|
"Why's my daughter so afraid of me all of a sudden?"
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:15 |
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I've been thinking of introducing a friend's daughter (about 8 years old) to this series. Is she at an appropriate age or should I wait until she's older? I think the maturity (for lack of a better term) of the story progresses with the characters growing up. So she's probably old enough for the earlier volumes. I'm not sure if things like the recent chapter or Annie in the Forest would read particularly well to someone her age, though. I say this as someone with no parenting experience, so take that how you will.
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I've been thinking of introducing a friend's daughter (about 8 years old) to this series. Is she at an appropriate age or should I wait until she's older? I'd say it'd be fine for a kid of about 10 or 11. Violent conflict is kept to a minimum, but at times the atmosphere can get pretty intensely spooky. There's also some crude humour, including some sexual innuendo, and two girls kiss in the latest book. Do you know about Cucumber Quest? That one was a big hit with my little cousin.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Note to Self posted:I'd say it'd be fine for a kid of about 10 or 11. Violent conflict is kept to a minimum, but at times the atmosphere can get pretty intensely spooky. There's also some crude humour, including some sexual innuendo, and two girls kiss in the latest book. I hate to start this kind of derail, but two girls kissing being a thing that you consider inappropriate for kids is pretty lovely of you. Anyways, I think Gunnerkrigg is fine for a kid of 10-11 for sure. Depends on the kid, some 8 year olds would like it and some wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I hate to start this kind of derail, but two girls kissing being a thing that you consider inappropriate for kids is pretty lovely of you. Yeah no totally, I agree. It's just relevant to bring up in case the kid's parents are dicks.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
edit: doublepost
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:This chapter will keep dragging out the "Anthony Carver more like Bad Person" act, culminating with the revelation that he votes Tory. Blasmeister posted:UKIP
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Bogus asylum seekers are stealing our bodies, the toys of our children.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I can't believe there are goons crying about abuse apologists in a webcomic thread. Yeah, god knows how some people itt made it through Roald Dahl or *gasp* Harry Potter
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
i know i for one enjoy reading the rougher parts of roald dahl's work at a 3-pages-a-week pace
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Yeah, god knows how some people itt made it through Roald Dahl or *gasp* Harry Potter Pretty sure most people won't say that Trunchbull had good intentions or that anyone who thinks the Dursleys were lovely parents to Harry are just projecting their own issues.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
No, because they've read those entire stories and know for a fact that those things aren't true.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
I just find it kind of hilarious how bad people are at reading. *character introduced who basically runs down the abuse warning signs list* "Stop reading into things, I'm sure he's got noble intentions, guys! Otherwise it wouldn't be realistic."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Yes those people are definitely  abuse apologists as if this was an actual real life child abuse case and not a fictional story with fairies and magic coyotes.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
I don't get how people think calling him abusive is somehow a shallow reading of the situation. No. It's an accurate reading of the situation. This is abuse, full stop. I'm inclined to think there's more to Tony's actions and intentions than pondscum blackguard, but that doesn't change that he's abusing his daughter. Disputing that just makes your reading of recent events bad. Also, there are people who think the Durlsey's treatment of Harry was in no way abuse. I think lots of people don't understand abuse.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yes those people are definitely Without speaking either way on the abuse issue specifically, why does this distinction matter? If a webcomic character uses the Pythagorean theorem to solve a geometry problem in the magical land of the fae, does it not count as math?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Because with fictional stories there's nobody actually at risk of harm, so you can sit back and say "I wonder where this is going, I bet it will be interesting."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Because with fictional stories there's nobody actually at risk of harm, so you can sit back and say "I wonder where this is going, I bet it will be interesting." So, what then, are you asking that when we reference this stuff in this thread we have to make the distinction that these are fictional characters, and thus any abuse that may or may not be going on is purely fictional abuse and not the real thing? Seriously? Like, I understand that we're reading a story, and that it's not finished yet, but that doesn't mean that people don't have the right to get invested in it and discuss it while it's going on. If a real life case of abuse was happening to a real person, you wouldn't go "well, I'm not sure that this is abuse. Let's wait for the courts to decide."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
I'm not concerned about Annie's well being I'm concerned about bad posters
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Whenever I see the word "abuse" I instantly think "physical abuse" and that's not what Anthony is doing to Annie. Rather, I think "neglect" is a better word to describe the situation as Anthony is neglectful of Annie's feelings, but I'm sure there are better words for the situation.
