Talk:Annis

Annis' personality seems to be clear and easy to figure on the first sight. However, things are not always so simple or what they seem. While she was an interesting character and certainly had/has a lot of qualities, there is no doubt that her forgiveness came much too quickly because nobody who grieves the loss of a loved one suddenly treats the killer like a friend. Wether it was lack of detailed and well thought-through description on the writer's side or part of her character, what she did was actually quite incomprehensible. Forgiving is one thing but glorifying the one who killed the husband was taken a bit too far. There are people who can quickly forget aboout what happened before and change their opinion into quite the opposite all of a sudden, but often it is a very unusual character trait and normally doesn't happen when a loved one is being killed.

As for her comparing Morgana to Uther, it is still open to debate how much they have in common, but fact is that the characters have "their own" opinions which doesn't necessarily have to match the truth. Remember when Kilgharrah told Merlin that there is nothing that could cause Uther remorse because his heart is as cold as stone. The viewers knew otherwise and so did Merlin and Gaius when "poisoning" Arthur to make Uther cry. It's a ll a question of perspective and a lot of opinions of the characters differ from one another. So we have to state out in the articles and personality descriptions that what the characters think is only their opinion and point of view and not necessarily the one and only truth. That is why I added to Annis' personality that she believed there were similarities between Morgana and Uther and not that she realised that they are similar or alike - because realising something would mean to see the truth and the truth is still to be found and not so clear on this subject. Fimber (talk) 10:20, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Though I agree to a point that Annis forgave Arthur quickly (we can't truly say how much time has passed in this episode) this is our opinion and as such is more suitable for, say the talk page, not the wiki entry. I wouldn't say she glorified Arthur, either. More that she realized that he was not what she thought he was. She believed him to be a dishonorable coward, yet he proved to her that he was an honorable, merciful ruler, though young and inexperienced. Thus she has hope for the future, as Arthur gains the experience to temper his reactions. *But* that is my opinion, which is why I didn't include it in the entry.

You have to remember too, that even though she was angry at Arthur's actions, Caerleon *was* part of an invading force, and thus, subject to the consequences of his actions. Consider, Caerleon is a more barbaric society than Camelot- the kind of society that would tell their warriors "come back with your shield or on it" Annis seemed quite stoic and prepared when her soldiers bore her husband's body to her. Her anger was only stoked when she realized *how* he died, not that he had actually died.

Had her husband been killed in combat, Annis likely would not have retaliated, considering her husband's attack on Camelot's sovereignty.

We don't really know what Annis meant when she compared Morgana to Uther, that's true. What was there previously was very complex and repetitive, I just boiled it down to the bare bones to make it easier to understand. Merganafan23 (talk) 12:55, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Hi Merganafan,

I have to disagree that it is only our opinion. It's quite a fact that she forgave Arthur much too quickly and that it's not normal behaviour when your husband was murdered in cold blood. So this seems to be part of her character and personality, she quickly changes her opinion and forgets about previous emotions. I'd like to leave this in her description for it was the most outstanding character trait of hers. It's not unusual to forgive someone depending the circumstances but it is not normal to completely forget about everything and to forgive that quickly. Given that the writers might have had a thought on this and that maybe this trait comes up in further appearances, it would be good to leave it in her character description.

If we talked about why she forgave him so quickly it would only be an exchange of opinions. But that's not the case, it was shown clearly in the epsiode. If you compare this to Uther and Morgana who can't let go of the past and cling to their hatred, this was a very strong contrast, yet a very unrealistic one. But as I said, it might be important for further things regarding this character. She returns in season five and maybe she will change her opinion about some things again and being described as someone who jumps from one extreme to another. Going to war first out of grief and then suddenly stopping it and telling the murderer that he gives hope is indeed jumping from one extreme to another. She turned to the complete opposite in no time.

Same with her glorifying Arthur. She said that he would give all of them hope, and that is what it is - glorifying him. If someone told you you would give hope to your entire land, you would know that this particular person is glorifying you because not even common leaders (politicians) get to hear this in reality. We should not forget that Arthur was the one who killed Caerleon in cold blood, and no matter what we as viewers think of his actions, wether we agree or disagree with them, Annis lost her husband to a king who didn't have to murder him but did it anyway. It wasn't several years that have passed but only a few days, and telling the murderer of your husband that he is giving them all hope is not only unnatural but indeed glorifying him.

