected until Zimmy etherpunched him?

eschmenk

2015-08-31, 09:50 AM

And Donny more or less expresses what I think this chapter is about- it's not trying to exonerate Tony, or say that what he's done isn't ****ed up. But it is supposed to show that he's a human and isn't just moustache twirlingly evil.

But no one should have thought that he was moustache twirlingly evil. It came across that he was incredibly insensitive and overreacting. That's not moustache twirlingly evil. And let's not forget that Annie was breaking rules and cheating. She deserved some punishment, just not what he gave her.

Annie should be really really depressed now that Donnie showed her how pathetic her father is. :smallyuk: Before, she could hope that as long as she obeyed the rules starting now, he would eventually be pleased and stop acting like he was. Now she knows it wasn't just an overreaction. Her father is just a totally messed-up person. Obeying the rules won't fix that. Annie should think that she is really, really screwed now. (Yes, that's probably thinking too much like an adult, but that's the way the story comes across to me.)

Marcelinari

2015-08-31, 10:04 AM

eee

2015-08-31, 10:29 AM

Jeez, Donald, ease him over to the big chair, or to bed, or onto the floor: Like that he's likely to fall over backwards and break his fool neck. He's at least going to wake up with serious cricks in his back, neck, and arms.

...

He's still a ****. That we understand why doesn't change his nature. But now that Annie does, too, SHE might be able to help him. The child helping the adult grow up and become a whole person: That's not the way it's supposed to work, but sometimes what happens, happens. I imagine she and Flame-Annie are going to reintegrate now, as the emotional overload that caused Annie to separate her rage and hurt from herself should be reduced.

...

I *will* give Tony points that he was not trying to deliberately separate the Fire Elemental from Annie himself, regardless of what harm it might cause. He was just the easy dupe of those who wanted to do that. The suggestion has been made it might have been the Court, and it's not impossible. They want to study the Elemental and don't particularly care what the consequences are to Annie of forced separation, they come up with some Etheric means to do so but it can only be used by a blood relative willing to make a tremendous sacrifice, they drug, beat, and manipulate Tony with fake psychopomps until he does it, and are only defeated by Zimmy's unexpected intervention. Or those might have been real magical monsters out to kill Annie for their own reasons. We don't know enough to say anything at this point except that Tony shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for himself; or anyone else apparently.

eschmenk

2015-08-31, 11:09 AM

The problem is that, to all appearances, Tony was being willfully insensitive and demanding. It didn't seem like he was overreacting in an emotional way (because he appeared to have no emotions) - he was being deliberately overbearing and unduly harsh, for no apparent reason. He didn't come across as evil, no - but he came across as cold, calculating, and deliberately cruel. This chapter showed us that he was actually being reactionary, shortsighted, and accidentally cruel. The character has become more 3-dimensional... but he remains a mean character who I do not yet wish to forgive.

I guess it depends on how you read it. He came across more as having a stick up his rear and not having a realistic expectation of what to expect from children to me. He seemed to think that the school had been too lax, therefore he created a tougher syllabus for the class he was teaching and was going to be rough on anyone who disobeyed the rules in the class.

The other thing is that Tony was being unfairly blamed to some extent. It's probably not his fault that Annie was held back a year, as humiliating as it was. That was the fault of Annie and the teachers who let Annie cheat. It's probably not his fault that he was the first teacher to require that Annie remove her makeup. It's not his fault that Jones didn't do more to keep Annie out of the forest if doing so was going to have negative repercussions for her. Of course, all this assumes that staying in the Court's "program" is important for Annie somehow, but Tony seemed to think that it was.

Granted, the people in the class are about four years younger, but Tony acted like a pussycat compared to the professor who taught the flunk-out class I survived in college. (Granted, the professor's hatred was faked, but certainly seemed real at the time. I didn't catch on until well after the class was over.) You also hear stories of parents who were really cold to their children. All together, the previous chapter made Tony seem bad, but not hideously so, to me. Again, I doubt that's the way I was supposed to read it, but that's the way it came across to me.

One good thing that did come out of the current chapter is that we saw that, even though he didn't want to, Tony returned to the court apparently because he saw that he needed to for Annie's sake. That was the only redeeming thing we saw about him, IIRC. (Yes, he can love, but it mostly seemed as if he can only love in a needy, infantile way, so I'm not counting that.)

BannedInSchool

2015-08-31, 11:59 AM

Sure, when I secretly video survey someone without their permission I'm a creep... :smalltongue:

Lissou

2015-08-31, 03:56 PM

Did you miss the part where he didn't know Antimony was being affected until Zimmy etherpunched him?

Not at all. I'm commenting that I dislike this part being so long after the fact, rather than having hints about what was going on at the time. The complaint isn't "we have no idea what's going on (now)" but "it was shown to us in such a way that whether it was planned that way the whole time, or the author came up with the explanation the day of the explanatory strip, we can't really tell". I mean I know the strip is planned ahead and many things have been foreshadowed over the years. I feel this is a situation that could have been handled better, unless the point was "surprise! I pretended he was horrible but he isn't! That was totally the plan all along, promise!" or something along those lines.

Aldrakan

2015-08-31, 05:06 PM

It's probably not his fault that he was the first teacher to require that Annie remove her makeup.

Wait what? This chapter made it even more obvious that he told her to do that because she looked too much like Surma. There's never been the slightest indication that's a school rule Annie was violating, he even said "in my class".

Kudos to Donny, I think this is probably pushing towards the best outcome they could hope for. Annie sees that her father has sympathetic motives and loves her even if he is totally worthless at expressing it, and she sees that he's a flawed person who doesn't have all the answers and is capable of making serious mistakes. Understanding that is probably a necessary step towards achieving less toxic power dynamic that doesn't require her just hating him.

Morty

2015-08-31, 05:23 PM

Lethologica

2015-08-31, 05:33 PM

I don't think it's that there haven't been indicators of Anthony's, uh, Hanlon's Razor fulfillment, so much as that the indicators have all been Donald telling us there are indicators.

eee

2015-08-31, 08:21 PM

Annie's relationship with her father certainly wasn't anywhere near healthy even before he showed up and started being outright abusive. Seeing him with his guard down might indeed help Annie deal with it. Eventually.

Maybe sooner than eventually. Annie's big problem has been absolute hero worship of Tony. He could do no wrong, she craved his approval, he was all wise and knowing, she was not worthy... When Rey dared to criticize Tony she lashed out at Rey savagely. Now she's seen Tony's badly flawed, often foolish, considers himself a failure... That should keep her from tearing herself apart to meet an impossible ideal, AND make her views of him more realistic. And keep his abuse from hurting her, when she realizes what a small man he is.

