The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
???
Anthony is a great father and this abuse stuff is totally overblown
please enjoy the response to this April fool's gift 5 pages from now after everyone moved on, citing some people who still don't get that he is the very living symbol of parental abuse
My evidence is that he was friends with a number of the adult cast and they knew him very well. Also that so far in GC there has yet to be an out and out black and white good guy/evil guy character. To make him not only evil but an asshole wouldn't fit into the overall composition of the story where most everyone is morally gray of varying shades.
Oh good, another round of, "Not only are you wrong about webcomics, but you're a bad person for reading something differently"
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Just because Antony is an abuser doesn't mean he is 100% evil. Look at the various cool celebrities we love who are abusers. They do all sorts of lovable stuff, but they are still abusers and thus terrible.
edit- I'm not saying these celebrities are 'problematic', problematic is when you have bad or iffy positions or ideas. Abusing people is not problematic, it is terrible and a refusal to acknowledge or change your abusive behaviour that makes you a terrible person.
Gvzbgul on
+2
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I'm not on the Carver being secretly a good guy boat myself, because I'm more of the "secretly tapping Antimony's life-force to try and resurrect Surma" bandwagon (especially with what we have seen recently with the growing students stuff).
That said, given what we saw during the flashback and during the phone call Kat's dad (the only person we know Anthony confides in) seems to think he is an alright guy and that he cares about Antimony. As Donald is generally shown to be a pretty rad dude, I'd take that as some degree of evidence that Anthony could be a reasonable guy in situations ~other~ than the current one (or at least possibly doing terrible as fuck things for what he thinks are good reasons but are actually terrible).
I think there is enough there to say his motivations are ambiguous, and could possibly be for good (again from his warped perspective). That doesn't give him a pass for being abusive, but the story to date has been specifically ambiguous (probably to spark this sort of mixed feeling in the audience, which reflects Annie's own feelings). Tom Siddel wants us to hate him right now, and we do. But like Ysingrin there is room to grow that in other directions with more information.
0
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I'm sure glad this was brought up again for ????? reason
I know people don't, for some reason, think this matters or whatnot. I think it's actually a pretty big thing, though, that when someone is betraying every single mark of an abuser, and people still say (even now!) "well he's being a jerk, but that's no call to accuse him of abuse"
I guess I see it as a kind of performance art of why people in abusive relationships have a really hard time getting away. Even when it's bleeding obvious, people still think "abuser" is too harsh of a word and we shouldn't use it because it's mean.
From what has been said the last few pages, I'd summarize the counter argument as:
"Anthony has a backstory that leaves the story open to what his intentions are. Those intentions might be pretty ok, or not, but regardless of those he's being a dick right now."
I don't think anyone has said he should get a pass for being abusive here or that what he is doing in the now is right in some way. Just that there is a possibility he might be misguided in his motivations rather than being just a flat, evil character. Which is a pretty fair interpretation and one that, given Siddel's writing, is probable.
Harping against a nonexistant pro-abuser stance is just kinda wonky, though. No one is lessening the seriousness of abusive behavior here.
Well, here's the thing. People who are abusive also do nice things and have nice motivations. They may donate time to soup kitchens, or be powerful activists for progressive communities. They can have genuine human relationships with other people, where they give of themselves to that person, and that friend has only every seen the warm, loving person. That doesn't mean they aren't still abusive. The "non-existant pro-abuser stance" is not actually non-existent at all. Because most if not all abusers have tons of people ready to defend them, from their family who "know" he can't be abusive because he's such a nice man, to complete strangers who "know" that it's not abuse unless he leaves a bruise. The general stance of "you have to REALLY, REALLY convince me this is abuse, because I won't believe it otherwise" is the default in our society today. And that's bad. That being the default is why people in abusive relationships believe the abuser when he or she says that everything bad that is happening is the victim's own fault.
In fact, "I am doing this for your own good" is a very common motivation for an abuser (or at least, a common motivation that abusers convince themselves of).
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
+9
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Mort fun time with the added "kill me" speech bubble makes me very sad though.
