Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (6340.101)
    I'm completely with Sirkka -- "surviving" and "dealing" are only really options because you can't ordinarily make the bad things go away.
  2.  (6340.102)
    Only thinking about it again because of the page posted... I wonder if Warren decided to have the 'Angels come from Southend-on-Sea.


    No.
  3.  (6340.103)
    I liked this weeks a lot. Enough that I will buy this volume when it is complete. An ethical talking point discussed sat on the body of an unconscious prisoner. A nice irony. Arkady providing a defuse moment for a heated argument was also good.

    One of the things I love about Freak Angels is the post apocalyptic social grouping. It's, from what I read, an anarcho-commune style with these (supposedly) remorse ridden guardians. And what DOES one do with the guardians who misbehave?
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.104)
    And what DOES one do with the guardians who misbehave?


    I believe we're about to find out since that appears to be the main storyline of this volume. It was interesting to me that Kait felt the need to rule out Alice guarding a chained-up Luke. Forgetting Alice's desire to cut his throat, why would Kait believe that letting the non-powered human guard Luke would even be an option to the others?
    • CommentAuthorspade
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.105)
    i am also very leery of karl guarding, as we know his earlier stance on what he would do, if it came down to it.
    however this storyline arc? if thats an appropriate metaphor even, is interesting nonetheless.
    • CommentAuthorfrexels
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.106)
    So, is the Big Rule new? Someone stated it as "Stay out of their heads unless they've got a gun to your head." Sirkka deep-cleaning a person without their consent seems to be a pretty big violation, even if it was done for the right reasons.

    It also looks to me like she's got a pretty big God-complex along with Luke and Mark (and Kait and probably others). At least they've got a pretty damn good reason for having that complex in the first place. She said she made it so her physical experiences never happened. It might be for what Sirkka thought was a good reason, but she's still applying her morality to the girl against her will (unless she got consent then wiped her mind of that, but Jack seemed to indicate otherwise). There are aspects of rooting through someone's mind that are similar to the rape in the first place. NOT as traumatic and horrible, but your mind is a place no one else is allowed to go. Sirkka stuck her fingers all over it after making a decision she had no right to make for another person.

    I'm disgusted by three characters in as many episodes. But it's because they're complicated and intriguing, so that's good.
  4.  (6340.107)
    Srikka's goddess complex is benign and healing. Does that make it right or give any moral endorsement to her actions? Not in abstract, no. But sometimes you do what you think is right and to the devil with high minded idealism.

    Yeah, this episode has had my brain working overtime.
    • CommentAuthorfrexels
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.108)
    Healing, yes. It could do some harm in the long run, but it was healing. It sure as hell isn't benign. Sirkka apparently didn't take the time to talk what she was about to do with the others, and if she did, she ignored KK's input. Making a decision based on what you think is right without considering the higher ethics behind your decision flies on spur of the moment actions. She had time to think this over and consider the implications. Either she didn't, she did and decided that it might be a bad idea and did it anyway, or she thought it over and decided that it was the right thing to do. Judging by her repeat of the procedure (even if the circumstances are different), I'd say she went with the last one. And that makes me scared of Sirkka for the exact reason I'm afraid of Luke.
  5.  (6340.109)
    ah

    The Goddess complex is benign, the healing (and can we consider memory erasure healing, even if the memories removed are ones of trauma?) is slightly different.

    Luke's brand of ubermensch 'dominance' behavior is far grosser than the benign care administered by Srikka, but there is a similar disregard for mere mortals in both expressions of power. I'd be happier under her sway than under Lukes, but you are quite right in pointing out the power-play aspects being the same. Perhaps the scariest aspect of Srikkas behavior is that you would genuinely be happy. You'd never know if you'd wanted her comfort in the first place.
    • CommentAuthorfrexels
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.110)
    By benign, do you mean gentle or self-contained/non-harmful? I'd agree that she has a gentle demeanor while she's going about it, and she obviously thinks she's being nurturing. That doesn't change the fact that her actions stem from a very dangerous assumption (that she knows best, that she has the right to make a decision for someone else, etc.) The fact that she is willing and thinks that it is right and good for her to override other people's free will is pretty sinister. She and Luke both have the Ubermensch thing going on, Luke's just a little more forward about it or aware of it. If Sirkka thought that about herself, something tells me she wouldn't like it very much.

    But, yeah, I agree she's scary because she takes away your choice, and after she's done you're (probably, there might be an undo for the erasure) unable to even think about what you wanted.
  6.  (6340.111)
    It's a dominance issue at heart, isn't it? Luke's dominance takes the overt and repugnant route. Srikka takes an almost polar opposite with healing and harems. Both constitute an unacceptable violation, but Srikka does what she does out of a want to care and nurture rather than a desire to own and discard. Neither sit well with me, on an abstract level. But on a base human level I know who I would want to do the Push on me.
    • CommentAuthorGilgurth
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.112)
    Perhaps I'm the odd one here, or it's because I'm male, but if something that horrific happened to me and my choices were A) remember it and be damaged for the rest of my life or B) have someone remove all physical and mental traces, and take care of punishing the perp as well... I'm going with A.