Morty

2015-09-01, 09:47 AM

Maybe. He may have been knocked from the pedestal Annie had put him on, but it'll take her a while to process this, more likely than not.

eschmenk

2015-09-01, 11:20 AM

Wait what? This chapter made it even more obvious that he told her to do that because she looked too much like Surma. There's never been the slightest indication that's a school rule Annie was violating, he even said "in my class".

None of the other students who are required to obey the rules seen to be wearing makeup, so it seems likely that it is a rule. The other teachers allowed Annie to violate the rules (they allowed her to cheat), so the "in my class" does not suggest that it wasn't a rule. I could easily mean that he is going to enforce the rule in his class, unlike the other teachers.

Yes, it is true that by not enforcing certain rules, the teachers had implicitly indicated that those rules didn't apply to Annie. Apparently, though, the Court's administration didn't agree, so it was not wrong for Tony to apply the rules to Annie, even though he was the first teacher to do so.

We probably aren't supposed to think about it, but if the other teachers had been doing their jobs, the Court never would have decided that it should get rid of Annie and Tony wouldn't have needed to come back and try to "fix" her. The teachers who were so lax are as much to blame as anyone else.

Aldrakan

2015-09-01, 03:55 PM

None of the other students who are required to obey the rules seen to be wearing makeup, so it seems likely that it is a rule. The other teachers allowed Annie to violate the rules (they allowed her to cheat), so the "in my class" does not suggest that it wasn't a rule. I could easily mean that he is going to enforce the rule in his class, unlike the other teachers.

Margo was clearly wearing lipstick. I mean it's not impossible that eye makeup was against the rules and lipstick wasn't and/or the court insisted that he enforce their dress code on her and only her, but I don't see how you can consider that "probable" when there is no evidence of that beyond the vague point of the court cracking down on Annie when Anthony clearly stated that how much she looked like Surma was overwhelming to him and his immediate action was to demand she go do something that lessened that resemblance.

eschmenk

2015-09-01, 05:06 PM

Margo was clearly wearing lipstick.

I'm not so sure. I think that may be an attempt to show a racial trait.

Lissou

2015-09-01, 11:23 PM

She may have been wearing lip gloss. To be honest, I didn't realise Antimony was wearing lipstick rather than just eye shadow until Margo was brought up. I think Annie's makeup was definitely more obvious at any rate.

Anyway, can someone point out t me a picture of Surma where she is wearing heave make-up shadow that goes way around her eyes like Annie wears? I checked back the archives and saw the last time she appeared to Tony, and she had zero make-up, and I don't remember her wearing make-up, so it seems to me she looks MORE like Surma without the makeup, not LESS. So I don't think "she wore makeup so she looked like Surma, so Tony made her remove it" makes a lot of sense. Unless the make-up makes her look older or something? I just don't follow, I fully admit that I may be wrong as I didn't specifically check if Surma wore make-up in the past, but this just confuses me.

Mith

2015-09-01, 11:51 PM

Most pictures I can find of Surma when she was younger (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=536)show her wearing makeup, but not quite like Annie. (you might have to scroll through the chapter to get a better look at Surma's face.)

Hytheter

2015-09-02, 12:25 AM

Anyway, can someone point out t me a picture of Surma where she is wearing heave make-up shadow that goes way around her eyes like Annie wears?

When has Annie's make up ever gone all the way around her eyes?

Regardless, Surma's makeup here (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=791) is all but identical to Annie's on the next page (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=792).

Most pictures I can find of Surma when she was younger (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=536)show her wearing makeup, but not quite like Annie.

In what way is it not like Annie? Looks exactly the same to me. Unless you're looking at the older chapters but even then the only real difference is how far up the eyshadow goes.

Lissou

2015-09-02, 01:13 AM

Shadow of the Sun

2015-09-02, 02:07 AM

Update.

Someone appears to agree with the general consensus of the thread.

Emperordaniel

2015-09-02, 02:26 AM

Annie, no. What did Donny just say to you.

Lizard Lord

2015-09-02, 03:04 AM

/Facepalm

:smallannoyed:

Morty

2015-09-02, 03:08 AM

Yep, about what I expected. Years of rationalization and justification are not broken through so easily. Annie has been telling herself that Anthony "has his reasons" for a very long time. Admitting that her father is a flawed person who made huge mistakes and has no idea what he's doing would shake her world-view too much.

Lethologica

2015-09-02, 03:33 AM

Each half of Annie views these revelations as furthering its narrative about Anthony. This happens in politics all the time; I guess internal politics count too.

eee

2015-09-02, 08:07 AM

Now, now, FlameAnnie, don't hide your feelings; if you want to beat your human counterpart with a stick until she stops being foolish, feel free!

(I wonder. Is it possible human Annie kept the mindless devotion to Tony as her part of the division and now CAN'T change? That her willpower and common sense are part of what she separated from herself? If so, she won't change willingly, and I don't see how this can be fixed unless FlameAnnie / Little Miss Sunshine can force a reintegration...)

Emperordaniel

2015-09-04, 03:24 AM

And that's the end of the chapter. (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1562)

So what I take from this final scene is that Annie's Fire wasn't hanging out in the corner at the beginning because Annie had ordered it to - it was hanging out there because it couldn't stand to be close to Annie in her current state.

Domochevsky

2015-09-04, 03:46 AM

That's why the room is that big, hm? To get as much distance as possible. And do plenty of silent yelling. :smalltongue:
(The mask with the closed eyes... I see what you did there, Tom.)

eee

2015-09-04, 07:11 AM

By which we see that Annie's worst enemy is herself. And not her Fire Elemental side.

eschmenk

2015-09-04, 08:03 AM

So what I take from this final scene is that Annie's Fire wasn't hanging out in the corner at the beginning because Annie had ordered it to - it was hanging out there because it couldn't stand to be close to Annie in her current state.

I see how you could get that impression, but I think, "You can come down now! (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1531)" speaks louder. I didn't read it so much as ordering it as telling it that it was necessary, though. I'm sure that it's very frustrated with the rest of Annie, though. The main part of Annie was just going to ignore the fire elemental, so it may as well go back to the corner. Perhaps it wanted to go back to the corner, which is were Annie was going to send it eventually. Also, YMMV.