+1
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I'm sure glad this was brought up again for ????? reason
I know people don't, for some reason, think this matters or whatnot. I think it's actually a pretty big thing, though, that when someone is betraying every single mark of an abuser, and people still say (even now!) "well he's being a jerk, but that's no call to accuse him of abuse"
I guess I see it as a kind of performance art of why people in abusive relationships have a really hard time getting away. Even when it's bleeding obvious, people still think "abuser" is too harsh of a word and we shouldn't use it because it's mean.
Well you haven't actually convinced anyone that was doubting that in the first place
Which, to be fair, is an internet problem
But I don't really understand why you felt the need to bring it back up again.
Well I guess if you ignore the posts that are literally saying he's a good person, while focusing on how I'm posting wrong, that would explain it.
If there are any posts between now and page two where it was discussed for like 10 posts and then thoroughly dropped till now, then I genuinely do not see any.
Regardless, it wouldn't really address how this discussion will convince no one who doesn't already agrer and is the same exact points over and over and over again from both sides.
+4
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
Wait
Are you kidding about characters thinking he is rad?
Because I remember everyone freaking the fuck out when he made contact
Just because Antony is an abuser doesn't mean he is 100% evil. Look at the various cool celebrities we love who are abusers. They do all sorts of lovable stuff, but they are still abusers and thus terrible.
Characters are not people and I would never apply my thoughts on a real person the way I do characters. People are complex and can defy logic at any given moment. Characters are cogs in a plot and they will act however they need to within the bounds of said plot to further it. Once you know the general theme of a story, going by how it's been portrayed so far and the characters who have come before, it's possible to predict what a character will not be.
+3
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I'm sure glad this was brought up again for ????? reason
I know people don't, for some reason, think this matters or whatnot. I think it's actually a pretty big thing, though, that when someone is betraying every single mark of an abuser, and people still say (even now!) "well he's being a jerk, but that's no call to accuse him of abuse"
I guess I see it as a kind of performance art of why people in abusive relationships have a really hard time getting away. Even when it's bleeding obvious, people still think "abuser" is too harsh of a word and we shouldn't use it because it's mean.
From what has been said the last few pages, I'd summarize the counter argument as:
"Anthony has a backstory that leaves the story open to what his intentions are. Those intentions might be pretty ok, or not, but regardless of those he's being a dick right now."
I don't think anyone has said he should get a pass for being abusive here or that what he is doing in the now is right in some way. Just that there is a possibility he might be misguided in his motivations rather than being just a flat, evil character. Which is a pretty fair interpretation and one that, given Siddel's writing, is probable.
Harping against a nonexistant pro-abuser stance is just kinda wonky, though. No one is lessening the seriousness of abusive behavior here.
Well, here's the thing. People who are abusive also do nice things and have nice motivations. They may donate time to soup kitchens, or be powerful activists for progressive communities. They can have genuine human relationships with other people, where they give of themselves to that person, and that friend has only every seen the warm, loving person. That doesn't mean they aren't still abusive. The "non-existant pro-abuser stance" is not actually non-existent at all. Because most if not all abusers have tons of people ready to defend them, from their family who "know" he can't be abusive because he's such a nice man, to complete strangers who "know" that it's not abuse unless he leaves a bruise. The general stance of "you have to REALLY, REALLY convince me this is abuse, because I won't believe it otherwise" is the default in our society today. And that's bad. That being the default is why people in abusive relationships believe the abuser when he or she says that everything bad that is happening is the victim's own fault.
In fact, "I am doing this for your own good" is a very common motivation for an abuser (or at least, a common motivation that abusers convince themselves of).
Yeah, I know first hand the split personalities that abusive people have.
But this is a thread on webcomics and part of what people do when reading fiction is guess or discuss the motivations of characters (see: every possible discussion on every possible narrative). It is entirely possible to know and accept someone is a terrible as fuck abusive person and ~also~ have a cordial conversation about why he might be acting that way. They are not mutually exclusive.
It's entirely possible that Their Story isn't going to start a "You're gay!?" conversation and he's just just taken off-guard that she's suddenly in love with someone.
Either way I'm guessing we'll be skipping past that conversation, assuming there was one.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I'm sure glad this was brought up again for ????? reason
I know people don't, for some reason, think this matters or whatnot. I think it's actually a pretty big thing, though, that when someone is betraying every single mark of an abuser, and people still say (even now!) "well he's being a jerk, but that's no call to accuse him of abuse"
I guess I see it as a kind of performance art of why people in abusive relationships have a really hard time getting away. Even when it's bleeding obvious, people still think "abuser" is too harsh of a word and we shouldn't use it because it's mean.
