Gunnerkrigg Court 6: Fire Away

[Lizard Lord]

I take that as a yes to previous question.

[Cavelcade]

To me, it seems to be squarely aimed at that group.

Interestingly I don't exactly disagree with this, but I have a different take on it. It's aimed at this group, sure - but it's also aimed at people who have ever being in that group and who get...something out of examining that time from a different perspective (fantasy/different person/different gender). If a story of that type is told well, people will be able to relate their own experiences to what is going on and form a connection with it - and then examine their own life. It's a different way of reading the same story, and is what any story should really hope to be.

Paranorman and Toy Story are two movies I'd give as excellent examples of that type of story. Harry Potter to a degree and from a personal perspective Lord of the Rings (the books in both cases).

[Thufir]

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.

I literally said at the end of that quote you quoted that I could possibly agree with classifying it as Young Adult. Since I would expect it to have notable adult appeal as well and for adults to be less likely to frequent the Young Adult section I still would rather just classify it by genre rather than age group.
Some of the confusion may come from the fact that I would consider Children's Lit and Young Adult to be separate categories, partly because they carry different connotations and partly because it's just confusing otherwise, unless you have another name for the category targeted at younger children.
On your specific points, technically the publishers say it's for ages 9 and up, which includes children but it doesn't say an upper limit, so I'd still say it's not an absolute (I'm also not so sure about going as low as 9, but whatever). And I'm pretty confident that my local libraries do not stock the Gunnerkrigg Court books.

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.

Just going to cut you off there - that post was the first time you actually offered any 'inconvenient' facts. Prior to that you hadn't backed up your assertion that GC is Children's Lit any more than I backed up mine that it isn't (except for the reference to your local library which I missed originally), you just repeatedly restated it, so no, I consider your condescension rude and uncalled for. Especially when it hinges on differing interpretations of a term which has a rather vague and nebulous definition.

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.

Obvious to you, maybe. If people are arguing about it and they're not just trolling, it clearly isn't obvious to them.

Regardless, I can accept a YA classification though I still think it would be better served by a genre-based distinction rather than an age-based one, and the latest update has clearly disproven your initial contention that the story wouldn't go in this direction. (And if that was not in fact what you initially meant, then you phrased it poorly)

[eschmenk]

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.

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage, though. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.

I didn't think that anyone thought that the Court was just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about her behavior. She really did copy from Kat's work. She really hasn't been obedient. She really did need someone to discipline her, since the teachers hadn't been doing their jobs. It's just the way that Tony went about it was way overboard.

[Lethologica]

GC is listed in my local library system as 'teen', FWIW. Which is...compatible with a "children's lit" label, but certainly doesn't imply the characteristics that eschmenk has associated with that label (tends not to grapple with complexity, doesn't have fleshed-out adult characters/relationships, and specifically renders unlikely the Court using Annie as leverage against Tony). However obvious the map looks to eschmenk, it doesn't mean much if the map doesn't reflect the territory.

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.

Is a hypothetical difference between "the Court using Annie as leverage against Tony" and "the Court giving Tony information about Annie's precarious status that led him to decide to accept their offer and rein her in for them" really the hill you want to die on? And is arguing such a subtle difference really supporting your argument that GC wouldn't portray such complexity because it's children's literature?

[eschmenk]

@ Lethologica: You are misrepresenting what I've been saying. Please stop doing that.

[Lethologica]

@ Lethologica: You are misrepresenting what I've been saying. Please stop doing that.

Well, gosh, do explain yourself at some point. Trying to determine your position has been like trying to make a footprint in loose sand.

Re: 'misguided beliefs about her behavior', that was shorthand for my own prediction, and I'm using 'misguided' broadly to include deliberate omissions (like, say, why it is that Annie's involved with the Forest).

[Lizard Lord]

I don't know if Annie is being used for leverage, though. That's one way to read it, but it's not the only way to read it. I could easily imagine that the Court decided, independently of anything else, that Annie was more trouble than she was worth. (It obviously wasn't happy with her.) I could also easily imagine the Court deciding, independently of anything else, that Tony needed to be reined in. It makes sense that Tony would have asked about Annie and the visitors would therefore have told him about the Court's decision regarding her. Tony might have concluded that, if he got Annie to improve her behavior, he might be able to change the Court's mind without the Court even actually saying so. Or the visitors might have raised the possibility just because it seemed like a good idea to them. Or it could be that the bosses at the Court were trying to figure out some way that Tony could still be useful even though he was obviously damaged goods, and they came up with the idea of having him "improve" Annie so that they wouldn't need to get rid of her. So no, I don't think it's necessary to conclude that this amounts to intentional manipulation on the part of the Court. OTOH, even though Tony didn't describe it that way, I don't think something more underhanded could necessarily be ruled out, either.

