Book 2 – Page 71

[Chance Gardener]

I can't decide what's worse. That you just made that reference, or that I didn't think of making it first.

ah, the schroedinger forum effect

[Housellama]

On a more serious note...

I'm not sure I'm convinced Parson's totally with Marie at this point. I think he may have just caught a glimpse of what exactly she's all about - "That helps a lot, actually. Thanks, Marie." is open to interpretation, IMHO.

Yeah, this is my big question mark on this comic too.

What did Parson mean by that? There are a few different ways we could take that, and they lead us in different directions. I'll be interested to see what comes of it

[Chit Rule Railroad]

Gobbler's Knob, predictamancers, Gobwin Knob - some major Signamancy has been playing out in front of us for a long time with apparently no one noticing!

[sleepymancer]

There are a thousand representations of Cassandra...

I don't believe you.

Just to drag up an old (five days ago, now!) comment but, I think 1000 representations is far too low. The uk version of Amazon brings up 28276 different items for the search-term "Iliad", and that doesn't include the manuscript tradition itself. Many of those will be cut-down variants and allusions without Cassandra in (no, I didn't go through them all), nor does it include the vast swathe of pop-cultural references, oral history and storytelling representations (which, while ephemeral are nevertheless representations). Of course, you can take the argument that all of those count as just variants of one 'real' text of the Iliad, but that argument is a conceptual crap golem that I won't stack with, as the so-called best-text is just a reification of the real human variety

So, for actual numbers of representation produced in a few thousand years, I think you need to add several more zeroes to that number Drachefly.

Oh, yeah. there's an amazing comic to talk about too, isn't there. Someone on the facebook page commented that ?he wished it would cut to the chase, but this so is the chase. Is Marie trying to war so had that fate gets broken too?

As always, loving it, but its another dense one. Still sort of wish that this page and the previous had been spread over three pages instead.

[effataigus]

I'm not clear on why people don't see Parson's motivation here. I can understand why people wouldn't agree with either it or the decision he's made based on it, but survivor's guilt alone covers the motivation.

Survivor's guilt only accounts for Parsons decisions rather than the other two factions, and even then it does so inadequately. Guilt would make you risk your own life to lessen the risk to your troops life. Here he is risking his own life and apparently increasing the risk to Sizemore, his troops in JS, and the residents of the magic kingdom.

Emotional decisions aren't always rational, but I think Parson is too moral and too smart to fail to see the moral implications of his actions.

A random explanation that I think boarders on plausibility is that Parson has collected enough evidence to divine Charlie's involvement, and suspects that Charlie might start messing with JS and Wanda further on Chalrescomm's turn. If Parson has also guessed that Charlie can eavesdrop on thinkagrams, then coordinating a defence using Maggie from GK isn't much of an option. If I were Parson, I would have told Maggie that before hopping through the portal though, so I still don't buy it.

[justamessenger]

I am surprised nobody has thrown Edgar Cayce into the ring as a contender for the gentleman in the suit. He was another prominent 'predictomancer.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce

Sure, he didn't wear glasses when he was younger, but he certainly did later on in life...

At any rate, I do love the various and sundry references. Punxatawny Phil (yes there *is* an 'n' in there) got my mind to thinking... Is it possible that he is a familiar for the caster holding him? Or might he be the first time we have seen a non-human caster-type?

[Suzdal]

Personally, I think Punxsutawney Phil would more likely be a carnymancer than a predictomancer.

[splintermute]

Personally, I think Punxsutawney Phil would more likely be a carnymancer than a predictomancer.

I think there's no such thing as Predictamancy - they're all just Carnymancers with delusions of grandeur.

[Swodaems]

Personally, I think Punxsutawney Phil would more likely be a carnymancer than a predictomancer.

Phil is a washed up has been who isn't even right half the time.

General Beauregard Lee is the marmot you want predicting your weather.

My guess is Phil and his handler are two seperate casters. The groundhog is the predictamancer. The man carrying him is a carnymancer, just like the handlers of the real Phil.

[asparagus]

Findmancers? What findmancers? They're never mentioned here.

These findamancers:

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F005.jpg

Maybe people should not be allowed to post about book 2 until they have passed an exam on book 1.

[Chance Gardener]

I was told there wasn't going to be a test...

[Oberon]

Should have had Bill Murray holding Puxatawney Phil.

Sure, except that Bill Murray was simply reporting on Puxatawney Phil, he wasn't the mayor who was relaying the prediction.

I'm less curious about the references and more about the implications of these Predictamancers coming to Marie's aid. Are they also aware of whatever she prophesied about Parson and willing to defend him based on that, or is it just that they're coming to the aid of a fellow Predictamancer in need?