From what has been said the last few pages, I'd summarize the counter argument as:
"Anthony has a backstory that leaves the story open to what his intentions are. Those intentions might be pretty ok, or not, but regardless of those he's being a dick right now."
I don't think anyone has said he should get a pass for being abusive here or that what he is doing in the now is right in some way. Just that there is a possibility he might be misguided in his motivations rather than being just a flat, evil character. Which is a pretty fair interpretation and one that, given Siddel's writing, is probable.
Harping against a nonexistant pro-abuser stance is just kinda wonky, though. No one is lessening the seriousness of abusive behavior here.
Well, here's the thing. People who are abusive also do nice things and have nice motivations. They may donate time to soup kitchens, or be powerful activists for progressive communities. They can have genuine human relationships with other people, where they give of themselves to that person, and that friend has only every seen the warm, loving person. That doesn't mean they aren't still abusive. The "non-existant pro-abuser stance" is not actually non-existent at all. Because most if not all abusers have tons of people ready to defend them, from their family who "know" he can't be abusive because he's such a nice man, to complete strangers who "know" that it's not abuse unless he leaves a bruise. The general stance of "you have to REALLY, REALLY convince me this is abuse, because I won't believe it otherwise" is the default in our society today. And that's bad. That being the default is why people in abusive relationships believe the abuser when he or she says that everything bad that is happening is the victim's own fault.
In fact, "I am doing this for your own good" is a very common motivation for an abuser (or at least, a common motivation that abusers convince themselves of).
Yeah, I know first hand the split personalities that abusive people have.
But this is a thread on webcomics and part of what people do when reading fiction is guess or discuss the motivations of characters (see: every possible discussion on every possible narrative). It is entirely possible to know and accept someone is a terrible as fuck abusive person and ~also~ have a cordial conversation about why he might be acting that way. They are not mutually exclusive.
The problem is the people doing the second part of this scentence are failing to do the first.
Ironically the conversations that annoy me the most are the ones about how we are having the same conversations
like, okay
nobody forces you to read anything here
just keep on scrollin' partner
you know what time it is etc
It wouldnt really bother me so much if it was a think naturally included into conversation instead of "hey I want to talk about this" out of nowhere.
I ain't no conversation police but I can sure as heck express my opinion about how it is a dumb discussion that is an active waste of time in a context where it does no good.
And so, opinion expressed, I'm going to take your advice and ignore the rest of it.
I'm actually going to lock @Bobkins Flymo in this thread by himself, like we did @crwth back in the day, only we're going to up the posts per page to 200 and he can only post new installments of Dresden Codak, Lackadaisy Cats, and Achewood. We can have the webcomics thread back when he reaches page 100, or when the sun burns out. Whichever comes first.
Ironically the conversations that annoy me the most are the ones about how we are having the same conversations
like, okay
nobody forces you to read anything here
just keep on scrollin' partner
you know what time it is etc
It wouldnt really bother me so much if it was a think naturally included into conversation instead of "hey I want to talk about this" out of nowhere.
I read the comic and came to this thread to post. Sorry my timing made you mad somehow?
I ain't no conversation police but I can sure as heck express my opinion about how it is a dumb discussion that is an active waste of time in a context where it does no good.
I think that noticing and naming the natural human desire to go: "well, I don't like to think of people as evil, and I think of abuse as evil, so I'm going to pretend this very obvious abuse is not abuse and is instead something else" actually does a lot of good!
And so, opinion expressed, I'm going to take your advice and ignore the rest of it.
Ok then!
Cambiata on
"excuse my French
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
+3
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
Suspect: Geebs
Victim: Bobkins
Cause of Death: Webcomics Thread
+1
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Look, sometimes it's just not enough to believe that you are right, you need to keep hammering away until absolutely everyone else acknowledges your rightness and admits their wrongness.
I just remembered another character who I think parallels the general thing behind Anthony pretty well. I'll put it in spoilers and it's about Harry Potter.
