Quote Originally Posted by 137ben View Post
snip
For me it's all about consistency. If they follow their own rules I don't care. I don't care if it's paradoxical, I don't care if it makes sense. I do care about those things when they try to take it seriously - if it's a plot gimmick then fine but if it's something you want to have taken seriously... ehh, it's going to fall apart under scrutiny. As far as GC goes I will say that I'm feeling (based off of these last couple pages) that I feel like the impact of time travel is far more important to these characters than it is to the overarching story that we're experiencing.

Kat tells Annie that she invents/invented time travel and Annie is just like, "Wow, cool, this requires no further worry or concern," while Kat is hung up on the specifics of it. They represent two different ideals - two ideals that the community is siding itself around right now. Some people are fixated on the specifics and "what does it mean" while others are just like, "Oh cool, part of the story."

I've said it before but I feel like GC is a lot like the show 'Lost' in a few ways - most specifically in regards to the way it frames "Man of Science, Man of Faith" type arguments. Jack was continually trying to justify, to find some rationale for the things that couldn't be explained, but every answer he found just led to more confusion and more questions. And opposing him we had John Locke who was continually there, simply willing to accept the impossible, to assume that things around him made sense by virtue of the fact that they couldn't be happening if they didn't somehow make sense. Where GC differs, in regards to this specific debate, however, is that in this situation our "Woman of Science, Woman of Faith" are not opposed to each other. They're actively working together to better each others understanding of the world around them.