So I would like to ask you to leave this fact in the description. It's not a question of interpretation, it is what happened. The discussion about the reasons is interpretation but not what we saw in this epsiode.Fimber (talk) 13:55, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

It is fact to say that she forgave him quickly, but it is opinion to say that she forgave him *too* quickly or unnaturally fast. Whether her character changes her mind rapidly or not is also subject to personal interpretation. I know a woman who was widowed recently. She loved her husband, and his death was unexpected, but she said life goes on and was posting a profile on a single's website within a month of his passing. I know another woman who was widowed twelve years ago. Though she has remarried and is happy, she still grieves for and remembers her first husband. I know of another man who lost his wife and four children to a teenaged drunk driver, and while the boy was in prison, the man reached out to him and they now consider one another good friends. Everyone grieves in their own time and way. There is no natural grief pattern. Stages yes, but even psychologists will tell you that everyone processes those stages differently.

This isn't a knee-jerk turn around within days though, she has had time to move past her anger, if nothing else. She had time to receive her husband's body home, then declare war and muster her armies to move them into Camelot's borders. Therefore, she's had at least a week, if not two, to process this.

Then she's had her swift gut-reaction countered by a brave and noble gesture from the very man she's believed to be a weak coward. It's like swearing in front of a three-year-old and having that three year old tell you it's not nice to swear. It takes you aback whether or not you believe you have every right to swear.

Also, consider her motivations for attacking Camelot are seeded in a knee-jerk reaction to her grief. And she was already prepared for the possibility of her husband being killed in battle; he was invading a neighboring country, breaking a previous peace agreement in an attempt to gain territory that was rightfully Camelot's. Such preparation can greatly temper grief. Not eliminate it, but certainly reduce it.

It was more the manner in which Caerleon died, by execution rather than through battle, that incited Annis' wrath. She didn't swear vengeance until she had seen Caerleon's corpse and realized he hadn't died in battle- messengers would have relayed the news of the king's death long before his body arrived.

One could also argue that Arthur's actions fit the Caerleon's crimes, considering Caerleon was an aggressive invader. We all seem to forget that Caerleon was the instigator; had he been a mere bandit, rather than a king, his excecution would have been seen as just and done without a second thought.

Arthur wasn't necessarily the cold-blooded killer that Annis would like to think, and I believe she realizes that in the end. Had Caerleon been seeking peaceful passage through Camelot when Arthur executed him, then sure, I'd say he was more worthy of the 'cold-blooded killer' moniker. Yes, letting him go would have been more merciful, but as Agravain certainly showed, it's all subject to opinion and interpretation.

Telling Arthur he'd given Annis "hope for us all" is not particularly glorifying to me. While glorify can mean 'to give high praise,' there are connotations of worship or exaggeration attached to the word. Glorifying to me would have been Annis climbing to the cliff top and shouting his praises in front of her army. She's merely altered her formerly poor opinion and privately said as much.Merganafan23 (talk) 15:28, August 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Long story short, we shouldn't put our opinions into the wiki entry, whether they are valid or not. Lots of people who haven't seen the episodes use these pages to develop characterization, and it affects the perception of the reader had they never seen this episode, when they may interpret things differently were they to watch it.Merganafan23 (talk) 15:33, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

_______________________________

"Long story short, we shouldn't put our opinions into the wiki entry, whether they are valid or not. Lots of people who haven't seen the episodes use these pages to develop characterization, and it affects the perception of the reader had they never seen this episode, when they may interpret things differently were they to watch it.Merganafan23 (talk) 15:33, August 9, 2012

________________________________

No offence but that is actually what you do. In your opinion and due to your personal experience with the women you mentioned, you don't believe that it was unusally quick. But I wasn't talking about grief but about Annis turning from rage and going to war to suddenly calling Arthur the one who gives everyone hope and to forgiving him.