Snape. How long did it take for the readers to see who he truly was, his whole motivation and the missing pieces of his actions? The last book out of seven. What was our first impression of him based on his actions? He's an asshole. As the books go on we think he's an asshole still but still working for the side of good despite his methods and past. Then he kills Dumbledore and people are howling for his blood because he is clearly evil and his service to Dumbledore was just a ruse. Except it wasn't, as we found out in the final book when we finally got to see the entire story of who he was.
This I think parallels Anthony because people are stating he is something without knowing the entire context. We've seen him only a couple times, not nearly enough to know who he is. We may need to wait until GC is over before we see his true self, though I hope it doesn't come to that. If he showing classic traits of a parental abuser? Most certainly. The question that would define him though is why. This is also the reason I don't consider characters to be people, because the why doesn't matter and tends to be mundane for real people. For characters though? They can do horrible things as a ruse to draw attention away from, or purposely distance themselves, in the name of a greater good. They can be redeemed when we know their entire story and the motivations driving their actions. So I hesitate to label Anthony as evil, and still think he can be good, because I look at the abuse and I consider whether or not it might just be a ruse, which is yet another thing that can't be done for real people.
+1
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
Tony just isn't a trustworthy name. Somebody had to say it.
On Friday comes the page that will make or break Anthony "Tony "Tuuni "I love this little joke "Anthony "Speed Racer" Carver" but I bet you're tired of it" Caavo" Carver" Carver for me. If he shows affection to Annie in private and tries to make amends for lost time, then he's an alright dude.* If he does anything else, he's a morally bankrupt, irredeemably evil, something something something bastard.
*Because y'know, maybe he doesn't show affection in public? Maybe he's just a very private guy?
But, y'know, Friday will tell.
Children's rights are human rights.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
How about we never post Gunnerkrigg Court ever again.
I just remembered another character who I think parallels the general thing behind Anthony pretty well. I'll put it in spoilers and it's about Harry Potter.
Snape. How long did it take for the readers to see who he truly was, his whole motivation and the missing pieces of his actions? The last book out of seven. What was our first impression of him based on his actions? He's an asshole. As the books go on we think he's an asshole still but still working for the side of good despite his methods and past. Then he kills Dumbledore and people are howling for his blood because he is clearly evil and his service to Dumbledore was just a ruse. Except it wasn't, as we found out in the final book when we finally got to see the entire story of who he was.
This I think parallels Anthony because people are stating he is something without knowing the entire context. We've seen him only a couple times, not nearly enough to know who he is. We may need to wait until GC is over before we see his true self, though I hope it doesn't come to that. If he showing classic traits of a parental abuser? Most certainly. The question that would define him though is why. This is also the reason I don't consider characters to be people, because the why doesn't matter and tends to be mundane for real people. For characters though? They can do horrible things as a ruse to draw attention away from, or purposely distance themselves, in the name of a greater good. They can be redeemed when we know their entire story and the motivations driving their actions. So I hesitate to label Anthony as evil, and still think he can be good, because I look at the abuse and I consider whether or not it might just be a ruse, which is yet another thing that can't be done for real people.
Snape was a total bell-end
Who also happened to be a very brave man
He was sympathetic to a degree (dude had a shitty childhood, fell in with the wrong crowd, and was able to pull himself out of that), but he was still a bell-end. That's kind of the point, he's a nuanced and interesting character. We aren't supposed to like him though, at the end, we can admire him in a way but there's little likeable about him. That he did what he did doesn't excuse the other stuff he did, and that's true both ways.
Anthony Carver may be Severus Snape. He may, in fact, be admirable in the other things he has been doing (despite an utter lack of evidence that Anthony Carver should be admired for anything, or indeed has any sympathetic elements to his character history). He's still a total shit and a neglectful in the least (and abusive in the extreme) father.
I am interested to see where this goes.
Emotionally speaking, however, if James put him through a brick wall I wouldn't shed any tears.
On Friday comes the page that will make or break Anthony "Tony "Tuuni "I love this little joke "Anthony "Speed Racer" Carver" but I bet you're tired of it" Caavo" Carver" Carver for me. If he shows affection to Annie in private and tries to make amends for lost time, then he's an alright dude.* If he does anything else, he's a morally bankrupt, irredeemably evil, something something something bastard.
*Because y'know, maybe he doesn't show affection in public? Maybe he's just a very private guy?
