Gunnerkrigg Court 8: Thrown for a Loup

[Spojaz]

I like this explanation because it would make things less messy, and less "nothing really matters because it can all be fixed via my time machine". Stakes are important.

The way time travel works can make the difference. This one seems like "you can only do things with time travel that you already did" Which is the narratively superior one, because if something bad happens it stays happened. Unless we find out it really only looked like that, and the characters were being especially clever. Also, it means that any unexplained detail could be foreshadowing. Less back to the future, more Prisoner of Azkaban.

It's also much harder to write, but I think Tom is up to it.

[Willie the Duck]

This one seems like "you can only do things with time travel that you already did" Which is the narratively superior one, because if something bad happens it stays happened. Unless we find out it really only looked like that, and the characters were being especially clever.

"Oh, it's so horrible that Zimmy died in the last adventure! Now I have to make a perfect Zimmy replica and send it back in time so that it's really it that died and we can find the real Zimmy hiding in a broom closet in 3...2...1..."

[Rodin]

The immediate problem is "why were the Tic-Tocs made to begin with?"

Kat made them in this timeline because they saved Annie and she became curious about them. She then sent them back in time to save Annie. Classic bootstrap paradox, there's no original Tic-Tocs to kick the whole thing off.

One theory would be that Kat from a different timeline made the birds to try and resurrect Annie. In that timeline Annie died and events played out very differently. Kat never forgave herself for not being around to save her, so she put her energy into making the birds.

That caused a timeline fork into Universe B, and then Loup forked the timelines again to create Universe 1.

[Kornaki]

An alternative explanation is they know it was made by a divine being, and they just assume it was her.

[hungrycrow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y8MezTFX0s

[Max_Killjoy]

I like taking these opportunities to chuckle at the discomfort of those who adhere to hard determinism.

So what if there's a loop?

And no, Kat, you're not "always" doing this, the linear progression of your own experience does not get stuck in some sort of loop because the tic-toc's causality is in a loop.

[hungrycrow]

I like taking these opportunities to chuckle at the discomfort of those who adhere to hard determinism.

So what if there's a loop?

If the loop works as described, it has no cause. If causality doesn't apply to this event, then it might not apply to other events.
Kat wants to investigate the principles in how things work. She can't reliably do that if things just happen for no reason.

[Narkis]

If the loop works as described, it has no cause. If causality doesn't apply to this event, then it might not apply to other events.
Kat wants to investigate the principles in how things work. She can't reliably do that if things just happen for no reason.

No, there absolutely is a cause. Cause and effect just don't follow a strict linear relation like in every other case. Hence the "loop" in "time loop".

[Typewriter]

I'm just waiting for Kat to exclaim that they're trapped in poorly written sci-fi. Not because I dislike it or anything - just because she has a grasp of the problems that exist in what is happening and I could see her losing it in that way.

[Ibrinar]

The way time travel works can make the difference. This one seems like "you can only do things with time travel that you already did" Which is the narratively superior one, because if something bad happens it stays happened. Unless we find out it really only looked like that, and the characters were being especially clever. Also, it means that any unexplained detail could be foreshadowing. Less back to the future, more Prisoner of Azkaban.

It's also much harder to write, but I think Tom is up to it.

I am not fond of them, sure it avoids some strain on the narrative by preventing it from solving many things. But it is also so artificial, basically getting into fate territory. I suppose it would make some sense without basically fate if time travel only worked if the result was a stable loop but that would be so vanishingly rare that nobody would have ever figured out that it is possible at all so nobody would ever try it when it would work. Much more so if you don't arbitrarily limit the stable time loop nature to things important to humans, but include things like the placements of sand corns or gravel you walked over.

If time travel does work reliable but just happens to always end in stable time loops well that is where the fate like properties come in. If you can travel back in time there are obviously things you could deliberately do that would not conform to a time loop. So are your actions limited or guided in some specific way? Doesn't seem that way in most stories people act freely their actions just conveniently result in a stable time loop. Hence fate territory.

I suppose you could say if the result is not stable that slightly changes the circumstances of traveling back and that iterates until the result is stable. And since time is involved that happens instantly and the prior loops have never happened. But a fully stable time loop is a pretty big requirement I doubt every initial situation could resolve into one like that.

Well I just go along with it in stories of course and don't usually think much about it but still I don't find it aesthetically pleasing.

[hungrycrow]

No, there absolutely is a cause. Cause and effect just don't follow a strict linear relation like in every other case. Hence the "loop" in "time loop".

Causality works within the loop, but the loop itself has no cause. Kat never came up with the idea, she just copied it from herself.
Why did she make the TicToks look like weird cyborg toucans instead of anything else? Why does she create the loop at all, instead of living in a timeline where Annie dies? No reason, the universe is just like that.

[Narkis]

Causality works within the loop, but the loop itself has no cause. Kat never came up with the idea, she just copied it from herself.
Why did she make the TicToks look like weird cyborg toucans instead of anything else? Why does she create the loop at all, instead of living in a timeline where Annie dies? No reason, the universe is just like that.

