Discussion Characters / GunnerkriggCourt

Firstly, I would suggest you don't call people ridiculous, as it is impolite. :)

Secondly, that's not really halfway. Removing the part about what Kat's demonization Anthony about removes context from the example. Examples need to explain why they are examples, e.g. "Kat is demonizing Tony by doing such and such".

Thirdly, Anthony's done plenty of bad things. That's no reason to make up more bad things to justify her dislike of him. The actions that he has done should be enough. His actions in regards to Antimony haven't been remotely violent, nor have his words suggested he is likely to resort to violence.

So what is demonization? Making up shit about someone you don't like to portray them as wicked and threatening in order to justify your dislike of them.

• So what did Kat do? She made something up, specifically, she made up the idea that Renard was having cruel experiments performed on him.
• About whom did she make this something up? Anthony.
• Why would she make this something up about him? Because she doesn't like him.
• Why did she make this something up about him? To portray him as wicked and threatening and thusly justify her dislike of him.
• Conclusion: This is an example of demonization.

Whether or not she is justified in doing so (Which, you know, she isn't) is another matter entirely. Irrelevant in relation to whether she is demonizing him, but for a lark I'll look into that a tiny bit.

Has Antimony been hurt? Sure. Is that reason to assume that Anthony is performing cruel experiments on Renard? No.

Does Kat have a reason to dislike and distrust Anthony's motives? Yes. Does that give Kat reason to assume he's doing things he hasn't been suggested to be likely to do? Is he likely to attempt to send the Jews straight to Davy Jones' locker, Heil Blackbeard? Perhaps send some guys to crash a plane or two into the World Trade Center? At what point did Anthony say "I will perform cruel experiments on Renard!" *cackles evil-ly while twirling his Snidely Whiplash mustache*

And no, she's not aware of his actions in Divine. All she knows, and all we know, is that he was involved. She's assuming he was the one who put Antimony in a coma, and maybe he did, but currently she has no actual proof for this other than "He's a jerk".

All Zimmy saying "Her father?" proves is that he was involved in some way. What it doesn't prove is that "Her father put her in a coma for the express purpose of torturing her to death because he's Satan incarnate and also if he were living in the United States he would vote Republican." (which I grant you is ridiculous, because Satan is obviously a Democrat)

Also, he's not holding Renard against his will. Anthony has no control over Renard's actions. If anyone's forcing him to stay against his will it's Kat.

I met you halfway by not deleting it. Kat didn't make anything up, she had a valid concern which she abandoned after it was resolved. She never told anyone else that Renard was being experimented on or used such a lie to vilify Anthony. She doesn't need to invent crimes to know he's a prick.

What I meant by Renard being held against his will is that's what Anthony thinks he's doing and wants to do. Renard remains in his possession to maintain the charade to figure out what Anthony's doing, and clearly does so out of concern for Antimony. Don't try to pin this on Kat.

She asked whether he was being subjected to cruel experiments. He was not. These cruel experiments that she was worried he was being subjected did not exist, thus proving that she did, in fact, make them up.

I don't believe her not having explicitly proselytized this belief is relevant, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd think simply the fact that she was making this shit up about him would be enough. Or failing that asking Renard, thereby voicing the fabrication.

That's exactly my point. She doesn't need to invent crimes to know he's a prick. His actions so far firmly establish him as deep in the red of the Prick-o-meter. So why is she? Why did she ask whether Renard was being subjected to cruel experiments? Because in her mind Anthony had performed those cruel experiments, and she was seeking validation for this belief.

What Anthony thinks is immaterial. Whatever the reason Renard is staying, it's not on Anthony. But either way *shrug* that one was kinda nitpicking on my part anyway.

Demonization normally refers to publicly making a blatant straw man out of someone you don't like to inspire contempt for them, and if you'll read examples, applies to characters or writers trying to convince others. Kat only asked a question regarding a character's behavior, which isn't too far a stretch from what would be expected of him, was told no, and moved on. It was a suspicion, not a belief, and one she kept to herself. This isn't a good example.