I have tried to explain that her very quick forgiveness is not subjective interpretation but a fact. It can't be denied that she obviously forgave Arthur very shortly after she wanted to attack Camelot's army, not weeks or months or even years later. Therefore, the show provided a very quick forgiveness on her side. Where do you see the interpretation, if I may ask? If someone is willing to go to war because a loved one was killed and then after the killer made a suggestion to fight alone, the forgiveness is indeed unusual quick. There is no room for interpretation because she didn't want war because of political reasons or because Arthur stole her favourite necklace but because he cowardly executed her husband. You mentioned it yourself, it was the way Arthur killed him. Carleon was a defenceless and already defeated man, it was totally unnecessary to kill him, and that is what made Annis think that Arthur was a cowardly aggressor. Carleon died unarmed, unnecessarily and without honour.

So far so good. Forgiving Arthur when she changes her opinion about him is okay, at least forgiving up to a certain point that makes a war unnecessary, but it's not enough to become friends with him. To reach some kind of a friendly relationship, it takes a longer time than just the few hours between Arthur offering himself and then fighting the champion. She can see past her rage and call the war off, that's fine but forgiving him to that extend as if he had unintenionally thrown a stone on Carleon's head is impossible when you are in your right senses. Again: her forgiveness came evidentally very, very quickly which was shown in the epsiode. No interpretation, no mere opinion but a fact. She didn't change her opinion from starting to prepare her army up until Arthur made his offer but within only one night at the most after Arthur returned to his camp and then spared the Champion's life. That was the time period she had to see Arthur in a different light despite the fact that he killed her defenceless husband. If that isn't short and quick, then what is?

If Annis forgets about it when someone kills her husband and changes her opinion so quickly, then maybe she cares even less about others who are not so close to her. Maybe her behaviour is part of what is yet to come when she returns and we get to see more of it. She is a person who quickly changes her emotions and opinions, that is what we were provided in "His Father's Son".

I think you interpete "glorifying" a bit too strong. I wasn't talking about praising or even worshipping Arthur like you wrote. Telling someone that he, as a single person and normal human being, is the one who gives the land hope, is glorifying. Not praising, not worshipping and not just shaking hands but glorifying.

And again, it wasn't about grief. Maybe she still grieves him, maybe not - but it was about her quick change of opinion when jumping from thinking that Arthur is a coward and killer to seeing the saviour in him.

We have to add to the profiles what was shown in the epsiode, and what was shown was exactly that.

- forgiving is "let's not go to war and make peace again, I know you regret what you did and it's better for both sides to be at peace with each other but I won't forget what happened since Carleon was my husband".

- glorifying is "you killed my husband although he was no threat anymore and was unarmed and defenceless, but because you didn't want war which would have also weakened Camelot and because you spared the life of my Champion, I see that you give us all hope and surely will save this entire land".

I don't deny that her change in attitude was swift. However the bare fact is that it was swift. Attributing it as 'unnatural' is opinion. That's the point that I was trying to make with my examples. Everyone enterprets 'unnatural' differently. To say that it was unnatural in an encyclopedic entry is assuming everyone has a set formula for changing their mind/grieving.

I don't disagree that her attitude change towards Arthur was a complete 360, and again very quickly. But she can't deny what has been shown to her, with Arthur's genuine apology and attempts to make amends and I think the writers of the show wanted to show that Arthur has the potential to fulfill his destiny as the Once and Future king in someone's eyes other than Merlin's.

Annis just got to be the lucky duck to have her great story compressed into 45 minutes.

Glorify is a word that is very commonly used to denote worship, "Glorify our Father..." being commonly used in the bible. Thus it has certain connotations attached to it in the mindset of the general public, regardless of any other more subtle meanings a word may have. Like the word 'gay.' It doesn't mean happy or merry to the majority of people that hear it, even though that is it's true definition.

Merganafan23 (talk) 18:48, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss this forever and I suppose we won't agree on that subject. Iam still not referring to opinions and interpretations but to what was shown in the episode. And therefore I want to add it to the profile. If we can't agree on the term "unnatural" although it was unnatural and not a question of what we consider to be unnatural due to the fact that there is a certain guideline and principle that defines "normal" or "natural" behaviour, I will use the term "unusual".

My personal opinion is that it wasn't a wise move to show Annis seeing the light in Arthur that quickly like he was some kind of a messiah because I think it would have been far more interesting if they had to work on their relationship in the next season. But aside from this personal opinion it's a (sad) fact that their new friendship happened quicker than normal.