Ellen

2015-09-07, 11:34 AM

Now, is that last bit just a touch of humor to lighten up an otherwise dark chapter? Or is it a bit of foreshadowing that Annie may lose control of her elemental self and torch things?

Mith

2015-09-07, 11:47 AM

Since it is a bonus panel, I suspect humour to be the driving force here.

Emperordaniel

2015-09-07, 04:22 PM

Apparently Annie wasn't as great at cutting her own hair as was previously thought. :smalltongue:

wingnutx

2015-09-08, 08:22 PM

Explosion imminent.

Ellen

2015-09-09, 08:20 PM

And how will Coyote react to this course of events. . . ?

Actually, as it's Coyote, I'm not sure react is the right word. It's a little too passive or assume-he-didn't-see-this-coming/have-anything-to-do-with-it for Coyote. I'm not saying he was involved, but. . . .

How will Coyote pretend to react? Or will he not be able to keep a straight face that long without saying "Gotcha!" to Tony--or Annie--or Rey--or somebody. . . .

eee

2015-09-11, 08:12 AM

Oh God. This is being told from Coyote's perspective. We may not be able to survive this. :smalleek:

Emperordaniel

2015-09-11, 10:31 AM

Oh God. This is being told from Coyote's perspective. We may not be able to survive this. :smalleek:

And I'm perfectly okay with that. :smalleek:

Morty

2015-09-11, 12:49 PM

I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong if Coyote involves himself.

Ellen

2015-09-12, 07:06 PM

I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong if Coyote involves himself.

Yes, he seems so sweet and charming (RUN!!!).

Emperordaniel

2015-09-14, 02:02 AM

The Lords of the Court: The Two Factions (http://gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1566)

eee

2015-09-14, 06:04 AM

Why does Coyote have what appears to be a bottle in his mouth?

"The Lords of the Court". Sounds like he's going to bypass the Headmaster and go right for the mysterious people who actually run things. This could be... interesting...

Ellen

2015-09-16, 08:32 AM

So, is Annie going to fail to be able to explain her split personality to Coyote's satisfaction? Or will she drag in her other half, resulting in immediate, fiery retribution all around? Can this get worse? (Likely answer: Sure--much, much worse).

Qwertystop

2015-09-16, 08:34 AM

BannedInSchool

2015-09-16, 09:12 AM

Tsk. He only loves her for her fiery, burning, homicidal rage. :smalltongue:

Lethologica

2015-09-16, 12:16 PM

For a moment, I was actually unsure whether this was Coyote's telling of current events or his telling of when he first met Annie. Did he know Surma as fire-head-girl?

Of course, that depends a lot on how much Coyote would lie in his narration.
Doubtful.
(a) This doesn't sound like any of Coyote's past meetings with Annie.
(b) Coyote has referred to Surma, but never as 'fire-head girl'.
(c) The clothing matches what we've seen of Annie's Forest outfit, but not Surma's.

Alent

2015-09-16, 12:19 PM

I like how instead of being drawn as "short hair", Annie's hair is drawn like the electrical diagram for "ground".

It gives a very interesting idea of what's going on there.

geoduck

2015-09-16, 02:19 PM

Why does Coyote have what appears to be a bottle in his mouth?

That's his eye.

Chromascope3D

2015-09-16, 05:48 PM

Doubtful.
(a) This doesn't sound like any of Coyote's past meetings with Annie.
(b) Coyote has referred to Surma, but never as 'fire-head girl'.
(c) The clothing matches what we've seen of Annie's Forest outfit, but not Surma's.

Also, Coyote doesn't lie

BannedInSchool

2015-09-16, 06:17 PM

Also, Coyote doesn't lie
Who told you Minbari don't lie?

Marcelinari

2015-09-16, 11:23 PM

The 'Lords of the Court' appear to be represented by the Lead Protector (Sir Eglamore), The Primordial Stone Who Takes The Shape Of A Woman (Jones) and... a seated Bismuth Lump (Headmaster Llanwellyn)? Perhaps some observing lumps, too. I wonder what this implies about Coyote's views on the Court?

memnarch

2015-09-18, 02:06 AM

Ohhhhhh dear. :eek:

Emperordaniel

2015-09-18, 02:21 AM

So much for Coyote's non-interference pact with the Court...

Haruspex_Pariah

2015-09-18, 06:38 AM

Emperordaniel

2015-09-18, 07:01 AM

I'm hoping we finally get to see what kind of countermeasure the Court has against Coyote. All he needs to cross the bridge and thus the river is to declare an official visit apparently. And it doesn't seem to weaken him any. I'm not entirely sure why he hasn't been able to just cross over whenever he feels like it, or once he's across go on a rampage.

Up until this point, the Court had Coyote's promise that he wouldn't interfere in "Court affairs". As Antimony is/was the Forest medium and is an honorary Forest citizen, however, Coyote may view this whole thing as being just as much a Forest affair as a Court affair...

eee

2015-09-18, 07:32 AM

Uh-oh. It appears the Court did not think through the consequences of making Coyote angry. Or maybe they did and were hoping for precisely this response.

I wonder which building Coyote broke. Maybe the energy gathering building by the lake. THAT would get the Court's attention.

Coyote's view of Tony is... insightful.

Domochevsky

2015-09-18, 11:42 AM

...I am highly curious what the aftermath of this (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1568) will look like once we're back to regular view. :smalleek:

Also, yes, all these symbolic representations of people are quite interesting.

eschmenk

2015-09-18, 02:03 PM

I wonder which building Coyote broke. Maybe the energy gathering building by the lake. THAT would get the Court's attention.

That building didn't seem to be anything special. It was apparently vacant and at least relatively unsecured when the kids observed the power plant from it. Maybe it's used for something during the day or it's completely unused; I don't know. It didn't seem to have any access to the lake or the power plant, though, at least not until Jack knocked out a window and built a bridge (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=696) from the building to the wall around the lake. Perhaps the Court moved everyone out so people wouldn't notice what was happening at the plant, although the Court didn't seem to be trying very hard to keep things secret.

Perhaps the building is the one Annie lived in. Perhaps Coyote knocking the top off and exposing the Fire Elemental wasn't entirely accidental. That would be my guess if it's not random.

Morty

2015-09-18, 03:37 PM

I guess Tony makes for a pretty convenient scapegoat for the Court.

VariaVespasa

2015-09-20, 12:12 AM

Perhaps the building is the one Annie lived in. Perhaps Coyote knocking the top off and exposing the Fire Elemental wasn't entirely accidental. That would be my guess if it's not random.