And yes, Renard is staying because of Anthony. Anthony has unknown goals and motivations which may pose a threat to Antimony, which may increase if he believes she lied to him about controlling Renard. Renard is going along with the plan to help her, with Kat's approval.

Whether it's a good example seems rather immaterial if it's not an example to begin with, non? ;P

Is this what you mean?

That's the one! I had a vague idea that it might be Coyote, but I forgot that he disguised himself (I couldn't picture Coyote's normal face pulling that expression). Thanks!

I find it very hard at this stage to avoid putting him into the "abusive" bracket

Try.

If the danger at the Court was his priority, he would remove her from the Court and actually make some attempt at parenting.

The Court itself isn't dangerous. It's Reynard, Coyote and Ysengrin that are dangerous. The obvious solution then is to restrict her from seeing them.

And he doesn't tell Annie to hand control of Rey to someone who might actually know what they were doing - he demands that control be handed over to him, personally.

And what is your basis for believing that he doesn't know what he's doing?

• "puts you down or says you aren’t good enough,"
  • Hasn't done that.
• "ignores you or leaves you out of things,"
  • Hasn't done that.
• "says or does things that make you feel bad about yourself,"
  • Maybe the makeup thing, but that's a matter for debate.
• "pushes you away or makes you feel like you don’t belong in the family,"
  • Except for not explaining how he lost his hand, which she doesn't really need to know anyway, hasn't done that.
• "tries to control you or push you too hard,"
  • He's her father. He's got every right to control her in order to protect her from the murderous fox spirit and the psychotic wolf man and the amoral god and the Toxic Friend Influence that allows her to screw herself out of an education by cheating on her schoolwork.
• "stops you from having friends."
  • Again, murderous fox spirit, etc.

So out of 6 criterion, that's a grand total of maybe 2, but a highly contentious 2, more like 2 "1/2s", which would benefit from further evidence before prematurely labeling.

("Dad, you're missing a limb!" "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME!")

Except he didn't say anything remotely like HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME! He just said it wasn't her concern, and it's not.

You yourself admit that you're reading way to much into this, so what's the problem?

The thing is, Anthony is inflicting pain on her. He knows he is because she's standing right there and it's really obvious, and everything he's done so far in this scene are things he could have done differently. Assuming that he had no choice but to leave her, I still doubt that he could have arranged everything about his employment with the Court this morning. Even if he only had a day's lead time (again, way implausible) that would give him time to talk to his daughter without humiliating her in front of class, giving her a Death Glare for showing perfectly natural concern, and pulling her world out from under her. He could also have talked to his old friend Donny, who has an adult's judgment and knows Annie, to be sure that Rey really isn't a threat and what's up with the Forest. And he could ask her politely not to wear that makeup in his class, and possibly put some of her worries to rest about their relationship. (Look at her nervous smile when she's standing in front of the desk, and remember "she always wondered about the 'still'").

• Ignores or leaves you out of things: Ditching off on her for three years, maybe? We know that he could contact her, at some point, but the one phone call she got was inconsequential conversation / code for something he wanted Donny to do. Also, ditching off is apparently a preexisting habit of his, so I'd say it's even odds whether or not he actually had to do it.
• The makeup thing: It did make her feel bad. He called it ridiculous in front of ~twenty people, and she's not the only girl wearing makeup either. How would he not know that it would make her feel bad. Definitely counts.
• Pushes you away: "Is it your business? [Death Glare]" He could have said just "I don't want to discuss it" without being a jerk about it.
• Stops you from having friends: I would say that yanking her out of Year 10 and removing her from Kat counts. I don't know how much detail he has about her life at the court, but "Kat is her friend and she knows her classmates" seems like a pretty basic hypothesis. His words about distractions also imply that she's going to have limited social time.

