Book 2 – Page 89

[bladestorm]

Maybe you're right about what would be objectively best for the side, but personally the scene feels more "real" to me the way he reacted, and it makes me appreciate the character more. Way more than if he had just reacted like a Vulcan or a robot.

Or a decrypted. Both Ansom and Ossomer went very tactical shortly after they were decrypted, puzzled as to why their mistress would not follow the logical path of conquest.

[Beeskee]

Woah. Okay, no more teddy bears and rainbows, huh Charlie?

Damn, he is creepy.

[M.A.D]

So, Charlie is making a pawn and a fool (King for a Day) out of Double Stately. Am I right to think that regardless of whether it would succeed, it would end badly for Jetstone?

[Beeskee]

I get the distinct impression that Charlie is using Jetstone, yes. Other than their use in accomplishing his own goals, he doesn't seem to care about them one way or another.

[Jorgath]

So, Charlie is making a pawn and a fool (King for a Day) out of Double Stately. Am I right to think that regardless of whether it would succeed, it would end badly for Jetstone?

It's a cardinal rule of Erfworld since Parson was summoned: It always ends badly for Jetstone.

[zbeeblebrox]

Further, Charlie may have drawn all of those visuals from Parson's mind during that discussion. The Joker image is classic Joker (Killing Joke version, I think, NOT Heath Ledger's imperfect variant. Parson left Erfworld prior to Heath's version being released.

It's absolutely Heath Ledger's version. There's never been a comic version of the Joker depicting him with scars by his mouth. That was unique to The Dark Knight. But it should be noted that the line he's quoting is from Tim Burton's '89 Batman film, not TDK. That's also the puzzle link between The Joker and "Beetlejuice" (who's name is spelled "Betelgeuse" in the film). Betelgeuse is the name of a star, which links him to Khan. Khan is a tyrant who was trapped in suspended animation, which links him to General Zod who was a tyrant trapped in suspended animation. General Zod connects to Agent Smith...for a few possible reasons but it's not entirely clear (Neo is like superman? Superman 2 and the Matrix were both filmed by two directors?). Agent Smith connects to Dr. Gero because they're both robots/cybernetic/whatever. Dr. Gero connects with Dr. Doom because "Dr". Doom connects with Palpatine because they're both disfigured rulers who wear hoods.

[bladestorm]

I get the distinct impression that Charlie is using Jetstone, yes. Other than their use in accomplishing his own goals, he doesn't seem to care about them one way or another.

That's Charlie's MO. Maintain 'neutrality', play other sides against each other, and make a profit from both sides of the conflict.

Feed Jetstone some lies about Parson being a threat to Royalty, and that could call in the entire RCC II to defeat Parson, with Charlie making a mice tidy sum for the services he could provide. Charlie doesn't actually attack Parson, but Parson gets attacked. Instead of using Archons to kill off gobwins, send a huge chunk of money to the neabry Marbits, who have to spend that money to either pop provision, pop new units, or promote units... then let them dispose of the gobwins. Charlie keeps his hands clean while letting others do his dirty work. He's just setting up to have a lot of pawns to do his work for him -- Marbits, Faq, Jetstone, Hagar, TV, RCC II (and anyone else holding into Royalty), a handful of casters in the MK, etc.

[bladestorm]

Further, Charlie may have drawn all of those visuals from Parson's mind during that discussion. The Joker image is classic Joker (Killing Joke version, I think, NOT Heath Ledger's imperfect variant. Parson left Erfworld prior to Heath's version being released.