I doubt its entirely random. You cant be an effective trickster if youre just random. Coyote carefully decided what result he wanted to achieve on the court and selected an action that might achieve that effect. He might very well have randomly selected a specific action type off a list of possible general actions that might create the result, and he might well have selected the building randomly to start with, but it seems to me a certainty that once selected he checked the action and target to make sure they fit his criteria for his intended result before actually acting.

Ellen

2015-09-20, 12:48 AM

Well, this is awkward.

Emperordaniel

2015-09-21, 02:03 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether the ban on Annie's visiting the forest was not intended by the Court, but was something Anthony came up with on his own.

Lissou

2015-09-21, 03:22 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether the ban on Annie's visiting the forest was not intended by the Court, but was something Anthony came up with on his own.

Either way, it's nice to see him willing to stand up to both the Court and Coyote in order to protect his daughter... although part of me does wonder if the Court is using him as a pawn/scapegoat and pretending he's the only one refusing while telling him he has to refuse or else

halfeye

2015-09-21, 08:09 AM

Either way, it's nice to see him willing to stand up to both the Court and Coyote in order to protect his daughter... although part of me does wonder if the Court is using him as a pawn/scapegoat and pretending he's the only one refusing while telling him he has to refuse or else
Yeah, but the "else"s just got sesn and raised, what he did then is interesting, but he's perhaps got time to change his mind on that.

Chromascope3D

2015-09-21, 08:32 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether the ban on Annie's visiting the forest was not intended by the Court, but was something Anthony came up with on his own.

Maybe, but I'm still of the opinion that they brought him back for the sole purpose of corralling Annie without having to answer to Coyote for doing so. He may have come up with the idea, but it was probably the idea that the Court wanted from the get-go.

That being said, who wants to bet that Coyote does or attempts to do something to harm Anthony and, in doing so, turns Annie away from the forest?

lord_khaine

2015-09-21, 10:50 AM

Well, this certainly raised my esteem for Tony a few notches, it takes something to stand up to Coyote like that, and as such then i think it was a very valid point to make.

I am a bit confused though, how Coyote could knock that building down when suposedly he is outbound to not interfer with the court.

eschmenk

2015-09-21, 10:59 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether the ban on Annie's visiting the forest was not intended by the Court, but was something Anthony came up with on his own.

Yes, I think so. The Court might view it as a waste of Annie's time and a distraction from her studies and indicate that Annie's loyalties were in the wrong place, but otherwise not care much. (Since the Court pretty much gave up on Annie anyway, they might not even worry about that anymore.) The Headmaster acted bored and didn't bother telling Annie why he thought it would be a bad idea to be Coyote's medium; he told Jones to do it and let the matter drop when Jones didn't say anything. That's consistent with the Court caring very little about what choice Annie made beyond what it said about Annie.

The problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Court wouldn't seem to have much of a motive. If the Court sees the creatures of the forest as "little more than dull minded animals" (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=387), the Court shouldn't be worried about much. The Court already made it known that it didn't want Annie to serve as Coyote's medium, so it can't hide that.

The best argument against the conspiracy theory is that the Court was allowing Annie to go into the Forest and work as Coyote's medium. The conspiracy theory would require the Court to have reversed its position about that. Why would the Court have changed its mind? As a secondary matter, if they they thought there was a new justification for keeping Annie out of the Forest, why would they think that they needed to blame a scapegoat?

I think the most likely explanation for what happened between Tony and the Court is still:
1) The Court decided that Annie was more trouble than she was worth, so they would kick her out as soon as school ended.
2) The Court found Tony and wanted him back (because they didn't trust him to not cause problems, probably), but he didn't want to come back.
3) Tony found out about the Court giving up on Annie.
4) Tony proposed his plan to redeem Annie in the Court's eyes. Tony agreed to come back under the condition that the Court allowed him to carry out his plan. Not being allowed in the Forest was part of Tony's plan.

I am a bit confused though, how Coyote could knock that building down when suposedly he is outbound to not interfer with the court.

The "fairly transparent ruse" (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=286) probably wasn't any more legal. Both sides seem to violate the agreement on occasion.

Well, this certainly raised my esteem for Tony a few notches, it takes something to stand up to Coyote like that, and as such then i think it was a very valid point to make.

Unfortunately for Tony, Coyote may have an even better point to make about putting Annie in danger if Coyote somehow knows about Tony's attempt to see Surma. I'm not sure how Coyote would know, but it would explain why Coyote is laughing.

Tony didn't seem to know how the Court found him. Perhaps Coyote had something to do with that, even.

eee

2015-09-21, 12:17 PM

Tony's either got stones, or he's so depressed and/or single minded he's not considering the danger of talking back to Coyote.

Or he and Coyote have history, and he knows Coyote won't swat him. From what he said when he found out about Annie's parentage, Coyote knew a lot about these five/six students way back when. This may not be the first time Coyote and Tony have stood face to muzzle.

Well, this certainly raised my esteem for Tony a few notches, it takes something to stand up to Coyote like that, and as such then i think it was a very valid point to make.

I am a bit confused though, how Coyote could knock that building down when suposedly he is outbound to not interfer with the court.

It depends on exactly what Coyote's promise entailed. It could be argued that Coyote isn't interfering with the Court so much as he's reacting to the Court interfering with the Forest by allowing Tony to stop Annie from doing her job.

eschmenk

2015-09-21, 03:43 PM

Lethologica

2015-09-21, 05:50 PM

I noticed that the link between Annie and presumably the Fire Elemental isn't shown on this page. Is it just because there was text in the way? It could have easily been shown behind the text, though. I doubt the omission is meaningful, but it might have something to do with what Coyote did to the building.
In the most recent three pages, Annie's hair has ended in the 'ground' symbol, representing her separation from the fire elemental. Before that, the fire elemental was represented by a yellow crown inside her, as here. (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1566) Not sure what else you're referring to.

eschmenk

2015-09-21, 06:57 PM

Lethologica

2015-09-21, 07:03 PM

I was referring to the decorated white line that seemed to run from Annie off the right side of this page (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=286) both times Annie is shown there. It's not on the current page. It's also not present when the fire crown symbol was drawn inside Annie, so I assumed that the fire elemental is at the other end of the line.
Ah. You mean these white lines. (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1567) Good spot; I missed that. No, I'm not sure why it's absent here, or what it represents.

halfeye

2015-09-21, 07:06 PM

I was referring to the decorated white line that seemed to run from Annie off the right side of this page (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=286) both times Annie is shown there. It's not on the current page. It's also not present when the fire crown symbol was drawn inside Annie, so I assumed that the fire elemental is at the other end of the line.
That link takes me to the "transparent ruse" page, Annie is on it once, and I don't see a white line at all.