Also, Annie is a teenager (I think she's 14?) and is entitled to have at least discussion about all of this. Clearly, the Forest is something important to her or she wouldn't go there and be their Medium. She's not a child, and she's also had to build a life for herself without his help, and if she's veered off course (which she has, but frankly the Court is responsible for her cheating as well since they should have set it straight as soon as they noticed), help her more gently since she permanently lost one parent and temporarily lost the other and of course she's not going to be totally well-adjusted after that. It still would have been painful, but it didn't have to be this painful, and he could at least show her some modicum of caring. Instead, all he says are how he's disappointed and she's caused an inconvenience for everyone and other things that make her feel awful without any relief.

The point is, does Anthony have some hidden agenda? I'm sure. He didn't come back just to lecture her about school habits. The dude is made of unknown motivations. Maybe he is really trying to help her. However, even if his ultimate intentions are good, his current actions are all incredibly hurtful. Most abusers don't think of themselves as such so even if he does have "good intentions" (the pavers on the road to hell) it doesn't necessarily mean he is not abusive. Right now, what's visible is that he is being a massive jerk to his daughter and she's clearly incapable of fighting back. Maybe he will subvert, repent, or zigzag in the future, but I think Abusive Parents is a fair trope right now.

He could have done things differently, but it's already been established that he's out to sea in matters of emotion. He's handling things directly and logically, not factoring in emotion to his decisions.

Donny and Anja and even Eglamore's limited involvement is rather conspicuous, I hope that will be addressed.

• As to "ditching her off"...Boarding school. It's what's for dinner. He's implicitly involved in some shadowy shit that a kid has no business being involved in, and/or traveling a lot, meaning she'd have to keep switching schools. So he sent her to the boarding school he went to for a proper education while he was off doing important things, content in his daughter's safety, unaware that they let her consort with dangerous spirits and that they either missed or overlooked her cheating. So we can readily file that in the "not abusive" file.
• As to the make-up thing. I don't recall seeing anyone else with make-up, but as you like. Could have handled it better, but again, direct and logical, not allowing emotion to affect his decisions.
• As to "Is it your business?". It's nice to have family be concerned over you, but if you don't want to talk about it they're not entitled to know. He could have phrased his response better, but there's no possible way that not telling her counts as a sign of abuse.
• Stops you having friends. Third time now. Friends that for all he knew allowed her to cheat, that encouraged her dangerous attitude concerning forest denizens and the relative usefulness of adults. Not even counting the aforementioned murderous fox spirit, psychotic wolf and amoral god. If your friends are a bad influence on you, even if you like them, then it's a parent's duty to remove you from their influence, even if you don't like it. So another point for not abusive.

Yeah, he's a jerk, but jumping straight to abuse because OMG HE'S BEING MEAN TO ANNIE KILL HIM WITH FIIIIRRRREEEEE! is not what I would call fair.

Been two days. Anything?

So to summarize: He meets maybe 1 out of 6 of the required criteria for abuse, and it's a contentious 1 at that.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

today's update seems pretty clear that he's basically hoping to regress her and take away her identity, what with cutting her hair and making her dress Spartanly, so I wouldn't say it's so cut and dry anymore. hell, she looks exactly like she did when Surma was in the hospital - http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=123.

and hell, even if he didn't physically do it, or even commanded her to and she decided to return to the physical state from the time her father last saw her on her own - the fact that it even happened is pretty damning on her father.

Yeah, either he told her to cut her hair and gave her those clothes (kinda doubt she went out and bought a smock in the midst of all this upheaval), or she decided she needed to regress her appearance in the hopes it would gain his approval / affection... not good.

Whatever his ~reasons~ are (and I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying KHWF, by the way) he's hurting her massively when he doesn't have to. So.

Seems clear to me that Anthony is in no way responsible for Annie having a fragile ego and if she reacts badly to his completely legitimate punishments then that's her failing, not his.