How could they not be?

Can the Thinkamancers not enter the tunnel for some reason? Why haven't they decided that they will obviously need to resort to force?

Because they aren't predictamancers?

I am not excited about this storyline development. A bunch of characters with no development just stepped into the story very late into the game and want to influence the plot in a major way.

Patience, grasshopper! Many stories introduce new characters. These have not yet influenced it in any significant way any more than the new raft of thinkamancers has. All this page did was to draw a dividing line between predictamancers and thinkamancers, no more and no less. And there is still a awful lot of leeway there, as both schools of magic have as goals different agendas which are not necessarily in conflict with each other.

I'm not sure I'm convinced Parson's totally with Marie at this point. I think he may have just caught a glimpse of what exactly she's all about - "That helps a lot, actually. Thanks, Marie." is open to interpretation, IMHO.

Panel 3 "[...] only the stot" Panel 12 "Only the stot." We have a winner here, and it isn't Parson's disbelief.

[oslecamo2_temp]

Findmancers? What findmancers? They're never mentioned here.

These findamancers:

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F005.jpg

Maybe people should not be allowed to post about book 2 until they have passed an exam on book 1.

You're right. Only somebody who just skimmed the first 5 pages would think Wanda is telling the 100% of the truth there.

However if you bother to actualy reading book 1 and then book 2 one finds out that Wanda has little problem lying to her own rulers to advance her own agenda, and that the summon perfect warlord spell didn't actualy have any findmancers involved.

[MuthSera]

...................................................
I just.. noticed it..
But... doesn't it feel like less story is being told... and more time is being spent on bizarre cameos?

I remember that 'one time' back when ansom was 'in the pincers'.. the whole deal. It felt like a story was occurring there.

Something feels like it's lost. :c

[Dryhad]

You're right. Only somebody who just skimmed the first 5 pages would think Wanda is telling the 100% of the truth there.

However if you bother to actualy reading book 1 and then book 2 one finds out that Wanda has little problem lying to her own rulers to advance her own agenda, and that the summon perfect warlord spell didn't actualy have any findmancers involved.

So it's not true because Wanda said it? No, you've just decided arbitrarily there were no findamancers involved and now that it's been pointed out that they were actually mentioned you for some reason think it makes more sense to retcon this away than just concede quite a minor point.

[drachefly]

Especially since there was no reason at all for her to lie. Would Stanley have a problem if it was made by lookamancers? Umm, no.

[Saela]

I've always assumed it was just a typo, honestly, and I was a little surprised that the first act of Retconjuration didn't change what Wanda said in page 5.

The exact casters who made the spell have been unclear since book one, compare:


http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F005.jpg
(Wanda states the spell is from Findamancers and Predictamancers)

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F036.jpg
(Wanda describes the spell as being a Findamancy/Lookamancy thing)

Like I said, I've always just thought it was an early typo, but if one really wanted to find an in-story explanation... Remember at this time GK actually had a Lookamancer. It's possible Stanley might have suggested saving the 500,000 shmucker fee by suggesting that Wanda, Maggie and Misty link up on the next turn and try to cast the spell themselves, without scrolls, citing Wanda's ability to use Findamancy as a justification. She might have lied just to save herself from being linked, to keep Jack linked, or because she believed it simply wouldn't work.

Alternatively: the spell was made by a link with a Lookamancer who was skilled in casting Findamancy also, and thus functioned as a pseudo 4 person link.

[The.Healing.Mage]

The three chicks in panel eight, I believe, are the Weird Sisters. Specifically I recognized them from the Gargoyles show.

They most definitely are

I was going to suggest that those Predictomancers were an oblique reference to the (psychic and prescient) Advent from Sins of a Solar Empire. Now I think that the Advent are a reference to Gargoyles. Small world... (or, in this case, worlds. Especially after orbital bombardment. )

[Zeku]

Thinkamancers are never specifically named in the two panels that were quoted: 5 and 36. So I'm wondering whether thinkamancers were involved in the creation of the spell at all, or whether they just became aware of it through their lookamancy buddies.

To be fair, Wanda's description in panel 36 was vague, and the dialogue intentionally dismissive and girly.

[splintermute]

Thinkamancers are never specifically named in the two panels that were quoted: 5 and 36. So I'm wondering whether thinkamancers were involved in the creation of the spell at all, or whether they just became aware of it through their lookamancy buddies.

I think everyone assumes a spell of that magnitude had to be made by a trimancer, in which case the involvement a thinkamancer is implied