Gunnerkrigg Court 6: Fire Away

[Ellen]

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]

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]

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!"), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

[eschmenk]

That... would change things.

It would? How?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

Yes, and the Harry Potter books were certainly classified as 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.

Spoiler: Harry Potter spoilers

Show

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]

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.

To me this is a story told from a child's point of view, which is why a lot of it is simplified - and why things become less simple as she grows older. That's not enough to make it a kid's story. 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. That's all that label means for me. Toy Story is certainly a kid's movie, but it's also a really well told story. Toy Story 2 is the same - but it has other layers that only adults (and especially parents) would understand - fear of being outgrown, desire for your children to do well no matter what. Those are the existential questions the movies raise, but from a child's point of view it's a fun adventure story, with thrills and threats.

[eschmenk]

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 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. 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]

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]

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]

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