Even accepting that his actions constitute abuse, I haven't seen anything that suggests he's doing so with the intent of doing so. So then it's unintentional, which definitely needs to be noted.

P,S, I'm not familiar with the phrase KHFW. What's it mean?

Eagal, I can tell by some of the comments you've made you have little love for Antimony, but don't let your dislike of a character lead you to accept atrocious behavior towards them.

Anthony left Annie at the Court and has not been to see her in three years. Boarding school or not, that is abandonment. The only time he contacted her, he had an ulterior motive, and whether Donald is correct in interpreting his actions as wanting to contact Annie in some form is dubious. Being involved in "shadowy shit" isn't much of an excuse, it doesn't change the outcome, and we don't know what exactly he was doing. You're not being any more rational in your assumptions than people who hate him.

We still don't really know what he was doing to her in "Divine", but whatever it was, it was done without her permission and put her in a hospital bed.

He has very clearly displayed the typical abuser tactic of separating Annie from her friends, cutting off the victim from outside support in order to maintain power over them, He takes her from Kat, and Paz by extension, barring her from the forest (which cuts her off from Smith and Parley as well), and tries to take Reynardine, who is explicitly not a threat to her. Dealing with Coyote and Ysengrin is part of her job, and she is under their protection. (yes, I know Ysengrin flipped out, but Coyote seemed to have it planned so Annie would live) And you do not have any reason to believe he would control Renard more responsibly than any other member of the Court. He publicly singles her out and ostracizes her in front of the class. Regardless of his intentions, he is in the wrong.

This has nothing to do with something as simple as wounding Annie's pride. She is regressing psychologically, he has taken complete control of her life without involving her or accepting any input from his now young adult daughter. And this has all happened over the course of one hour.

And even if he isn't doing this intentionally, he's an incompetent parent if he can't see this is hurting her, and isn't capable of helping anyone.

Being away on business is a perfectly reasonable excuse not to be there. Maybe he could have popped by to see her, maybe he couldn't. Certainly he should have, but that's not any reason to believe he's being an abuser at all, much less for its own sake.

The only friends he's really separated her from is Renard (whose merits I have already mentioned). Ysengrin, who hates humans and tried to kill her on two separate occasions, is not her friend. Coyote, who considers her a particularly amusing insect, is not her friend. She's still free to see and interact with Kat and Smitty and Parley (both of whom still live at the Court and not in the Forest, so there's no reason to believe that barring her from the Forest would somehow magically prevent her from seeing them) and whatshisface with the blond Anime Hair and the black chick and the brown haired chick whose dad is the headmaster.

He's making her live in a different dorm from them? What a horrible thing to do! Truly he is a monster beyond compare! Though I must admit, I've never once shared a building with any of my friends and so far I have not had reason to accuse my parents of abuse on those grounds. I can talk to them whenever I like. I can see them as suits us. It's not the end of the world. Since she's retaking Year 9 she can't stay in the Year 10 dorm, and the Year 9 Dorm is already reserved for new students, so I'm not sure where you expect her to stay anyway.

As to dealing with Ysengrin and Coyote being part of her job...sounds like a perfect reason to seek other employment. If she's under their protection then why did Coyote let Ysengrin try to kill her? That's a rhetorical question, because Tom already answered it. Coyote has only one reason to ever do anything: His own amusement. If your boss is willing to let you die to amuse himself then that is what we, in Tvtropes parlance, call a Bad Boss. And no, "He knew she would be saved" is not a valid reason to let your employee try to kill another of your employees. And speaking of which, what, exactly, is stopping Ysengrin from going apeshit again?

I don't need a reason to believe he would be more responsible in controlling Renard than Annie for me to argue that his decision to do so is legitimate and not designed to screw over Annie for the sake of screwing over Annie. If Anthony believes he would be more responsible, then his decision is legitimate.

As to regressing psychologically etc, again, her failing not his and again, even accepting that his actions constitute abuse that does not mean that he is doing so for the sake of doing so. It is an unfortunate by-product of his actions, all of which are perfectly reasonable in principle, even if their delivery leaves much to be desired, which, again, should be noted.