Mraagvpeine fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
neogeo0823 posted:So, what then, are you asking that when we reference this stuff in this thread we have to make the distinction that these are fictional characters, and thus any abuse that may or may not be going on is purely fictional abuse and not the real thing? Seriously? Like, I understand that we're reading a story, and that it's not finished yet, but that doesn't mean that people don't have the right to get invested in it and discuss it while it's going on. If a real life case of abuse was happening to a real person, you wouldn't go "well, I'm not sure that this is abuse. Let's wait for the courts to decide." Getting invested in the story is OK. You can wail and gnash your teeth at Anthony Carver all you want. But I think that when you call someone who isn't at that same level of investment, or someone who has a different perspective on things, an "abuse apologist", you've crossed a line. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:Whenever I see the word "abuse" I instantly think "physical abuse" and that's not what Anthony is doing to Annie. Rather, I think "neglect" is a better word to describe the situation as Anthony is neglectful of Annie's feelings. Abuse isn't always physical.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:I just find it kind of hilarious how bad people are at reading. *character introduced who basically runs down the abuse warning signs list* "Stop reading into things, I'm sure he's got noble intentions, guys! Otherwise it wouldn't be realistic." Exactly because the character seems so one-dimensionally abusive is why I refuse to accept it. There's a point where a character is presented with such a rush to fit a kind of archetype that they end up looking less like a character with their own intentions and motivations and more like a caricature with less depth than a 21st century political cartoon. neogeo0823 posted:So, what then, are you asking that when we reference this stuff in this thread we have to make the distinction that these are fictional characters, and thus any abuse that may or may not be going on is purely fictional abuse and not the real thing? Seriously? At the risk of being literally Hitler, I do in fact believe that any abuse that may or may not be going on in Gunnerkrigg Court is, in fact, purely fictional, and not the real thing. e; And regarding the word itself, I find it kind of difficult to characterise behaviour as abusive without reading some kind of ill or sadistic intent behind it, so consider me in disagreement with it unless Anthony is depicted as taking in satisfaction with mistreating Antimony. YF-23 fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Heliotrope posted:Pretty sure most people won't say that Trunchbull had good intentions or that anyone who thinks the Dursleys were lovely parents to Harry are just projecting their own issues.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
One day, goons will realize that "this character probably has good intentions" and "this character inflicts abuse" are not necessarily incompatible. You know what they say about good intentions? What kind of road you can pave with them? Anthony Carver doesn't need to be a puppy-kicking, mustache twirling villain to be abusive. He doesn't need to intend abuse to be abusive. He doesn't even need to understand that he's being abusive. The Dursleys in Harry Potter are clearly intended to be evil. They hate Harry and all he stands for, and they make him miserable on purpose because of that. Anthony's motives wrt. Antimony are still unclear. Anthony isn't a Dursley; the Dursleys are non-characters that are pretty much irrelevant to the real story in Harry Potter. They are neither antagonists nor protagonists, they're just props. Anthony is an important character in this story. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 16:23 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I just watched the first half of Twelve Angry Men and I am simply disgusted at Henry Fonda's portrayal of a murder apologist.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:neglect is a form of abuse. If we want to really get technical: neglect is what Anthony was doing for all those years when he didn't see or talk to Annie after her mother died. Emotional abuse is what he is doing now, by tearing her down in ways from "no makeup, and everyone else is suffering because you were so slow to take it off" to "you literally have to live in isolation and cease all your responsibilities"). And physical abuse is whatever he was doing in "Divine". Metaphysical abuse, even.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
I don't get how a character displaying traits associated with A means they have to really be B for it to be good writing. That's actually bad writing IMO, forgoing consistency in favor of a dramatic swerve Everything Anthony has done up to this point suggests he's s very selfish and controlling person with pretty severe emotional issues. If it turns out he's really been tragically noble all along I'll be disappointed. It would be cheap writing, and a really cheap way to depict abusive behavior: just a way to shock the audience later on.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:I've been thinking of introducing a friend's daughter (about 8 years old) to this series. Is she at an appropriate age or should I wait until she's older? Cucumber Quest would be better for that age.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