Peace, yes. Calling off the war, great. Thinking about the whole situation, absolutely fine. But suddenly being friends and seeing Arthur shine, no way. Fimber (talk) 19:05, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

This is my last point, as you said, we shall have to agree to disagree.

From the transcript, ie, what we have seen in the show:

QUEEN ANNIS

Tell me something. You spared my champion. Why?

KING ARTHUR Because it's not victory I seek. It is peace. I hope that today will mark a new beginning for our kingdoms.

QUEEN ANNIS There is something about you, Arthur Pendragon. Something which gives me hope for us all.

[She considers him for a moment, then turns to leave.]

This is my take on that: she may have hope, but not surety. Her face is conflicted when she considers him. She does not smile or nod in agreement, but seems to deflate and begrudgingly admit that something about him gives her hope. Hope isn't absolute faith or belief. It is the desire for those things. There is still room for them to work on their relationship- nowhere did she say that she was his staunch ally from now on, not even to Morgana. Annis simply said that she believed she misjudged him.

She may not totally forgive Arthur yet- she may still feel that he's young and needs improvement, but his actions in sparing her champion have given her hope that he's open to learning. She doesn't even agree at that point in Arthur's hope "that today will mark a new beginning for our kingdoms." Instead she admits to having hope and walks away from his offer of friendship, leaving it unacknowledged.

I don't believe she sees him as a messianic figure. She's not calling off the war because she sees Arthur as a great friend. On the contrary, she's calling things off because she made a deal with him and she's honorably adhering to their agreement. Perhaps they will be staunch allies in series 5, but with a three year time jump, it wouldn't be at all unreasonable that they could have strengthened their relationship by then.

It can be seen your way or mine, yet neither is necessarily wrong. That makes these things our interpretations of events, and therefore, our opinions.Merganafan23 (talk) 20:36, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

One of the producers or writers recently said that Annis and Arthur have become friends in His Father's Son. This was one of the many epsiodes that left the viewer wondering about a few things, for example, why Annis obviously thought bad of Uther when actually he was the one who had made peace with Caerleon's father. So what was this "something about you (Arthur)" that gives her hope for all of them if not trying to avoid a war that would have weakened or even defeated Camelot? It would be different if Arthur had sacrificed himself instead of suggesting a fight. Arthur didn't only do that to show regret, most of all he tried to save his own kingdom and friends, and Annis surely knew that. Uther didn't want war, Arthur didn't want war but Caerleon secretly invaded Camelot and Annis even wanted war. Both were aggressors, so it's very unlikely that Arthur's attempt to avoid the war by suggesting a fight between champions and sparing one man's life would impress Annis so much. It was them in the first place who attacked Camelot, and certainly not without a reason. That's another reason why Annis' sudden change of opinion was totally unnatural and unrealistic. Not only her husband was killed in cold blood but they obiously had unpleasant plans with Camelot already even before that happened.

And suddenly it's enough that Arthur says he wants peace? Neither Uther nor Arthur invaded or attacked Caerleon's kingdom. If they had done it, if Uther had had plans to go to war with Caerleon and if Arthur had now prevented it from happening, it would have been totally understandable that Annis thought he was giving hope to all of them. But that wasn't the case, it was Caerleon and Annis who were the aggressors, so there is nothing that could make her think that Arthur gives hope to all of them. It happened too quickly and wasn't believable.

All in all, His Father's Son was a very illogical epsiode with plotholes, bad character descriptions and incomprehensible situations. Arthur listened to Agravaine like a five years old and obviously had forgotten about everything he has ever learnt, had forgotten that he has been knowing his father his whole life but let Agravaine telling him what Uther supposedly would have done anyway, then suddenly killed a defenceless man which was completely out of character, without any objection from the supposedly honourable knights, and was wondering why now Annis wants war, then makes a suggestion to grieving and furious Annis and then suddenly everything is fine again, Arthur's homicide is no subject enymore, he is the good guy and everyone realises that. Not to mention that Morgana saying that she came in the name of Gorlois made no sense whatsoever because what in the world did Gorlois have to do with it all? And although Annis'/Caerleon's kingdom has been at peace with Camelot for years or even decades, Annis compares insane and evil witch who is the arch-enemy of Camelot and who tried to provoke a war, with Uther who didn't want war and made a peace contract with her father-in-law.

Sense? Fimber (talk) 09:35, August 10, 2012 (UTC)