I've heard this whole spiel from the others. You're not really providing any new argument, just rehashing old ones.

Seriously, just because someone isn't trying to be abusive does not mean they are not abusive. There is a quote I read somewhere "abusive parents don't usually wake up in the morning and say 'What should I do today? I know, I'll undermine and destroy my child's sense of self-worth!'" They often think they are doing the best job for their child, that their controlling actions are justified because they are the parent and know best, because they are imitating their abusive parents, etc etc. It's still bad because they are hurting their child.

Annie is being hurt, he can't not see that no matter how bad his social skills are, and even if he's so clueless that he can't see "hmm, she's getting red and increasingly looks like she wants to cry, I wonder if she's upset?" then... he's still a bad parent. This isn't just "he ditched her" or "he humiliated her in front of everyone by insulting her for not following a rule she didn't know about yet" or "making her repeat year 9" or "pulling her out of the dorm", it is the sum of all those things multiplied by his apparent callousness towards her feelings and the fact that she is entirely dominated and unable to stand up for herself.

(KHWF is just me not wanting to type out "kill him with fire" all the way.)

"again, even accepting that his actions constitute abuse that does not mean that he is doing so for the sake of doing so. It is an unfortunate by-product of his actions, all of which are perfectly reasonable in principle, even if their delivery leaves much to be desired, which, again, should be noted."

Traumatizing your daughter is not an "unfortunate by-product". Regression in the face of your distant parent is not a "failing". Even if he is not intentionally hurting her, he is. Even if he is trying to help her, he is not. You're trying to rephrase all his action as innocent when they form an obvious pattern of isolation. Publicly shaming her in front of a class he knew she shouldn't be attending is not "reasonable", nor is forcing her to remove her cosmetics, which he would know are a connection to her mother, for a biology class, or forcing her to abandon her position as medium. He is severing ties where he can, without making any effort to inform her or be open with her about what he's doing. Good intentions does not excuse blatant incompetence.

And don't think I didn't notice you've sidestepped the issue of his actions in "Divine", or rephrased the assumption of his potentially dangerous or illegal activities as "being away on business". He left her for three years, never making any meaningful contact. He has no right to reenter her life now.

Right right... even if abuse an "unfortunate by-product" it's still abuse. I mean, let's say he made a mistake during routine surgery and his patient got worse. He would not have to have maliciously made the mistake for his patient to be hurt and people to call him a bad surgeon over it.

I really don't think you are going to convince anyone here that the trope doesn't apply. Like was said upthread, if he turns out to be 100% totally justified and the Best Dad Ever later (though given GKC's pattern of not justifying Jerkass behavior I tend to doubt it), you can go ahead and call subversion with as much satisfaction as you like.

He's not the first parent to publicly shame their child for breaking the rules. According to you that's abuse. Others saying differently. Like that one guy that shot his daughter's laptop because she complained about having to do chores and lied about how difficult they were. Some people were screaming WORST PARENT EVER while others thought it was perfectly reasonable.

We don't know what he did in Divine, so I'm not sure what you expect me to say about it. Antimony was in a short coma and Zimmy says he was involved in some way. What did he do? Who knows. Do you know? I sure don't. Enlighten me.

And was he not away on business? Was he sitting on a beach sipping Pina Colodas and getting caught in the rain during all that time? Doing jello shots on the stomachs of Asian ladyboy hookers and drinking cobra whiskey? Hunting the Most Dangerous Game? Did he return to the Court for the sole purpose of ruining Antimony's life for his own gratification? Poppycock. We don't know what his business was, just that whatever it was it took him away from the Court.

According to you he has no right.

And no, Annie severely overreacting to his actions, so much so that she's having an emotional breakdown because he's being mean to her, is not his fault.