I didn't think that anyone thought that the Court was just letting Tony act on misguided beliefs about her behavior. She really did copy from Kat's work. She really hasn't been obedient. She really did need someone to discipline her, since the teachers hadn't been doing their jobs. It's just the way that Tony went about it was way overboard.

Are you ignoring the fact that Harry Potter, a book series you also call YA literature, totally had a father being coerced into working for Voldemort because his daughter was being held captive by the death eaters?

To quote the wiki page since I don't have the book with me. Also spoiling it for those who didn't read it. If you don't want to read the spoiler you will just have to take my word for it.

Spoiler

Show

It was believed that Luna was held captive at Azkaban, though she was actually imprisoned in the basement of Malfoy Manor, along with the famed wandmaker Garrick Ollivander, to whom she proved a great comfort. Her father was so desperate to get her back that he tried to turn Harry, Hermione, and Ron over to the Ministry in exchange for her freedom;

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

You think forest activities are enough grounds to expel her? That's the reason they've been keeping a close eye on her, not the evidence they're going to use against her.

[Lizard Lord]

You think forest activities are enough grounds to expel her? That's the reason they've been keeping a close eye on her, not the evidence they're going to use against her.

It may not be the reason they would use, but it is their motivation.

Also I actually suspect that the Court doesn't need much evidence or reasons to expel students. They don't seem to answer to anyone outside of the Court and the only outside pressure they experience is from the Forrest, which is pressuring them with the way things are now.

[eschmenk]

Interestingly I don't exactly disagree with this, but I have a different take on it. It's aimed at this group, sure - but it's also aimed at people who have ever being in that group and who get...something out of examining that time from a different perspective (fantasy/different person/different gender). If a story of that type is told well, people will be able to relate their own experiences to what is going on and form a connection with it - and then examine their own life. It's a different way of reading the same story, and is what any story should really hope to be.

Yes, you do have a somewhat different take on it. :) I do agree that stories that are told well can have a broad appeal, but I think the best way to accomplish that usually is to try to do a really good job of serving a relatively narrow target group. If you create quality, the broader appeal will hopefully happen automatically. I think it's especially easy to attract adults with things targeted at children because it's possible to hook an adult's inner child. It is true that sometimes movies for children include humor intended for the parents, but outside of quick humor, I don't think that works very well. I think that if you attempt to increase the appeal my making things broad, you probably hurt yourself more than it helps. I do think that it can be important to not underestimate the target group, though. An author often can challenge them more that some people might expect.

It's not quite the same thing, but I read something not that long ago (that I unfortunately can't find) that was about an author asking for advice from an experienced editor. The author was talented, but hadn't narrowed down what he or she was trying to do. The editor used Chuck Jones's Nine Rules for the Road Runner cartoons as an example of how it's necessary to keep the focus narrow and let the readers know what to expect. Chuck Jones's rules is a very narrow set of rules that someone might think would limit the appeal of the cartoons, but I'd say that they did the opposite.

I haven't double-checked, but IIRC, based on interviews, I understood that J.K. Rowling exclusively targeted narrow age groups when she wrote each Harry Potter book. Granted, the later books were targeted at older children than the first books were, but the targeted age group for each book was narrow, IIRC. I don't recall her ever indicating that she consciously did anything in order to attract people outside the age group she was primarily targeting. What she did certainly worked out well for her. (If someone has a source where she talked about that, I would be interested in seeing it.)

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.

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.

Are you ignoring the fact that Harry Potter, a book series you also call YA literature, totally had a father being coerced into working for Voldemort because his daughter was being held captive by the death eaters?

Actually, I just didn't remember that. Anyway, why in the world did you bring it up if you took it "that the original point behind this argument is forever lost?" I even had already clarified that the issue wasn't that it was YA literature, per se. The Harry Potter books, particularly the last few, handled the adults with more complexity than GC is doing, so what you reminded me of didn't surprise me. Anyway, so far it sure looks like things turned out basically like what I had expected, so it's a bit late for your argument, I think. The original point behind your argument is forever lost, isn't it?

Also Tony said that the Court was pissed off about the business with the forest, nothing on that page said anything about her misconduct withing the school itself.

Well, technically, when she went against the headmaster's wishes, she was inside the school and in front of several teachers in addition to the headmaster. Anyway, even if the court's decision to banish Annie was motivated only by her business with the forest, and I agree that that's possible, that wouldn't have changed anything I said, though.

[Zea mays]

Now I wonder if "The Court" knows that Annie & co. Are investigating Jeanne. Maybe they are afraid that the kids could actually undo whatever is keeping her ghost by the Annan river.

[Hytheter]

Kat looks so good in panel 2. Really quality art.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Spoiler

Show

Yeah I don't hate Tony anymore. He's just a guy who really misses his wife and can't deal with how much his daughter reminds him of her and goes blank to stop it.