But, y'know, Friday will tell.
How and why he shows affection will also be important. If he's showing affection for any personal reason other than 'he loves her' then it very likely doesn't count. Abusers show affection and try to make amends all the time, they just don't show it for the same reasons non-abusive people do it.
I just remembered another character who I think parallels the general thing behind Anthony pretty well. I'll put it in spoilers and it's about Harry Potter.
Snape. How long did it take for the readers to see who he truly was, his whole motivation and the missing pieces of his actions? The last book out of seven. What was our first impression of him based on his actions? He's an asshole. As the books go on we think he's an asshole still but still working for the side of good despite his methods and past. Then he kills Dumbledore and people are howling for his blood because he is clearly evil and his service to Dumbledore was just a ruse. Except it wasn't, as we found out in the final book when we finally got to see the entire story of who he was.
This I think parallels Anthony because people are stating he is something without knowingthe entire context. We've seen him only a couple times, not nearly enough to know who he is. We may need to wait until GC is over before we see his true self, though I hope it doesn't come to that. If he showing classic traits of a parental abuser? Most certainly. The question that would define him though is why. This is also the reason I don't consider characters to be people, because the why doesn't matter and tends to be mundane for real people. For characters though? They can do horrible things as a ruse to draw attention away from, or purposely distance themselves, in the name of a greater good. They can be redeemed when we know their entire story and the motivations driving their actions. So I hesitate to label Anthony as evil, and still think he can be good, because I look at the abuse and I consider whether or not it might just be a ruse, which is yet another thing that can't be done for real people.
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on Snape, so I guess that might give some insight into why I think Carver's intentions or secret motivations don't actually matter here. Spoilers for Harry Potter in that link, obviously.
Also DINO COMIX
turns out there's hole police too, don't try to escape the police by hiding in a hole because it's a waste of both time AND a perfectly good hole
Posts
Anthony is a great father and this abuse stuff is totally overblown
please enjoy the response to this April fool's gift 5 pages from now after everyone moved on, citing some people who still don't get that he is the very living symbol of parental abuse
because he is in fact a robot. this guy gets it.
Steadmans right there
edit- I'm not saying these celebrities are 'problematic', problematic is when you have bad or iffy positions or ideas. Abusing people is not problematic, it is terrible and a refusal to acknowledge or change your abusive behaviour that makes you a terrible person.
That said, given what we saw during the flashback and during the phone call Kat's dad (the only person we know Anthony confides in) seems to think he is an alright guy and that he cares about Antimony. As Donald is generally shown to be a pretty rad dude, I'd take that as some degree of evidence that Anthony could be a reasonable guy in situations ~other~ than the current one (or at least possibly doing terrible as fuck things for what he thinks are good reasons but are actually terrible).
I think there is enough there to say his motivations are ambiguous, and could possibly be for good (again from his warped perspective). That doesn't give him a pass for being abusive, but the story to date has been specifically ambiguous (probably to spark this sort of mixed feeling in the audience, which reflects Annie's own feelings). Tom Siddel wants us to hate him right now, and we do. But like Ysingrin there is room to grow that in other directions with more information.
this is why we have Webcomics Police
to make sure that bad people who read things differently are locked away forever and also treated poorly
Well, here's the thing. People who are abusive also do nice things and have nice motivations. They may donate time to soup kitchens, or be powerful activists for progressive communities. They can have genuine human relationships with other people, where they give of themselves to that person, and that friend has only every seen the warm, loving person. That doesn't mean they aren't still abusive. The "non-existant pro-abuser stance" is not actually non-existent at all. Because most if not all abusers have tons of people ready to defend them, from their family who "know" he can't be abusive because he's such a nice man, to complete strangers who "know" that it's not abuse unless he leaves a bruise. The general stance of "you have to REALLY, REALLY convince me this is abuse, because I won't believe it otherwise" is the default in our society today. And that's bad. That being the default is why people in abusive relationships believe the abuser when he or she says that everything bad that is happening is the victim's own fault.
In fact, "I am doing this for your own good" is a very common motivation for an abuser (or at least, a common motivation that abusers convince themselves of).
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Are you kidding about characters thinking he is rad?
Because I remember everyone freaking the fuck out when he made contact
Are you kidding about characters thinking he is rad?