Based on what we know, he's no more an abuser than Elsa and Anna's parents were. Less so, because this is one incident and not a continuous suppression of her for 20 years "for her own good".

Just because people disagree does not make the issue a legitimate debate where both sides have valid points.

We know the results of his actions in "Divine": Antimony suddenly fell into a coma, Zimmy showed the cause led back to him, she punched him out, Annie woke up. Anthony was the cause. I also can't help but notice that there were five bones gripping Antimony's spirit, and his right hand remained hidden during that chapter. I predict he sacrificed his right hand to accomplish this feat, or simply lost it when the plan fell apart.

He left her at the Court for three years, making no effort to support or contact her sans one brief phone call made with an ulterior motive, with no apparent intention of returning or immediate contact when he did. That is legal abandonment. He is not her guardian anymore.

This reflects what I have to say regarding Elsa and Anna's parents.

I think you should be aware that many people left comments who have experienced actual abuse and can easily see this behavior in Anthony.

The fact that Tony's behavior is recognizable to people who have been abused is highly significant. Not to mention that Annie has been severely affected by his disappearance, blamed herself for it even before "Fire Spike", and always defends him whenever someone says it was wrong of him to vanish on her. Also, according to her he is capable of showing love and affection based on his interactions with her mother. Surma believed that he loved Annie, but that it was conditional.

We don't know why he was away, but evidence is strong that he could have kept in touch with her if he wanted to (the events of Microsat 5 show that he can make a coded call GKC itself while keeping his location untraceable). I don't think he's ruining Annie's life for the hell of it—I also think he's trying to finish whatever he started in "Divine", whether it's benevolent or malicious, and if she hadn't cheated he would find some other way to isolate her—but as you said he's being just plain mean about it. Everything he's said to her could have been said in a kinder way, but he hasn't so much as asked "how are you?"

Should Annie stand up for herself? Yeah, but given the weight her father's absence has had, I think she was as incapable of doing that as she would be of pitching a 5-ton weight. It's not like this is any old teacher, this is the father who loved her mother (who she indirectly killed) and left her without a word, and then as a reunion belittled her, shamed her, called her very important job nonsense, and pulled her away from her friends. Even with good parents, Your Dad yelling at you is a way bigger deal than just the principal—Annie has no emotional investment in keeping teachers or the Headmaster happy. She loves Anthony.

Also, Elsa and Anna's parents did a terrible job at dealing with their problems, but at least they showed love for them.

Huh - I thought the watchlist was supposed to give you a head up when discussion was posted. I clearly missed quite a bit.

So, to clarify:

• Puts you down or says you aren't good enough: "Wash that ridiculous make up from your face." Now, here's something from a teaching standpoint, and that I can speak about with authority: A teacher must never ever insult a child's appearance. NEVER. It's mean-spirited and it's unprofessional. It demotes you from authority figure to bitchy teenage wannabe. It doesn't matter if you think they clearly spent more time on their lipstick that morning that they did on their homework, or if their perfume makes your eyes water, or if their hair ruins the feng shui of your classroom. You are entitled to speak to them about dress code or health and safety issues, but you do not insult the child him or herself. "You can't wear make up in science — it affects the experiments" is reasonable. "You look ridiculous" is not, and is grounds for parental complaint (sadly, that's no help to Annie here). Yes, there are teachers who do it and get away with it. There are people who steal and get away with it too, it doesn't make it any better.
• Ignores you or leaves you out of things: Let's put aside the glaringly obvious "where the heck were you for three years?" Leaves her out of things..? Such as three years of his life? Or any say in drastic life changes? Or even the courtesy of "Annie, I'm returning to the Court. I didn't want you to get a shock in front of your classmates, so I'm telling you now"?
• Pushes you away or makes you feel like you don't belong in the family: Doesn't come much more "push them away" than dumping them in a boarding school without a word of contact for years. And while I doubt that this is "concrete" enough for detractors, there's something really unnerving about that moment where Anthony marches past his child without a word while her mother reassures her "He still loves you very much". The way that scene is set up, Annie is quite clearly an interloper.
• Stops you from having friends: Let's ignore the fact that Rey has been filling the role of paternal figure for years (including berating her for cheating!), and assume Anthony has learned nothing of the bond his daughter has formed with him. Let's focus on the "safe" people of the Court (a very relative term). He does not send her to a different dorm. He doesn't tell her she'll have to make new associations in Year 9. He sends her to live on her own, making the excuse that all of the dorms — in the vast, empty sprawl of the Court — are full. He makes it very clear that he does not intend for her to socialise. That is deliberate isolation.
• Tries to control you or push you too hard: Let's get this straight: He was correct to call her out on cheating. It was correct that she was punished in some way, and even though this particular punishment is harsh, I doubt that anyone could doubt its validity if they were cornered on it. However, Anthony is tearing apart Annie's new "normal". She lost her "normality" once before, with Surma's death and Anthony's abandonment. She was punted into a school without any guidance from her father (who dropped off the face of the earth). She knew was lonely and isolated, then she adjusted, made friends, and grew as a person . A big part of that growth was deciding, rightly or wrongly, that she couldn't depend on adults for guidance — after all, her dad wasn't keen to give her any advice, why should anyone else? Now the same adult that forced her into this situation is back and demanding that she submit to his guidance and absolute control. No discussion, no prior warning or explanation (how different would this scene be if he had said "I don't want you going into the Forest because it's dangerous"?) — just "I say it, so therefore that's what's happening." At Annie's age, even without her life experiences so far, she should at least have a say in these matters. Even if he chooses to ignore her, she should at least get a chance to speak.

As to why he has no qualifications to deal with Rey...according to everyone else, this is a man who despises (or at least fears) magic. Jones may have been trying to rile Annie up when she mentioned this, but Jones is also not a liar. You do not hand over care of your tarantula to someone with arachnophobia. You do not hand total control over a magical being to someone with a grudge against that particular magical being who already dislikes them for being what they are.

As I said before, I don't doubt there is more going on here than meets the eye. But the entire "Divine" chapter suggests that Anthony is dangerous to his daughter whether he intends to be or not, and I think Anthony's defenders are very quick to ignore that.

I can attest as a research assistant, wearing cosmetics is rarely an issue unless working with extremely sensitive experiments, nothing that would be done in high school biology (even at the Court) where the experiments aren't part of actual academic research. The long, free moving hair many of the girls have poses more of an danger. From what we can see, the class is working on textbook problems, no actual samples or chemicals. The only real concern would be applying cosmetics in the presence of hazardous chemicals which could contaminate the cosmetics and lead to injury.

Also, the girl in the upper right is clearly wearing lipstick, without comment from Anthony. Knowing Tom, this is undoubtedly deliberate.

So, no, a no-cosmetics policy is not necessary or enforced on anyone except Antimony.

Doesn't mean it isn't. Though I tend to agree on one point. This isn't a legitimate debate where two sides have a legitimate point. This is a case of Annie overreacting and the fandom jumping on Anthony's nuts for being mean to her and looking for any excuse to demonize him as a horrible abuser who is doing everything in his power to ruin Antimony's life.

All we know about Divine is that he was involved in some way. We don't know that he was the cause, we don't even know what he was doing. You speculate that he was the direct result of it. I speculate that we need to know more about this whole situation before jumping on his nuts and screaming OMG ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE! HAVE LINDSEY MURDER HIM! HAVE YSENGRIN MURDER HIM! KAT NEEDS TO TELL THE ROBOTS TO MURDER HIM! (these are not hypothetical examples, though I did add the all-caps)

Coded untraceable call doesn't strike me as a monumentally easy thing to do. He can't just think one day, "Gosh golly, I should make a coded untraceable call to Antimony, make sure she's not getting herself killed by that Ysengrin fellow. What a rascal he is." Could he have contacted her during his time away? Maybe. Is his failure to do so a sign of abuse? Not in any possible way.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Seems like you couldn't get by with just his actions in The Tree, so you moved the goalposts to all of his previous actions.