Fawkes

2015-09-21, 07:52 PM

That link takes me to the "transparent ruse" page, Annie is on it once, and I don't see a white line at all.
10 charact

Ah. You mean these white lines. (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1567) Good spot; I missed that. No, I'm not sure why it's absent here, or what it represents.

Qwertystop

2015-09-21, 08:11 PM

It's pretty faint on that background, going off the edge behind her

eschmenk

2015-09-21, 08:49 PM

That link takes me to the "transparent ruse" page, Annie is on it once, and I don't see a white line at all.

Sorry about that. :smalleek: Yes, Lethologica posted the correct link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19851776#post19851776). Thanks.

spectralphoenix

2015-09-22, 04:30 AM

I'm beginning to wonder whether the ban on Annie's visiting the forest was not intended by the Court, but was something Anthony came up with on his own.

Seeing as the second half of his punishment was exactly what the court tried to insist on after Annie was removed as temporary medium, I'm pretty sure the Court was involved. If anything, the first half (being held back a grade and removed from the year 10 dorms) was probably only there because it wouldn't be possible to punish her for cheating without failing her for the work she cheated on.

Though really, am I supposed to be taking the Court/the Headmaster as a serious villain at this point? In his first appearance, he got humiliated by Annie, her friends, and his own employees in front of Coyote. Now it turns out that Coyote can smash up the place whenever he feels like it (apparently that whole ghost-poisoned river thing was a waste of everyone's time) and is willing to do so should Annie be inconvenienced. For all the ominous whispering, the Court has yet to show any actual authority that can't just be laughed off by Annie or her powerful friends.

Emperordaniel

2015-09-22, 05:36 AM

eee

2015-09-22, 08:17 AM

Though really, am I supposed to be taking the Court/the Headmaster as a serious villain at this point? In his first appearance, he got humiliated by Annie, her friends, and his own employees in front of Coyote. Now it turns out that Coyote can smash up the place whenever he feels like it (apparently that whole ghost-poisoned river thing was a waste of everyone's time) and is willing to do so should Annie be inconvenienced. For all the ominous whispering, the Court has yet to show any actual authority that can't just be laughed off by Annie or her powerful friends.

The thing is, the Headmaster is only the visible face of the Court: The puppet who handles public relations. The list of what the Court has accomplished - recruiting Zimmy (and apparently knowing all about her and Gamma before hand), the power plant, the nanotechnology they're using to keep track of the students, the ease they had getting Tony back after his 'adventure' - all suggest a very powerful, very effective organization. Coyote calls Eglamore, Jones, and the Headmaster 'the Lords of the Court'; but I think we haven't seen the actual Lords of the Courts, the ones REALLY giving orders...

eschmenk

2015-09-22, 10:31 AM

Though really, am I supposed to be taking the Court/the Headmaster as a serious villain at this point? In his first appearance, he got humiliated by Annie, her friends, and his own employees in front of Coyote. Now it turns out that Coyote can smash up the place whenever he feels like it (apparently that whole ghost-poisoned river thing was a waste of everyone's time) and is willing to do so should Annie be inconvenienced. For all the ominous whispering, the Court has yet to show any actual authority that can't just be laughed off by Annie or her powerful friends.

Jones said that each side was as bad as the other (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=387), so I don't think you ever were quite supposed to think "villain". I can't imagine Kat's parents and Eglamore working for evil. I view the Court and Headmaster and Forest and Coyote as all being flawed and neutral.

That said, I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I know this upset some people, but one of the reasons I considered this to be a children's story is the number of times the children seem to be more competent than the adults or their robotic stand-ins. That's certainly a feature of GK. Some people like it; some don't; some rationalize it.

spectralphoenix

2015-09-23, 07:41 AM

Coyote smashed one building, and it was over a disagreement concerning one of his own being kept in the Court. Plus, there's the fact that the Court allowed Coyote to come across - word of Tom is that if Coyote tried to cross the river without having permission to use the bridge, Jeanne would put up enough of a fight to not make it worth Coyote's while.

I don't know about any Word of Tom, but if he can secure a meeting whenever he feels put out, then be powerful enough to smash buildings when he gets over there, the Court isn't doing a very impressive job of maintaining their part of the balance of power. And while he did "only" smash one building, the fact that the court was scared enough to put a stop to their latest scheme to keep Annie out of the forest implies he could have smashed a lot more if he felt like it.

Furthermore, if he can just declare whoever he likes to be an honorary forest citizen and thus justification to ignore his oath, his oath never meant much in the first place (assuming hes the sort that finds oaths particularly binding in the first place.) Reynard was stuck in the Court the whole time, presumably Coyote could have rampaged whenever he felt like it.

The thing is, the Headmaster is only the visible face of the Court: The puppet who handles public relations. The list of what the Court has accomplished - recruiting Zimmy (and apparently knowing all about her and Gamma before hand), the power plant, the nanotechnology they're using to keep track of the students, the ease they had getting Tony back after his 'adventure' - all suggest a very powerful, very effective organization. Coyote calls Eglamore, Jones, and the Headmaster 'the Lords of the Court'; but I think we haven't seen the actual Lords of the Courts, the ones REALLY giving orders...

Is this something else that was revealed by Word of Tom? Because the Headmaster clearly had the power to choose the Court's medium, even if the other adults present didn't respect him or fear him enough to support his decision in public, or at least keep their mouths shut in front of the kids. And even if he is the Court's PR guy (a job which he seems eminently unsuited for) shouldn't they still get PO'd if people are disrespecting their mouthpiece?

As far as the rest goes, I'm just not really that impressed. Sure they have some nice toys, but laser cows don't make up for the fact that they don't seem to have any actual authority. Zimmy may hang around, but she has pretty much zero loyalty to the court. We didn't actually see the power plant do much of anything besides trip Zimmy out, and whatever it did wasn't important enough that Jones couldn't shut it down with a phone call with no repercussions. Keeping track of their own students while on school grounds could have been better accomplished with a camera network and some decent facial recognition software. They got Tony back by threatening to fail one of their students for academic misconduct she had actually committed.

I've no shortage of people telling me the Court is powerful, my problem is nothing is showing me the Court is powerful.

