Yeah, what about Rayland??? – On the other hand, in the sixth panel, you can’t really tell if it’s Room or Rayland who says “I’m definitely the brains.”! – Ok, going back and reading this little chapter: http://www.taleoffiction.com/chapter-20-opening/ , I’d say it’s either both talking, Room talking for both of them, or Rayland talking through Room – and for simplicity’s sake I take option two. 😉
“Principle of minimal Departure”, right; what I like most about your reading is that it basically assumes a strategic ambiguity based solely on the conventions of Comic vocabulary, i.e. that it would be much harder to achieve that same effect in film (due to the voice quality) or in a novel (due to the necessity of all-too-explicit ambiguity-markers like “…was added” or “…Harper heard”), which both would raise a much higher level of suspicion then the participiants could actually hold in that situation IF Rayland has this kind of power indeen. So we assume that the authors (possibly) play with a case of under-reporting, rather then mis-reporting: Having no reason to assume any kind of “unreliable narrator” (so far), we nevertheless can question wether the representation is NOT linked to the subjective perception of characters until marked otherwise. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Garrick Stanley Breckinridge Throckmorton the Third, Spiritual Lader, CAN somehow manipulate lesser minds, then we have no idea what that would (phenomenally or subjectively) “feel” like to, say, Harper – OR Room. Mirroring this on your three options, the meta-communicative function of the speech-bubble(-arrow) changes quite drastically:
1) “it’s either both talking”: The presentation is only subjectively valid, since another observer COULD actually hear both voices if he wasn’t controlled by Rayland. I’d rule that safely out, since there is no textual evidence so far.
3) “Rayland talking through Room” – The presentation is intersubjectively valid, but subjectively misleading, since room just doesn’t realize that he is being controlled by Rayland. This would make it a a tricky case of under-reporting. Since the authorial voice of Rayland in Ch.20 is established quite prominently, I’d say that option is not too far-stretched, if still unlikely.
2) “Room talking for both of them” – Now, this one is my favorite: The presentation is intersubjectively valid as well, Room just doesn’t know that he is “rightfully” talking for Rayland who is, in fact, the brain. This would make it kind of authorial irony, referencing to the reader’s advance in knowledge.
Still, I’d say we’d need more textual support by other scenes to claim that this ambiguity is, indeed, created intentionally…
Or maybe we are reading to much into it and just want Rayland mentioned, I don’t know…
I’d go with Lukas’ option 2) with a slight modification from option 3):
Room is talking for Rayland and himself, but since no thought bubbles are presented, we do not know whether they are communicating with each other, who is in control, or if there is maybe a partial influence by Rayland.
Notice the slight hint lending itself to the interpretation that Room considers himself one entity with Rayland: I am (singular) definitely the brains (plural). This common figure of speech conveniently masks the possibility that Room may as well be speaking of both their brains, united as one member of the team.
This is reinforced by the repetition of “brains”.
It is not too far-fetched to assume that the first single-word sentence “Brains.” might be Room speaking under Rayland’s (still moderate) suggestive influence (Rayland may only manage to or only need to induce single-word ideas in Room’s mind), while Room’s elaboration in the second sentence could consequently be read as Room making sense of the idea himself while asserting his position in front of the others. This again would reaffirm Rayland’s wiseness in his choice of a carrier.
Interpretive ambiguity preserved with a slight possibility of foreshadowing involved.
Hey, what about Rayland???
Yeah, what about Rayland??? – On the other hand, in the sixth panel, you can’t really tell if it’s Room or Rayland who says “I’m definitely the brains.”! – Ok, going back and reading this little chapter: http://www.taleoffiction.com/chapter-20-opening/ , I’d say it’s either both talking, Room talking for both of them, or Rayland talking through Room – and for simplicity’s sake I take option two. 😉
“Principle of minimal Departure”, right; what I like most about your reading is that it basically assumes a strategic ambiguity based solely on the conventions of Comic vocabulary, i.e. that it would be much harder to achieve that same effect in film (due to the voice quality) or in a novel (due to the necessity of all-too-explicit ambiguity-markers like “…was added” or “…Harper heard”), which both would raise a much higher level of suspicion then the participiants could actually hold in that situation IF Rayland has this kind of power indeen. So we assume that the authors (possibly) play with a case of under-reporting, rather then mis-reporting: Having no reason to assume any kind of “unreliable narrator” (so far), we nevertheless can question wether the representation is NOT linked to the subjective perception of characters until marked otherwise. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Garrick Stanley Breckinridge Throckmorton the Third, Spiritual Lader, CAN somehow manipulate lesser minds, then we have no idea what that would (phenomenally or subjectively) “feel” like to, say, Harper – OR Room. Mirroring this on your three options, the meta-communicative function of the speech-bubble(-arrow) changes quite drastically:
1) “it’s either both talking”: The presentation is only subjectively valid, since another observer COULD actually hear both voices if he wasn’t controlled by Rayland. I’d rule that safely out, since there is no textual evidence so far.
3) “Rayland talking through Room” – The presentation is intersubjectively valid, but subjectively misleading, since room just doesn’t realize that he is being controlled by Rayland. This would make it a a tricky case of under-reporting. Since the authorial voice of Rayland in Ch.20 is established quite prominently, I’d say that option is not too far-stretched, if still unlikely.
2) “Room talking for both of them” – Now, this one is my favorite: The presentation is intersubjectively valid as well, Room just doesn’t know that he is “rightfully” talking for Rayland who is, in fact, the brain. This would make it kind of authorial irony, referencing to the reader’s advance in knowledge.
Still, I’d say we’d need more textual support by other scenes to claim that this ambiguity is, indeed, created intentionally…
Or maybe we are reading to much into it and just want Rayland mentioned, I don’t know…
get a room, guys!
Hihi, you’ve said “Room”! 🙂
Well, seems like we have to wait and see… – but still! 😉
Harper’s face is just priceless!
I’d go with Lukas’ option 2) with a slight modification from option 3):
Room is talking for Rayland and himself, but since no thought bubbles are presented, we do not know whether they are communicating with each other, who is in control, or if there is maybe a partial influence by Rayland.
Notice the slight hint lending itself to the interpretation that Room considers himself one entity with Rayland: I am (singular) definitely the brains (plural). This common figure of speech conveniently masks the possibility that Room may as well be speaking of both their brains, united as one member of the team.
This is reinforced by the repetition of “brains”.
It is not too far-fetched to assume that the first single-word sentence “Brains.” might be Room speaking under Rayland’s (still moderate) suggestive influence (Rayland may only manage to or only need to induce single-word ideas in Room’s mind), while Room’s elaboration in the second sentence could consequently be read as Room making sense of the idea himself while asserting his position in front of the others. This again would reaffirm Rayland’s wiseness in his choice of a carrier.
Interpretive ambiguity preserved with a slight possibility of foreshadowing involved.
Should we comment on that somehow…?
I don’t think we should comment on that…