I wish he'd do better. But I can't hate him. He's just...a broken man.

[Lethologica]

I'm willing to meet you halfway and set him on fire out of pity rather than hate.

[Giggling Ghast]

OH MY GOD!!!

Spoiler

Show

ANTHONY IS GOING TO BREAK THAT CHAIR!

[The_Snark]

Spoiler: New Comic

Show

... huh. I didn't really expect that. From the outside, his treatment of her at that point really did look like a calculated rebuke (on account of being disappointed in her cheating). Even once we learned he (thought he) was acting on her behalf, it seemed like he was being deliberately harsh with her "for her own good" (mixed with a little obliviousness, perhaps).

Except, no. I'm starting to think that 'deliberate' is not a word you can apply to anything he does now - he's reacting emotionally, moment-to-moment. No plan. He's very good at seeming cold and logical, but that is the only part of self-control he's good at right now.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

Spoiler

Show

I'm a bit unsure of why banishing Annie from the court would be such a bad thing. Is there something in the world outside the Court that is dangerous? He talks about "the court and the program". What program? If they were planning to cast her out after graduation, it implies that he wants/needs her to stay in the court after that point? If their goal was just to get Tony back, why did Annie have to be held back a year? And why did he need to "escape the Court's eye" to do his research? This is why I post so infrequently; each page just raises more questions.

[Lizard Lord]

Spoiler

Show

I'm a bit unsure of why banishing Annie from the court would be such a bad thing. Is there something in the world outside the Court that is dangerous? He talks about "the court and the program". What program? If they were planning to cast her out after graduation, it implies that he wants/needs her to stay in the court after that point? If their goal was just to get Tony back, why did Annie have to be held back a year? And why did he need to "escape the Court's eye" to do his research? This is why I post so infrequently; each page just raises more questions.

Spoiler

Show

The only thing I can think of is it would be like banishing Harry from Hogwarts, Anthony is isolating her plenty already. Of course there is still plenty we don't know about the Court, and this could easily tie into that.

Anyway, so far it sure looks like things turned out basically like what I had expected

Well they are threatening her and it is at least slightly possible that removing from the program may not be survivable as we still know so little about the Court, but I could be grasping at straws there. Still complexity, and not dark tones, was the original point, yes? If so, how exactly is this whole mess less complex than "They are threatening my daughter, I have to do what they say to protect her"? (Which is still technically the case even if it isn't death she is being threatened with. Honestly, darker tones was the only thing separating the truth from the theory.)

Oh, and I brought up the Harry Potter thing before, but no one responded. Thought maybe I would try again for the heck of it.

[Cavelcade]

Well, I agree that darker tones can easily be present in a children's story (or YA, or however you choose to categorize it). Coraline (book version) and Paranorman (the movie) are really extremely dark stories that are aimed at children. Paranorman in particular has...well, this is major spoilers for a movie I love and highly recommend so:

Spoiler

Show

The main twist of the story isn't that the witch is real but that the "witch" was just a little girl who could see dead people, who they hung. The "zombies" are the ones who judged her, cursed to rise and be tormented.

It is an extremely complex story in a lot of ways, but one I feel children will get the general message of (don't be mean to things you're scared of) without necessarily having to look at the deeper social commentary that's going on.

[Lissou]

Cavelcade, as an aside... when I look at your avatar, my brain keeps shifting between analyzing it as having no mouth and analyzing it as having no nose. She shifts from looking nonplussed to looking goofily happy.

[eee]

Nope, STILL no sympathy for the Tony. Guilt, grief, and stupidity do not excuse acting like a **** and damaging your daughter psychologically. He's STILL doing the same thing as with the bone lasers: Inflicting harm without realizing he's doing so.

He doesn't learn. Or understand the consequences of his actions.

Where's Reynard? I thought he was on the desk, apparently inanimate, listening in on this conversation. Did Tony move him to another room before they started talking and drinking?

[Lissou]

Nope, STILL no sympathy for the Tony. Guilt, grief, and stupidity do not excuse acting like a **** and damaging your daughter psychologically. He's STILL doing the same thing as with the bone lasers: Inflicting harm without realizing he's doing so.

He doesn't learn. Or understand the consequences of his actions.

He absolutely realises it, actually. And he probably understands the consequences, but finds them still preferable to Annie being expelled.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Tony entirely understands the consequences of his actions.

The tragedy is that that understanding doesn't change his course of action- he wants to be able to stop doing this, but he can't stop himself.

That's why I have sympathy for Tony. He wants to be a good father for Annie- but he feels he's locked into being a terrible one, feels that he can't make up for what he's done, and as such continues on the same course.