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 08:10 AM

New Comic: (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1570) Tony tries to feng shui Coyote's sinus cavities from the inside. :smallwink:

I've no shortage of people telling me the Court is powerful, my problem is nothing is showing me the Court is powerful.

I don't think we know all that much about what the Court is and a lot of what we've seen doesn't make sense if you think about it. You just have to suspend disbelief. If that bothers you too much, you will just need to stop reading GC.

lord_khaine

2015-09-23, 08:40 AM

What Coyote says there is kinda wrong though, we do know that there are at least one other person who would be sad if Tony were suddenly eaten.

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 08:48 AM

What Coyote says there is kinda wrong though, we do know that there are at least one other person who would be sad if Tony were suddenly eaten.

Who? Donny a little, probably, but not much. His visit with Tony was for Annie's benefit, not his own. Donny was betraying Tony's confidence. If Tony found out what Donny did, I doubt Tony would speak to him anymore.

Is there someone else?

Haruspex_Pariah

2015-09-23, 09:20 AM

Rodin

2015-09-23, 09:30 AM

Coyote is surprisingly insightful at times. He psychoanalyzed Tony by breathing deep? Really?

Trudging through the archives is a pain. But it seems like Annie's collapse in "Divine" occurs before Smit's election as medium in "Changes", so it's possible that the Court found Tony between those events. The agreement with Tony would explain why they went from recommending that Annie take medium lessons (Fangs of Summertime) to picking Smit against Jones' advice (Changes).

I find it odd that the Court would need to ask Tony to let Annie go. Based on Tony's story, it would appear that he's not in a position to refuse the Court anything. So that's a bit strange. Either the Court doesn't want Annie to go and is offering Tony as a decoy for Coyote's wrath, or Tony doesn't want Annie to go and the Court is somehow obliged to consider his wishes despite the obvious danger from an angry god-level dog.

I think the Court changed its mind on having Annie as the medium. They recommended her initially because of her mother, but then found that Annie cared a lot more for the Forest than she did for the Court. Her continually defying them will not have helped.

They decided they needed a medium that was more on their side, and used that to send a message to Annie at the same time. This backfired rather spectacularly, so they brought in Tony for damage control.

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 10:43 AM

It seems very unlikely that the Court would want Tony for some sort of damage control. What sort of "damage control" could Tony do? If Tony were needed for some sort of damage control, then the Court would surely miss him if Coyote ate him. I think that what Coyote said is confirmation that Tony is of next to no value to the Court for that or any other purpose.

The Court just seems to have viewed Tony as being too dangerously stupid to be allowed to run loose where it would be hard to control him. Remember that's the way that Tony described it (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1558); it was as if the Court was reining him in. Tony gave no indication that the Court was eager to have him attempt to do anything useful to the Court. Apparently Tony convinced the Court that he wouldn't cause too much harm in a classroom, so the Court agreed to allow him to take a position as a teacher, which would hopefully keep him out of trouble. Meanwhile, he's allowed to attempt to reform Annie. The Court has no reason to object to that. It's not as if the Court cares about what happens to Annie anymore.

I think the Court could hardly care less about who is their medium. The Court didn't even bother replacing Surma after she went AWOL until after she died. That was ~13 years without anyone acting as medium, right? Meanwhile, the Court apparently had no contact with the Forest's medium, either. When the Headmaster finally got around to picking a new medium, he picked someone he knew would be inferior. We know that the Court would just as soon completely ignore the Forest, so it makes sense the the medium wouldn't matter much. It's probably just something that the Court should have just in case there is a need to talk with the Forest.

The Court apparently decided that it didn't want Annie to be the medium because she was already a bad student and being a medium was going to make her become an even worse student. That was a concern for the Court, but hardly a huge one. We also know that the Court finally gave up on Annie, probably after she agreed to become Coyote's medium. Once they gave up on her, the Court wouldn't care much about her anymore at all, even if the Court had cared earlier. (The Court never seemed all that interested.)

Just because Annie is important to the reader does not mean that Annie is important to the Court.

Haruspex_Pariah

2015-09-23, 01:13 PM

I don't know how Tony could be some sort of damage control, but if Tony were needed for some sort of damage control, then the Court would surely miss him if Coyote ate him. I think that what Coyote said is confirmation that Tony is of next to no value to the Court for that or any other purpose. The Court just seems to have viewed Tony as being too dangerously stupid to be allowed to run loose where it would be harder to rein him in. Remember that's the way that Tony described it (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1558); it was as if the Court was reining him in. Tony gave no indication that the Court was eager to have him try to do anything useful. Apparently Tony convinced the Court that he wouldn't cause too much harm in a classroom, so the Court agreed to make him a teacher in order to keep him out of trouble. Meanwhile, he's allowed to attempt to reform Annie. The Court has no reason to object to that. It's not as if the Court cares about how much harm he may cause her.

I think the Court could hardly care less about who is their medium. The Court didn't even bother replacing Surma after she went AWOL until after she died. That was ~13 years without anyone acting as medium, right? Meanwhile, the Court apparently had no contact with the Forest's medium, either. When the Headmaster finally got around to picking a new medium, he picked someone he knew would be inferior. We know that the Court would just as soon completely ignore the Forest, so it makes sense the the medium wouldn't matter much. It's probably just something that the Court has to do just in case there is a need to talk with the Forest.

The Court apparently decided that it didn't want Annie as the medium because she was already a bad student and being a medium was going to make her become an even worse student. That was a concern for the Court, but hardly a huge one. We also know that the Court gave up on Annie, probably after she agreed to become Coyote's medium. Once they gave up on her, the Court wouldn't care much about her anymore at all.

Just because Annie is important to the reader does not mean that Annie is important to the Court.

Coyote said nobody would be sad, other than Annie. That is independent of Tony's value (if any) as an asset to the Court.

The very next page suggests that the Court did in fact want Tony back for some purpose. (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1559) A bargain implies that Tony has something of value to the Court. My guess is that the threat of Annie's banishment was leverage against Tony, who didn't want to continue his work at Gunnerkrigg. So Tony gets to prevent Annie's banishment in return for coming back to work. If neither Tony's work nor Annie's fate are of any consequence to the Court, why bother with any of it. Let Annie gallivant in the Forest while failing school and let Tony die in the wilderness after his damnfool quest. I'm assuming the Court had some hand in finding and resuscitating Tony. I doubt they would go that far to track, revive, and then strongarm someone who they planned to...stick in some meaningless job back at the Court? Help one failing student who they don't care about?