My point was that thinking about GC (or indeed Dahl or Harry Potter) in terms of community college level 'cycle of abuse' doesn't really add anything to the story while stripping it of the comfort blanket of fiction. There's a reason we don't get a chapter of Harry being disbelieved by the police, and a reason he's not as psychologically hosed up as he would be in real life. It's the same reason Lord of the Rings doesn't end in a war crimes tribunal. Nasty parents have been a staple of fiction forever, and we don't pause a telling of Hansel and Gretel to point out the Five Signs of an Abuse Enabler. Unless GC turns out to be a hard hitting take on child abuse masquerading as a darkish comic about a magic school, I don't see the point in seeing everything through this CPS lens. (Except because it's an outlet for goon discomfort/indignation at feeling an emotion when unhappy things are happening to the main character)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:I don't get how a character displaying traits associated with A means they have to really be B for it to be good writing. That's actually bad writing IMO, forgoing consistency in favor of a dramatic swerve "Good intentions" and "tragically noble" are not the same thing. He loves his daughter and wants what's best for her, and is hosed enough in the head to think that what he's doing is good and not bad. Love makes you act in strange ways.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I just watched the first half of Twelve Angry Men and I am simply disgusted at Henry Fonda's portrayal of a murder apologist. Fister Roboto, you are arguing with people who cry playing videogames and watching children's cartoons.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
The Dursleys were just bad at parenting all the way down. Anthony is probably going to prove to be bad with people all the way down. Now stop arguing about how everyone around you is caring too hard, the lot of you. Let's argue about what we think Anthony will do next and why he's stupid for thinking it will work. Twinty Zuleps fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I just watched the first half of Twelve Angry Men and I am simply disgusted at Henry Fonda's portrayal of a murder apologist. you are a bad poster, look within yourself and be the change you want to see in your posting. namaste. The really glaring thing about what Anthony is doing is that he could have just told her to stop cheating then worked with her himself to make up her past work in their spare time. Under those circumstances he would have even been justified in telling her that being the forrest medium was done until she demonstrated that she had learned the material she had cheated on. The problem is that while he will exert control, he is still absent from her life; he shows up out of the blue to teach a class in her grade level and immediately tells her she will be repeating the previous grade, despite removing most of her life at school he still isn't positively involving himself in it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:My point was that thinking about GC (or indeed Dahl or Harry Potter) in terms of community college level 'cycle of abuse' doesn't really add anything to the story while stripping it of the comfort blanket of fiction. There's a reason we don't get a chapter of Harry being disbelieved by the police, and a reason he's not as psychologically hosed up as he would be in real life. It's the same reason Lord of the Rings doesn't end in a war crimes tribunal. Cat Mattress posted:One day, goons will realize that "this character probably has good intentions" and "this character inflicts abuse" are not necessarily incompatible.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Pinstripe Hourglass posted:I don't get how a character displaying traits associated with A means they have to really be B for it to be good writing. That's actually bad writing IMO, forgoing consistency in favor of a dramatic swerve It's not about Anthony doing a 180 and showing he's actually a saint and that every single thing he's done was secretly a boon for Annie, it's about making a character you want to look like a bad parent into a bad parent caricature. I mean there's not necessarily much point in having this discussion given we're about to see Tony do stuff that will break from that initial portrayal, but no-one is saying they expect Anthony to turn into Dad of the Year.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Blackheart posted:Fister Roboto, you are arguing with people who cry playing videogames and watching children's cartoons. as somebody who is probably physically incapable of being provoked to tears by entertainment, i fail to see how this undermines their position
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:"Good intentions" and "tragically noble" are not the same thing. He loves his daughter and wants what's best for her, and is hosed enough in the head to think that what he's doing is good and not bad. Love makes you act in strange ways. If the message of this arc ends up being "Love makes you
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Tony is going to tell Kat to stop distracting Antimony from her studies and then after a sad look Annie will refuse to acknowledge Kat for the rest of the chapter. Then I'm hoping that we cut to Kat demanding an explanation from her parents for why Tony is such a poo poo and we get a few pages of Donald filling us in on what important matters has been attending to.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
JT Jag posted:The difference between Hansel and Gretel's parents, the Dursleys, random Lord of the Rings Orcs and Anthony Carver is that Anthony Carver is actually important to the narrative. An explanation for why he's being this neglectful and abusive is surely due, even if it isn't one that forgives his acts in the eyes of most. I think this is what's really being argued about. People don't want to justify tony they just want to know what the hell he's thinking. I don't. I just want him to leave already. or for Annie to at least learn she doesn't have to cave to him. I like the idea of the twist being that this isn't tony but someone who's trying to take advantage of a half fire elemental. It would actually have potential. It would shake annie up, and then Tony could be introduced later as a more sympathetic character but with more conflict with an annie who's not going to lie down and take any poo poo he pulls.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