[Domochevsky]

My current reaction: Begrudging acceptance that Tony's a human being with no idea what he's doing at any time.
He's way too damn similar to Anny in the "stone-faced to hide emotions" regard. Hell, she may even have gotten it from him, one way or another.

Hrrrm. Fine. You win this time, Tom. Still doesn't mean that I like Tony or find his behavior acceptable.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

A lot of things are being explained to us.

It's time for a plot twist!

Donald is secretly the bad guy. He was the bad guy all along. Ha ha ha. And the drink is poisoned. He's gonna kill Tony for blabbing too much.

Tony (dying): You were spying on me...for the Court?
Donald: I AM THE COURT

[Morty]

Compare Annie's reaction on this page to Tony's reaction in the classroom on today's page. Eerily similar. Both deal with extreme turmoil by shutting down and presenting a blank mask to the world.

Pretty much. Their approaches to dealing with emotional turmoil that they can't handle is very similar. And they don't have a good grasp on emotions in general. I think Tony's actions in the last two chapters are those of a man who has no idea what he should do and is making things worse by trying to figure it out.

[eschmenk]

Spoiler

Show

The only thing I can think of is it would be like banishing Harry from Hogwarts, Anthony is isolating her plenty already. Of course there is still plenty we don't know about the Court, and this could easily tie into that.

Maybe it could also be that Tony thinks that if Annie stayed, she would have more resources to study her condition and find a way to have children without dying? Tony obviously helped Surma leave the program, though. Maybe he thinks that was a mistake now?

Hopefully the story will explain it at some point.

Another question: Why did the court want Tony back? Why didn't they fire him, instead? (If they needed an excuse, they could have assigned him to an insignificant job at the court and fired him when he failed to show up.)

If so, how exactly is this whole mess less complex than "They are threatening my daughter, I have to do what they say to protect her"?

That's not quite it. It would have been "They are threatening my daughter. What should I do? Should I undermine them? Should I report them to the authorities? Should I do any of a number of other things to protect them from her?" I don't remember the Harry Potter books all that well, but I think I remember Mr. Malfoy reacting in a fairly complex way and eventually turning against Voldemort, didn't he? In addition to that, the original comment by Eee listed a variety of ways in which the Court could try to turn the screws on Tony via threatening harm to Annie. So that would mean that the Court had a bunch of options and Tony had a bunch of options, so it could be complex. Also, don't forget that the issue wasn't how complex the story gets, it's how much of the complexity involves which characters. I think I explained all of this before. Granted, there are a lot of comments to wade through.

Where's Reynard? I thought he was on the desk, apparently inanimate, listening in on this conversation. Did Tony move him to another room before they started talking and drinking?

We've seen the desk from several different angles. He didn't seem to be there. I don't know where he is. He could be listening from a drawer, I suppose. It might be interesting to get his take on this.

[Lethologica]

A lot of things are being explained to us.

It's time for a plot twist!

Donald is secretly the bad guy. He was the bad guy all along. Ha ha ha. And the drink is poisoned. He's gonna kill Tony for blabbing too much.

Tony (dying): You were spying on me...for the Court?
Donald: I AM THE COURT

Then he turns to Annie, who he knows is watching in shocked horror because he brought her along, and says, "This is what happens to those who defy the Court. Now, we're going to allow you to be the Forest medium again, and you will be publicly happy about this. You'll be working for us, of course, but that'll be our...little...secret."

aaaaahhhh this is actually really creepy make it go away

Another question: Why did the court want Tony back? Why didn't they fire him, instead? (If they needed an excuse, they could have assigned him to an insignificant job at the court and fired him when he failed to show up.)

They want him to research something for them, probably.

That's not quite it. It would have been "They are threatening my daughter. What should I do? Should I undermine them? Should I report them to the authorities? Should I do any of a number of other things to protect them from her?" I don't remember the Harry Potter books all that well, but I think I remember Mr. Malfoy reacting in a fairly complex way and eventually turning against Voldemort, didn't he? In addition to that, the original comment by Eee listed a variety of ways in which the Court could try to turn the screws on Tony via threatening harm to Annie. So that would mean that the Court had a bunch of options and Tony had a bunch of options, so it could be complex. Also, don't forget that the issue wasn't how complex the story gets, it's how much of the complexity involves which characters. I think I explained all of this before. Granted, there are a lot of comments to wade through.

The example most people were referencing was Luna Lovegood's dad, but bringing up Lucius serves even better to illustrate that YA lit can handle complexity in the parent-threatened-with-child-hostage dynamic, right?

[halfeye]

The example most people were referencing was Luna Lovegood's dad, but bringing up Lucius serves even better to illustrate that YA lit can handle complexity in the parent-threatened-with-child-hostage dynamic, right?

As I said, the difference is no sex. That's all the difference. There would have been a time, as in movies, when violence was excluded too, but now that's not X-rated any more.