The gap between Surma and the current medium is a question, but I think the lack of concern was due to a lack of incident and also Coyote's standing promise. Once Ysengrin starting growing spiky tree arms and raging the Court may have been inclined to restart proper diplomacy. Smit's election was a compromise, not an intentional attempt to pick a sub-par medium (he wasn't Jones' first choice, but he was a legit candidate). And when the Court picked Smit for medium, Coyote declared Annie an honorary forest citizen just so he could make her the forest medium. When she was later barred from the forest he declared a diplomatic meeting just to see her, and then knocked over a building when it apparently "wasn't" her.

If the Court was in a position to simply ignore the Forest as they felt like it, and therefore Annie's value as Coyote's new fire haired BFF, and also not care about medium selection, why entertain any of Coyote's nonsense at all. Did it take him knocking over a building for them to remember what his threat level is? That seems like a terrible lapse of judgement considering the sheer amount of history between the two sides. If we take Coyote at his word in this current chapter, him knocking over the building is a genuine concern for the Court and they are now asking Tony to let Annie go, as if the ultimate decision lies with him and not them.

Either they're telling the truth, and they actually do need Tony's permission to let Annie go and thus appease Coyote, or they're lying, and simply forcing Tony to be the target of Coyote's attention. If the Court didn't care about Tony, Annie, or relations with the Forest, none of this would even be happening.

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 02:16 PM

A bargain implies that Tony has something of value to the Court.

Why would it imply that? It could just as easily mean that Tony could do something that the Court wants to prevent. As I said, the way Tony described it, "...like they were reining me back in..." is more consistent with the latter interpretation.

So Tony gets to prevent Annie's banishment in return for coming back to work..

OK, but not for the same job. There is no indication that the Court had any desire for someone as irresponsible and incompetent as Tony to have anything to do with his old job anymore after they knew he had been dealing with a bunch of evil creatures. The Court may be stupid, but it's not that stupid! Tony said that he can't work as a surgeon anymore and his hand is obviously gone. (Given the number of times that being a surgeon came up, I assume that his old job involved surgery somehow.)

Tony is simply a teacher now as far as we know. We know that his old job didn't involve teaching, so apparently the new job is something completely different. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Tony had any value to the Court in connection to his old job and there is good reason to think that he wouldn't. Given all that, why would the Court make a deal to get Tony to agree to do something that Tony apparently isn't doing and that the Court probably wouldn't want Tony to do?

If the Court really wanted Tony to continue doing important his previous work, why didn't Tony say so? Why didn't he say something like, "They wanted me to come back. I hadn't finished what I started?" What he actually said, "They wanted me to come back. Like they were reining me back in after I had my fun," seems to be much more about the Court trying to prevent Tony from doing things, rather than getting him to do things.

I can't believe how much I'm writing, but maybe it would help some people if they tried to look at things from the Court's point of view. The Court probably would have been very concerned about Tony's dealings with the unidentified creatures. (Given Tony's physical condition, he probably had to explain some what happened if the Court didn't already know.) Maybe the creatures had already learned stuff by observing how Tony did things. Maybe whatever Tony made of his hand is still useful to the evil creatures. In any case, Tony clearly hadn't taken reasonable precautions. Given that, it's likely that the Court was worried that the creatures could get still more out of Tony or get Tony to cause even more harm. If some creature offered Tony a chance to meet Surma in exchange for Tony revealing Court secrets, could the Court be certain that Tony wouldn't agree? Yes, Tony probably wouldn't have gone back to the evil creatures, but given the irrational behavior he had already demonstrated, the Court couldn't have been sure that he wouldn't. Maybe the creatures would seek Tony out once he recovered. Maybe Tony would find other evil creatures and deal with them. Given the possibilities, the Court probably would have thought there were reasons to try to pull Tony back into the safety of the Court's control (to rein him back in, as Tony said), even though he probably had no other value to them anymore.

We don't really know who's idea it was that Tony would be a teacher. It may have been Tony's idea for all we know. From the Court's point of view it would have been a safe job where Tony couldn't cause too much harm and where they could keep an eye on him, so it makes sense that they would agree to the idea if there was a position available. Putting Tony in a position like that wouldn't indicate that Tony had much value to the Court, though.

That seems like a terrible lapse of judgement considering the sheer amount of history between the two sides.

Yep. It's just par for the course. Nothing unusual.

If we take Coyote at his word in this current chapter, him knocking over the building is a genuine concern for the Court and they are now asking Tony to let Annie go, as if the ultimate decision lies with him and not them.

Yep. Annie lives to make Tony, not the Court, happy. That's apparently due to her fear of abandonment combined with Annie not caring what the Court thinks. The Court knows that the Court can't control whether or not Annie goes to the Forest. That's been demonstrated in the past. The Court is no doubt worried and is hoping that Tony will convince Annie to go.

At the moment, the Court is probably hoping that Coyote will be the one to convince Tony to convince Annie. If that doesn't work, the Court will probably try to twist Tony's arms some more, but it's not clear how much leverage the Court has. The Court would have to convince Tony that the Court would be more likely to keep Annie in the program after graduation if she cooperates, but I'm not sure what kind of logic they could use to support that. (I doubt they want to make any promises and the normal position is that it's best to avoid the Forest.) If Coyote convinces Tony, the Court wouldn't have to worry about that. Added: Come to think of it, maybe Jones could help convince Tony, although since Coyote seemed to lump her in with the "Lords of the Court," maybe she already has tried. Still, there might be more that she could say.

(Hopefully it's not necessary to point out that forcibly evicting Annie into the Forest wouldn't work. If Annie just sat there and cried or immediately tried to return, it wouldn't meet Coyote's needs. Annie would have to go to the Forest willingly. BTW, for Annie to be recognized as Fire Head Girl, the fire elemental part would probably need to go, too. I'm not sure that would work, but at least Coyote would probably take it as a good faith effort.)

Either they're telling the truth, and they actually do need Tony's permission to let Annie go and thus appease Coyote, or they're lying, and simply forcing Tony to be the target of Coyote's attention.

Right. It's the first one. Annie would need to see that she has Tony's full permission before she would go. There is no need for the Court to lie about anything.

If the Court didn't care about Tony, Annie, or relations with the Forest, none of this would even be happening.

Right. As I said, the Court is concerned about how much harm Tony might do if he were outside the Court's control. Also, now that Coyote has reminded the Court once again that he's still a god, the Court is concerned about him for the moment, but as soon as the crisis is over the Court will do its best to ignore him yet again.