It's a boarding school. One that presumably doesn't take in students for shits and giggles. One has to assume that he continues to pay for her education and for her room and board. Sounds like support to me.

Re: Abuse victims recognizing abuse. I believe the term I'm thinking of here is apophenia. Seeing patterns wherever you look. They are predisopsed to assign abuse to the actions of others because they have experienced it firsthand and are familiar with it.

Ignores you or leaves you out of things: "Let's ignore the missing three years" —> immediately brings up the missing three years. XD

Ignoring is right out of the bag, because he clearly has been keeping some sort of tabs on her.

As to leaving her out of things...

Pushes you away or makes you feel like you don't belong in the family:

Again, boarding school. An education. Again, could he have contacted her? Maybe. Is his failure to do so a sign of abuse? No.

Has Annie stated at any point that she doesn't feel like his daughter because of his actions? Or are you assigning this belief to her? Or will you tell me that "as an abuse victim what she believes doesn't matter because OBVIOUSLY she's just covering for her abuser"? Because if the criteria is based on what the "victim" feels, then there's not much point in dictating that what she feels doesn't matter.

Stops you from having friends: To reiterate. She's being forced to live in a different dorm. To date not one single word out of Anthony's mouth has contained the capacity to form the phrase "Beeteedubs, you can't hang out with any of your friends anymore. *twirls Snidely K Whiplash mustache*". She has to live in a different building from her friends.

You know what happened the last time I was forced to live in a different building from all of my friends? I didn't have a mental breakdown. You know what I also didn't have? Grounds to accuse my parents of abuse.

Tries to control you or push you too hard: So Anthony is an abuser because...he wants Antimony to obey his orders that he, as an adult, a teacher and a parent, have made and which are, save one, completely right and logical?

Truly he is the greatest monster of our generation.

Still looking at one out of six.

I don't know where his qualifications for dealing with Rey came into the picture. Subject of discussion: Does he believe he is more responsible than Antimony? If yes, then based on what we know, his decision to take control of Rey is completely logical and valid and not a calculated attempt to ruin Antimony's life.

If you still feel the need to persist in this flagrant tract of Anthony the abuser, then I don't know what else to say. I give up on a lost cause.

Rather than continue this discussion, since we're clearly not going to come to agreement over how "right" and "logical" Anthony's actions are, I'm going to say good-please-do because there is a 3-to-1 vote of the trope applying.

Also, please recognize the difference between this discussion thread, where we figure out which tropes do and do not apply, and the GKC forums, which is where people go to rant/squee/gush/wail about the comic. Nobody in this thread has brought up Kat's robot army or the other ways fans are crying for his blood, so stop acting like we're being hysterical here.

I would wait until we have more then Pinocchio Syndrome, or at least some form of name.

You definitely have my vote if you want to install a bullet point system. the current write up looks elegant and nice but I for one find it hard to add on to.

I really think the categories should be streamlined. There's six right now, and it's a few too many since some categories are so small. I could easily see that organized down to three, Main Cast, Recurring Cast, and Minor Cast (though not necessarily named such).

Additionally, roles are shifting in Gunnerkrigg Court, so it's surprising to me that the Suicide Fairies have more than Parley and Andrew. The Fairies haven't reappeared since that last (hilarious) chapter; they really constitute minor characters. Meanwhile, Parley and Andrew just became part of Annie's Inner Circle with the recent chapter and are moving up in importance. I think a simpler category system would enable changes like this more easily.

I should think that those three are *far* too streamlined. I do think categories such as "The Founders of the Court" need their own folder, since, y'know, they're all dead, despite how few they are in number. Maybe the "Parents and Court Staff" can be merged with "Other Students" or something. But that's just me.

Another problem is that many of the descriptions have huge spoilers, and that's a bad thing.