Because I remember everyone freaking the fuck out when he made contact
If there are any posts between now and page two where it was discussed for like 10 posts and then thoroughly dropped till now, then I genuinely do not see any.
Regardless, it wouldn't really address how this discussion will convince no one who doesn't already agrer and is the same exact points over and over and over again from both sides.
Are you kidding about characters thinking he is rad?
Because I remember everyone freaking the fuck out when he made contact
Characters are not people and I would never apply my thoughts on a real person the way I do characters. People are complex and can defy logic at any given moment. Characters are cogs in a plot and they will act however they need to within the bounds of said plot to further it. Once you know the general theme of a story, going by how it's been portrayed so far and the characters who have come before, it's possible to predict what a character will not be.
Yeah, I know first hand the split personalities that abusive people have.
But this is a thread on webcomics and part of what people do when reading fiction is guess or discuss the motivations of characters (see: every possible discussion on every possible narrative). It is entirely possible to know and accept someone is a terrible as fuck abusive person and ~also~ have a cordial conversation about why he might be acting that way. They are not mutually exclusive.
Either way I'm guessing we'll be skipping past that conversation, assuming there was one.
The problem is the people doing the second part of this scentence are failing to do the first.
like, okay
nobody forces you to read anything here
just keep on scrollin' partner
you know what time it is etc
was the joke here that there's nothing different today and getting me to check homestuck was an april fool's trick?
This post is also part of that same cycle, making this...meta-irony?
Is...is that how it works?
Never even once.
Oh man you didn't notice what was going on? Better check it again
It wouldnt really bother me so much if it was a think naturally included into conversation instead of "hey I want to talk about this" out of nowhere.
I ain't no conversation police but I can sure as heck express my opinion about how it is a dumb discussion that is an active waste of time in a context where it does no good.
And so, opinion expressed, I'm going to take your advice and ignore the rest of it.
But it isn't a job any human should have to take on themselves ever again
I read the comic and came to this thread to post. Sorry my timing made you mad somehow?
I think that noticing and naming the natural human desire to go: "well, I don't like to think of people as evil, and I think of abuse as evil, so I'm going to pretend this very obvious abuse is not abuse and is instead something else" actually does a lot of good!
Ok then!
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Victim: Bobkins
Cause of Death: Webcomics Thread
This I think parallels Anthony because people are stating he is something without knowing the entire context. We've seen him only a couple times, not nearly enough to know who he is. We may need to wait until GC is over before we see his true self, though I hope it doesn't come to that. If he showing classic traits of a parental abuser? Most certainly. The question that would define him though is why. This is also the reason I don't consider characters to be people, because the why doesn't matter and tends to be mundane for real people. For characters though? They can do horrible things as a ruse to draw attention away from, or purposely distance themselves, in the name of a greater good. They can be redeemed when we know their entire story and the motivations driving their actions. So I hesitate to label Anthony as evil, and still think he can be good, because I look at the abuse and I consider whether or not it might just be a ruse, which is yet another thing that can't be done for real people.
*Because y'know, maybe he doesn't show affection in public? Maybe he's just a very private guy?
But, y'know, Friday will tell.
Who also happened to be a very brave man
He was sympathetic to a degree (dude had a shitty childhood, fell in with the wrong crowd, and was able to pull himself out of that), but he was still a bell-end. That's kind of the point, he's a nuanced and interesting character. We aren't supposed to like him though, at the end, we can admire him in a way but there's little likeable about him. That he did what he did doesn't excuse the other stuff he did, and that's true both ways.
Anthony Carver may be Severus Snape. He may, in fact, be admirable in the other things he has been doing (despite an utter lack of evidence that Anthony Carver should be admired for anything, or indeed has any sympathetic elements to his character history). He's still a total shit and a neglectful in the least (and abusive in the extreme) father.
I am interested to see where this goes.
Emotionally speaking, however, if James put him through a brick wall I wouldn't shed any tears.
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on Snape, so I guess that might give some insight into why I think Carver's intentions or secret motivations don't actually matter here. Spoilers for Harry Potter in that link, obviously.
Also DINO COMIX
turns out there's hole police too, don't try to escape the police by hiding in a hole because it's a waste of both time AND a perfectly good hole