Gunnerkrigg Court 6: Fire Away

[eschmenk]

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]

Spoiler: more definition stuff

Show

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]

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]

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 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]

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 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]

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]

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. 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.

[Lethologica]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, from his side - re-reading that chapter should help.

[Cyber Punk]

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]

Anthony is recounting the events of Chapter 38: Divine, from his side - re-reading that chapter should help.

I think he/she would also need to read Chapter 31: Fire Spike. That explains how Surma was part fire elemental and Annie now has that part of her.

[Lethologica]

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]

\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...

[eschmenk]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: new comic

Show

Well, it seems that your guess is the closest in having the Court pulling strings.

[Lethologica]

Spoiler: New Comic

Show

*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]

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 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. 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.

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]

Spoiler

Show

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]

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.

[eschmenk]

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]

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.

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.

[Cavelcade]

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]

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]

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.