Lissou

2015-09-23, 05:32 PM

Why would it imply that? It could just as easily mean that Tony could do something that the Court wants to prevent. As I said, the way Tony described it, "...like they were reining me back in..." is more consistent with the latter interpretation.

But Tony was dying until they rescued him and saved his life. Why would they do it if all they wanted was to make sure he didn't do something stupid? Surely, just letting him die would accomplish that. They must have had some use for it, enough to want him alive, even if it was just to sacrifice him the first chance they got. I think they wanted him because they knew Annie would listen to him. She wasn't listening to the Court at all, despite many warnings, and they were losing her. If this is all about a power fight between the Court and the Forest, they're going to want Annie on their side, or at least not actively working for the other side. She may be too difficult to control for them to keep her as medium/ally on their side, but it would be worse if she was actually on the other side working against them.

Lethologica

2015-09-23, 07:06 PM

Among other things, Annie had control of Reynardine. So controlling Annie does more than keeping Annie off Team Forest.

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 07:07 PM

But Tony was dying until they rescued him and saved his life. Why would they do it if all they wanted was to make sure he didn't do something stupid? Surely, just letting him die would accomplish that.

No, I don't think so. It looks as if Tony was already in a crude hospital or infirmary (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1558) and well on the way to recovery before the Court found him. (Visually, a reader would have seen Tony recovered and in a bed before seeing, "...they were there" and "The Court," so "there" probably refers to that location and how could Tony have survived for months in the wilderness in the condition he was in?) Beyond that, I hope the Court has some sense of humanity and wouldn't normally just let someone just die. (OK, the original founders actually killed someone once, but I don't think that's normal.) I don't think letting Tony die ever was an option, anyway.

I think they wanted him because they knew Annie would listen to him. She wasn't listening to the Court at all, despite many warnings, and they were losing her.

They weren't worried about loosing her anymore. They had already decided that she was a lost cause. The Court was going to kick her out as soon as she graduated. As far as the Court was concerned, there wasn't any point in trying to reform her anymore.

If this is all about a power fight between the Court and the Forest, they're going to want Annie on their side, or at least not actively working for the other side.

The decision to kick Annie out seems to indicate that they don't particularly want Annie on their side, at least not in the future. I don't think this is all about a power fight, anyway. How much difference would the Court expect Annie to make if it was? (OK, Lethologica made the point about Rey. That could be more significant, but I don't see the Court worrying about things like that until they are already problems.)

Trudging through the archives is a pain. But it seems like Annie's collapse in "Divine" occurs before Smit's election as medium in "Changes", so it's possible that the Court found Tony between those events. The agreement with Tony would explain why they went from recommending that Annie take medium lessons (Fangs of Summertime) to picking Smit against Jones' advice (Changes).

There are two problems with that schedule:

1) The decision about the Mediums was made before the summer break. People were still wearing coats and warm clothing. If Tony had already decided to come back and fix Annie before the summer break started, why did he wait until the summer break was over to begin? He should have been tutoring Annie all summer. He should have made housing arrangements when there was still time to fit her in the Year 9 dorms.

2) Apparently, some "this business with the Forest" (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1558) was the primary thing that Tony mentioned as a reason for the Court deciding to cast Annie out upon graduation. That decision was made before Tony found out about it, obviously. What could the "this business" be, if not Annie becoming Coyote's medium? The only other possibility would seem to Annie staying in the Forest the previous summer, but Jones had apparently smoothed that out with the Court, so that doesn't seem likely. Furthermore, the Headmaster hinted that Annie would have more time for her studying if she wasn't the Court's medium, so it was as if the Court hadn't given up on her yet.

IMO, the much more likely schedule is that Microstat 5 and Divine happened in the late Spring. Changes, although it's a later chapter, had the characters wearing heavier clothing outdoors, so it might have happened earlier. I think the Court found Tony some time in the Summer, months (according to Tony) after Divine and also months (maybe more months) after Changes. By then, the Court had decided to cast Annie out after graduation because she had been goofing off too much (while working as Coyote's medium) from the Court's point of view.

Ellen

2015-09-23, 07:34 PM

We're assuming the Court is telling Tony the truth about Annie. It's a classic negotiating ploy to try and convince the other party you don't really want anything they have to offer. You're trying to convince them that if they push too hard or for too much, you'll walk away from the deal. You also want to convince them that they can't do without whatever it is you have to offer.

Tony is convinced the Court will send Annie away if he doesn't do what they say--which winds up taking the form of emotionally abusing Annie and crushing her spirit. So, did they underestimate what Coyote would do? Or did they lie to Tony?

eschmenk

2015-09-23, 08:58 PM

If we go by what Jones says, we should expect that the Court would underestimate Coyote. Annie observed that the Headmaster was acting rude and as if he didn't care about the meeting with Coyote (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=386). Jones explanation (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=387): "The Court sees them as little more than dull minded animals trying to create a nuisance." Assuming Jones doesn't think agree, she was basically saying that the Court was underestimating Coyote and she said it as if it were typical behavior.

We know that the Court tried to keep Annie from going to the Forest even before Tony became involved. "I'm sure you understand that this ends your Forest visiting privileges." (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=1155) That's clear enough. Coyote might have considered knocking a building down then, but he found an easier way to get Annie her Forest visiting privileges back. The other idea also had the added benefit of making a fool out of the Headmaster, so no buildings were knocked down that time. Still, given that the Court was willing to (rather stupidly) risk the wrath of Coyote then, why would it be unlikely that the Court would have been willing to risk the wrath of Coyote now?

The idea that the Court lied to Tony seems to be an somewhat interesting idea, but it doesn't go anywhere. The Court may have reasonably concluded that they had nothing to loose by lying to Tony, but they also wouldn't have had any indication that they could benefit from the lie. Why would the Court have thought that Tony would have cared about whether Annie was kicked out or not? He had never shown any interest in her at all. They probably were shocked when they realized that they had some leverage over Tony thanks to Annie. What the Court told Tony certainly wouldn't need to be a lie. The Court could easily have decided to kick Annie out. She gave them plenty of reasons to do it.

It would be a logical flaw to think it was one or the other though. Even if the Court lied to Tony, the Court still underestimated Coyote apparently. If the Court hadn't underestimated Coyote, they should have realized that Tony's plan would have caused too many problems with Coyote. That's true whether or not they lied to Tony. It turns out that nothing would change even if the Court had lied to Tony, except that it would be less likely that Annie would be kicked out at the end of everything. That's why I said that the idea doesn't go anywhere.