It's absolutely Heath Ledger's version. There's never been a comic version of the Joker depicting him with scars by his mouth. That was unique to The Dark Knight. But it should be noted that the line he's quoting is from Tim Burton's '89 Batman film, not TDK. That's also the puzzle link between The Joker and "Beetlejuice" (who's name is spelled "Betelgeuse" in the film). Betelgeuse is the name of a star, which links him to Khan. Khan is a tyrant who was trapped in suspended animation, which links him to General Zod who was a tyrant trapped in suspended animation. General Zod connects to Agent Smith...for a few possible reasons but it's not entirely clear (Neo is like superman? Superman 2 and the Matrix were both filmed by two directors?). Agent Smith connects to Dr. Gero because they're both robots/cybernetic/whatever. Dr. Gero connects with Dr. Doom because "Dr". Doom connects with Palpatine because they're both disfigured rulers who wear hoods.

Burton also directed Beetlejuice, just a year before Batman with Keaton (who played Beetlejuice), where the main opponent was the Joker.

[VoidLord]

My 2 cents.

1. Carnymancy. It can rig the rules. We know it can be used to stop an wounded unit from dieing at the end of turn. Could it be used to stop Double-Slately from Vanishing?

2. I think charlie is not just going after parson because hes a threat to his mercanery organization. My theory is that charlie is running some sort of massive masterplan for all of erfworld (which the thinkamancers might know of some (or at least suspect something)) While im not sure what that exactly is, charlie can not afford to have someone threaten the status quo (aka kingdoms fighting wars everywhere). Parson is not just a threat to that by helping gobwin knob win wars, Chrlie might think he is a threat to the status quo of erfworld itself (not even just the constant wars, possibly due to his outsiderness he might be a threat to the very rule/wargame structure of the world(the casters (thinkmancers predictamencers and janis) apparently think something along these lines ("break the world itself")) and whatever charlies masterplan is he cant have the world altered if it is to come to pass.

[oslecamo2_temp]

He's still the chief warlord. He above everybody else is suposed to keep calm, focused and start asking "what do we have left, and how do we live to fight another day?"

Part of good writing is to convey a very real "human" element to a character, and IMO people do the story a disservice (as well as decrease their own enjoyment, probably) to try to make a character either react the way they think they ought to react, or to view the character from a too-detached, objective place.

Maybe you're right about what would be objectively best for the side, but personally the scene feels more "real" to me the way he reacted, and it makes me appreciate the character more. Way more than if he had just reacted like a Vulcan or a robot.

Allow me to point you to this page, 3rd panel, where we see a real warlord in action.

Crap falling from the sky, one arm melted, yet that warlord stands firm and decided.

Trems meanwhile is all "Pfft, what do I care about their lives, I'll just ask for an inedmization later. Distant money over well-trained troops any day baby!"

So disciplined non-decrypted warlords do exist, and thus Trems still has no valid excuse for going all whiny, proving he's simply a fool that only reached his place because he happens to be a prince and all his brothers got killed. So I don't complain he reacting like the fool he is, I simply complain that he's a fool that's been dragging his side to ruin ever since he became a CW.

[effataigus]

I always felt it was somewhat perverse the fact you can promote pawns into queens.

So you can make your own harem? And were they all women to begin with?

I dunno. I'd rather be made a queen than a castle. Can't help but think of the Great Wall of China...

Sweet update!

[Joe22c.]

Didn't The Joker show up as one of the background -mancers in the Magic Kingdom, or am I misremembering?

It's possible. Rob isn't above using a reference twice in different ways (Case and point, Jack is a constant reference to the Joker)...

Jack is not a reference to the Joker. Well he could be, but I'm 95% sure he was intended to be a reference to, 'the Fool' in Shakespeare's, "King Lear"

See book 1.

[Varidan]

I logged in just to say that, while the joker is much darker and sinister, that last panel would have been perfect if it featured Smeagol saying "We kill the fat one." At least, more on the humerous side. But i guess it wouldnt have fit the mood of this page very well.

[bladestorm]

Didn't The Joker show up as one of the background -mancers in the Magic Kingdom, or am I misremembering?

It's possible. Rob isn't above using a reference twice in different ways (Case and point, Jack is a constant reference to the Joker)...