The tictocs saving Annie caused Kat to make the tictocs which caused them to save Annie. All perfectly consistent. Hence the loop. What caused the loop? Well, what causes linear time? Can you give an answer to the latter question that doesn't simultaneously answer the former?

And we know why they look like that: Kat thinks they're cute. She said it herself!

[Typewriter]

The worst part about time travel (among many bad parts) in media is when everyone decides to sit around debating it like they have something resembling a decent point. Time travel never works properly in stories but you can either accept that it's part of the story and go with the flow without worrying or you can try to rationalize it while arguing against everyone who points out the flaws in the rationale you found for yourself. Literally the only good point about time travel I've ever seen in any media is, in the movie Looper, when Bruce Willis tells JGL no to bother trying to figure things out with a diagram but to simply accept the situation they're in and decide what to do next.

[137beth]

I am generally not a fan of dramas in which the characters directly involved in the conflict have access to a form of time travel that they can control. It bothers me because I feel like there is never any finality to a conflict. "If we don't succeed this time, the antagonists will accomplish something really bad!"
"Oh, but if we fail, then eventually someone will time travel in from an alternate future and fix it. Then someone else will time travel back and mess up whatever they accomplished...why do we care about the outcome of this next scene again?"

That doesn't mean I dislike all time travel in fiction. I can usually tolerate it if it satisfies at least one of the following conditions:
a)The time travel mechanism is something no one can control (like a one-time magical accident).
b)The only people who can control time travel is clearly not a part of the main conflict in any timeline. A decent example of this IMO is Gore Vidal's Visit to a Small Planet (1957) (or at least, the play: I haven't seen the movie).
c)There is little or no dramatic tension to begin with because the story is mainly a comedy (Hitchhiker's guide does this well).
d)The story is clearly a parody of another story with time travel (for example, StarKid Productions A Very Potter Sequel, or, somewhat less obviously, StarKid's Firebringer.)

I'm not sure yet if Gunnerkrigg Court is going to fall into categories (a), (b), or neither (in which case I probably won't like much of the remaining story.)

But despite all that, I still like the loop vs loup pun in the author comment today.

[Typewriter]

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.

[Kornaki]

Thinking about this some more, this is actually not a new concept. Aren't coyote and co. created by the beliefs of humans, but those beliefs also somehow caused them to exist since before humans were around? I feel like this has come up in the comic.

[eschmenk]

Also, the Arbiter/translator said neither of the current Annies belong there.

Would someone please remind me when this happened? Which chapter?

[Kornaki]

Would someone please remind me when this happened? Which chapter?

https://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2162

[memnarch]

Thinking about this some more, this is actually not a new concept. Aren't coyote and co. created by the beliefs of humans, but those beliefs also somehow caused them to exist since before humans were around? I feel like this has come up in the comic.

Indeed it has, almost eight years ago.

[KatsOfLoathing]

Indeed it has, almost eight years ago.

A line from Jones on the very next page that seems appropriate for this discussion: "Can something exist before it is created?"

Granted, that line was referring to mythological and myth-adjacent creatures like Coyote and Jones, but given that Kat seems to be gradually becoming something like a god by the sheer strength of the robots' belief in her, I think it warrants considering.

[Squire Doodad]

A line from Jones on the very next page that seems appropriate for this discussion: "Can something exist before it is created?"

Granted, that line was referring to mythological and myth-adjacent creatures like Coyote and Jones, but given that Kat seems to be gradually becoming something like a god by the sheer strength of the robots' belief in her, I think it warrants considering.

Kat for Big Bug Robot Thing, 2024.

[Typewriter]

A line from Jones on the very next page that seems appropriate for this discussion: "Can something exist before it is created?"

Granted, that line was referring to mythological and myth-adjacent creatures like Coyote and Jones, but given that Kat seems to be gradually becoming something like a god by the sheer strength of the robots' belief in her, I think it warrants considering.

We've already seen what Kat looks like in the ether - she becomes mythological at some point and that faith reverberates backwards. I don't see how it could mean anything else.

[Ibrinar]

Oh so a splitting world time model makes sense with the two Annie versions.

Poor Kat seems to be taking this pretty hard. Excellent time for both extra Annies to disappear!

[Squire Doodad]

Kat is also missing the other possibility: it's a stable time loop, and eventually something happens that involves the bird being sent back, thus allowing it to save Annie. While it's arguably a paradox, it doesn't mean it's a malevolent one by nature.

That's not how this is going to go, of course, because that's a simple resolution that would let us dismiss all of it. This is clearly set up for something far more important, presumably the final, post-Loup setting.

[sihnfahl]

Well, it looks like Kat tripped over the reasoning that she couldn't fathom the previous page.

"If I don't figure out how to build the birds, the Annies will die."

Stable time loop, then.

[wingnutx]

Time for Zimmy!

[Lizard Lord]

I would like to point out that saying "you will never find anything" would only encourage any scientist worth their salt.

[137beth]

Is Annie going to suggest that Kat ask Anthony for help with the tictocs?
EDIT: Or Kat's parents.

[AdmiralCheez]

My bet is on Kat's mom, personally. Although the wording was rather intentionally vague to hide any clues, so I could always be wrong.

[137beth]

It's totally going to be Brinnie!