This is a title.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic / Unintentionally Sympathetic: The entire conflict between the Court and the Forest began when the humans wanted to try to understand and control the Etheric, which the creatures of the forest didn't want them to
, which essentially makes their war one between luddites on one side and freethinkers on the other, later developments such as the killing of Jeanne nonwithstanding.
Nowhere in 371 does it even remotely suggest that the Court are long-suffering freethinkers while the Forest are nothing but evil luddites who are trying to stamp out creativity or whatever.
All that 371 tells us is that the Court wouldn't accept A Wizard Did It and tried to find a scientific explanation for magic.
What happened after that we can only guess, but at the least, we know that the Court was trying to enslave the Forest denizens (489), at which time Coyote showed up and created the great division that Jones mentions in the form of the Annan Waters.
This combined with the Court's verifiable history of douchebaggery, implies that it's not just "Technology bad. Court uses technology. LET'S KILL EM!!!!!"
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! Hide / Show Replies
371 clearly states that the Court wanted to understand the ether, causing the division. "Nature on one side, technology on the other". Nothing in the entry is inaccurate, it did not claim anyone was "evil" or "long-suffering", simply that one side opposes technology and one favors it, which may gain or lose sympathy from readers.
Nowhere in 489 does it say that the Court tried to enslave the denizens of the forest, Coyote just says that they tried to "tame the powerful creatures", which when you take into account Coyote's habit of lying by telling the truth, is incredibly vague and could mean anything. In any case the modern Court is distinct from the original Court, and the absolute worst thing the modern Court has ever done was pass up Annie as medium, far from the worst transgression in the world, and far from the monstrous actions Forest residents like Coyote, Rey and Ys have committed.
Edited by phalanx
Coyote never lies.
The modern court is not under scrutiny. Its founders are. Diego. Young. That guy with the bow. etc etc etc.
The same people that sentenced Jeanne to death and damaged the ether and the Rot D are the same people that were in conflict with the Forest.
So what we've got is Jones making vague statements, avoiding specifying exactly what was happening, and Coyote making vague statements, avoiding specifying exactly what was happening.
What we know about the Court's activities at that time: They didn't like that the Forest just accepted the Ether as A Wizard Did It and were trying to "tame" the creatures of the Forest, which however you phrase it does not speak well of them. Certainly it was bad enough for Coyote to separate the Court from the forest.
What we know about the Forest's activities at the time: Absolutely dick.
Conclusion: Based on the facts currently available, this is not a conflict of freethinkers vs luddites. If it's anything, it's one between For Science! and their victims.
Edited by Eagal You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
First of all, phalanx said "lying by telling the truth". Coyote doesn't say anything that isn't true, but he can mislead, omit, and manipulate.
The Court not accepting ignorance of the ether, and, according to a biased and untrustworthy source, they tried to tame the Forest creatures, the exact meaning of which is unclear. That's all the entry describes. If all the information is provided in a vague way or important facts weren't revealed, a person's conclusions aren't invalidated. This is an opinion based entry and nothing in it is false. Your conclusion doesn't have any more evidence behind it than anyone else's.
Edited by 425599167
Also, in comparison to Coyote, Jones is essentially a neutral party (In 373 Annie remarks that she "[allies] herself with neither side", a statement Jones corroborates) and thus has no reason to lie, or to manipulate the truth like Coyote does, making the statements of 371 a more reliable source of information than 489.
Edited by phalanx
P Med phalanx and what have you. Carry on, gents.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
Regarding the recent What An Idiot example, Annie's actions were not stupid. She accomplished exactly what she intended, and barely feels anything anymore. Achieving exactly what you want can hardly be called idiotic, and the assertion that she didn't try to deal with her emotions ignores her statement that she can't. Even if it did damage her, she's handling the situation.
Hide / Show Replies
Just put it down to bias. The recent chapters have split readers into two broad factions: pro-Anthony and pro-Antimony. The former tends to couch Anthony's actions in terms of "his daughter's rebellious and he's just putting his foot down! He paid for her room and board all these years and this is how she repays him?!! Annie's out of control! She brought this on herself!" so they tend to frame Annie's actions as unreasonable, and Anthony's as perfectly legitimate. The latter tends to go for "Anthony's an abusive father / the devil incarnate! He's on a power trip, abandoning his daughter for years then turning up to ruin her whole life! He even performs surgery on her without her knowledge or consent - that's how little he cares for her and respects her rights!" They have much more sympathy for Annie and frame her actions in terms of an abused child trying to survive.
Okay, maybe there aren't that many exclamation marks. But the argument gets pretty heated, and while the second faction is probably bigger, the first has very ardent supporters...and given that Tom Siddell is a Trolling Creator, we may be waiting a while to see exactly what's going on. Still, I suggest pulling "what an idiot" since it refers to obvious blunders that wouldn't cross the mind of a sensible person, not a tactical error or a case of causing long-term damage for short-term relief.
I would hardly call it a broad split. Going by the comments, I'd estimate a minimum of 10:1 against Anthony. And it doesn't matter how it people frame it. I don't care about ludicrous extremes, the entry makes claims about what is happening which can be argued and disproven, and I intend to do just that.
Should we just un-spoil every instance of Anthony's name in here? It's already inconsistently spoilered, and he's been part of the comic as a proper character for eight years, by my count.