    I've yet to meet the person who the experience was something they've gotten over or a force of change for good. Might have been nice if she gave her the choice, but we're talking about indefinites. Could she ask and then wipe the asking too? Does it get more dicey the more they have to erase? It's a line with them that's not been set, so it's bordering on mental masterbation with the same argument from the same two people over and over. There's a reason I mostly lurk :P
  7.  (6340.113)
    Hi people,
    First post on this forum, have been reading for a long time 'tho.
    Thoughts; Srikka, while helping the victim, may have been more concerned with protecting the freakangles, who'd want news of a rape by mind-fuck capable rapist getting around?.
    Arkady's the one to watch, she has history with Luke from the time his girlfriend threw him out. Not even mentioning Karl and his "we get things done" speech.
    Starting to feel bad for Luke now, things are stacked against him big time.
    Great story and art since the first episode. The more you learn the more you want to know.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrazrangel
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.114)
    @Gilgurth - The point is no one got a choice. Hypothesize about which you would choose if you want, but the second you start assuming your choice would be anyone else's you're reaching for the same criticism that Sirkka is getting.
  8.  (6340.115)
    Another thing that disturbs me about the 'cleansing' is that the rapist and the 'cleanser' (at least) would still have full knowledge of the event, whilst denying that knowledge to the victim. That, to me, feels very wrong. Even if the rapist was cleansed as well, it'd be monstrous to have psychic overlords just pressing the reset button on anyone who went astray/stepped out of line.

    The story is becoming rapidly more disturbing... keep it up!
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.116)
    > It's a dominance issue at heart, isn't it? Luke's dominance takes the overt and repugnant route. Srikka takes an almost polar opposite with healing and harems.

    No, no!

    Luke cares only about himself: and to the extent that he considers his victim's existence at all, he wants her unwilling service.

    Whereas Srikka is compassionate, and cares the about the victim's feelings (and, presumably, their desires): and *that* is the motive for *her* behaviour. In this case her action is self-serving too (because it also avoids spreading the knowledge of Freakangel's special powers), but in previous cases it was in order to help the suffering victims.

    You might want (I don't know why) to argue that the victims were entitled to their suffering and would want to keep it (which, I would doubt), but there's no way I see Srikka as dominating in the way that Luke is: rather, she's caring, loving, like 'maternal'.

    Note (and I've been exposed to theories of child development, via pre-school teachers), a mothers and/or care-giver like Srikka isn't necessarily "dominating" their charges: I'd say instead that the 'harem' (for example) is an environment which Srikka created and maintains, in which her 'children' are able to make their *own* decisions, based on *their* feelings, learn their own things: self-development.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.117)
    > ... If something that horrific happened to me and my choices were A) remember it and be damaged for the rest of my life or B) have someone remove all physical and mental traces, and take care of punishing the perp as well... I'm going with A.

    For example, "We need to remove your appendix: abdominal surgery. Would you like us to do that while you're concious? Or would you prefer General Anasthetic, so that you remember nothing?"

    The answer is so obvious, IMO, that surgeons don't even bother to offer you the choice.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.118)
    > Starting to feel bad for Luke now, things are stacked against him big time.

    Man, "now" is too late to *start* to feel bad for Luke! If he'd had friends, learned to socialize well, *before* he started his criminal trespasses ... that was the time to start feeling for him.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDotcommunist
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009 edited
     (6340.119)
    'You might want (I don't know why) to argue that the victims were entitled to their suffering and would want to keep it (which, I would doubt),'

    doubt all you like mate, it is not anyones choice but the victim's. That's the rub with ethics I'm afraid. You have to accept that people will live with things done to them or do things to themselves (I'm talking extreme BM types with the 'do to themselves')

    I just don't think it is acceptable to edit other peoples memories without consent, even if you are erasing trauma. How dare you? What gives you the right?

    Just because you can do it, that does not mean you should. In my honest opinion.

    As I say, both are forms of control that are abhorrent, but we have the female benign in Srikka and the male malign in Luke. Not to polarise it along gender lines! I don't think that's what Warren intended, just my observation :)
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2009
     (6340.120)
    > How dare you? What gives you the right?

    I don't, have the ability. But (if "appeal to authority" is an argument) I believe that people who *do* have that ability are inclined to use it, *and* that *with* society's consent and approval: that a medic will anaesthetise a burn victim for example, and (in an emergency) without stopping for consent.

    Furthermore: don't you find it kind of likely that, given Srikka's ability to read minds, she does have a bit of idea of what the victim wants? Although Srikka was speaking out loud and the victim wasn't, what we heard was presumably Srikka's half of a dialog, not just a monolog.

    I don't think that what Srikka's doing is "control" at all: it's healing. If she's controlling anything it's the injury, not the person.