Jack is not a reference to the Joker. Well he could be, but I'm 95% sure he was intended to be a reference to, 'the Fool' in Shakespeare's, "King Lear"

See book 1.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6igk ... o3_400.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_be6UWCLP7bU/S ... signed.jpg

The 'nuncle' part definitely comes from Lear. Characters aren't tied to a single reference.

[fehler]

Noticed that the detail on the "Thinking Cap" has faded. Coincidence, or missed art detail?

[Magothys]

Rob, I would consider rewording panel 10:

"...I didn't find it compelling..."

Is a direct contradiction to Slately's earlier statement on page 43:

"He has made a compelling case."

Trems meanwhile is all "Pfft, what do I care about their lives, I'll just ask for an inedmization later. Distant money over well-trained troops any day baby!"

I don't see how you would reach that conclusion from Trem's actions. He ordered an evacuation of the atrium when the bombing began. He is convinced that Jetstone will not survive against GK without some form of diplomacy; he needed the GK units in the airspace to survive as a bargaining chip.

[CF_HoneyBadger]

That's Charlie's MO. Maintain 'neutrality', play other sides against each other, and make a profit from both sides of the conflict.

I agree with bladestorm here, its been stated that Charlie's main goal ins money, money, money. We *just* learned that Parson's goal was to overcome Charlie, albeit everyone and their mother knew about it before Parson did.

I assume that Charlie found out through one of his normal underhanded channels about Parson's "mission" earlier on and has been pulling strings to try and preserve himself / get rid of Parson (in any particular order).

[Ilari]

I thought Charlie's form in panel 8 was supposed to be Revolver Ocelot, but I guess his clothing is a better match for this Dr. Gero guy.

[bladestorm]

Rob, I would consider rewording panel 10:

"...I didn't find it compelling..."

Is a direct contradiction to Slately's earlier statement on page 43:

"He has made a compelling case."

I took that as Parson had made a compelling case of being a transcendent tactical genius.... and that was before Slately waded into battle and mopped up the Archons, then found out he was a duplicate, then started the process of grieving the loss of himself. He's solidly in the bargaining stage of grieving. Through the course of events since then Slately/Clonely is a direct contradiction of how he was back then. Embittered, spiteful ruler who had his opponent by the balls, to now realizing that he will not see more than one sunset again. Everything about him has changed at this point. I also would not be surprised to learn that Charlie had at least something to do with the current submissiveness of the king.

[sheepfly]

Rob, I would consider rewording panel 10:

"...I didn't find it compelling..."

Is a direct contradiction to Slately's earlier statement on page 43:

"He has made a compelling case."

I took that as Parson had made a compelling case of being a transcendent tactical genius.... and that was before Slately waded into battle and mopped up the Archons, then found out he was a duplicate, then started the process of grieving the loss of himself. He's solidly in the bargaining stage of grieving. Through the course of events since then Slately/Clonely is a direct contradiction of how he was back then. Embittered, spiteful ruler who had his opponent by the balls, to now realizing that he will not see more than one sunset again. Everything about him has changed at this point.

Agreed. So much has changed since that first discussion of the dossier, particularly Slately's perspective. He could be lying, mistaken, misremembering, or he could have simply changed his mind. The original Slately was certainly no great judge of character or tactical genius himself. We can't presume that the word choice (and the contradiction) was not what the author intended.

I also would not be surprised to learn that Charlie had at least something to do with the current submissiveness of the king.

Yes! The pliability of people receiving thinkagrams from Charlie has come up before, has it not? In book 1, Maggie said she would try to protect Parson's mind.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F088.jpg

And Duncan Scone was forced to speculate earlier in Book 2 that Charlie had attempted to plant a suggestion in Jillian's mind via thinkagram.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/ ... -09-30.png

The visual transformations of Tramennis and Slately during thinkagrams with Charlie might not be merely nifty art; they might indicate real and pervasive manipulations of their minds to suit Charlie's will.