|
Post by Sarcastic_Kitty on Feb 27, 2007 23:56:27 GMT -5
It's just... I have the worst time believing that Wendy should take the full brunt of blame for what happened. She was just a little girl. No child realizes the full extent of their actions. The orphanage was nothing but make believe; they weren't really princes and princesses, dogs didn't steal children. It was what you wanted it to be, someone elses imagination was the limit.
Everyone there was messed in the head. Wendy just happened to be the only one with options and an, admitingly, violent imagination.
Like that eight year old in Scottland. He and his babysitter were playing some kind of game where he was supposed to get her because she was an evil which and he was a knight. And get her he did; took a kitchen knife and stabbed her from behind. Now, he didn't kill her, and she was only wounded in the leg, but you see my point, right?
If not, it's this: in a place where there are time outs and do overs, how was she to be fully aware that the dog would kill them all? After all, the dog wasn't a dog at all, but a man. Gergory was probably a little bit of a slow man to begin with and what happened with Joshua sent him over the edge. Regardless, at their age, an adult is an adult and they know right from wrong. Children play with adults around like boxers do with a ref: they can go as far as they like, because there's someone else there who knows the rules, right from wrong and will interveen when things start to get out of hand.
I just can't blame her totally, just like someone can't blame that Scottish boy. When the placement of the line that seperates reality from imagination is up to a emotional child, it's anybody's game. I wouldn't know who else to pass it on to, but it can't all be hers.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Feb 28, 2007 0:18:33 GMT -5
Slow? Hold me back, Azure!
I think she had to have known what she was doing, even if she did not fully realize the horror of it until she had done it. Like, you get in a fight with a friend, and in a moment of anger, you hit her. It is only afterwards you realize the wrongness in what you had done.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Gregory just does not occur to me as a killer on his own. He seemed completely loyal to "Joshua", so I think he must have been ordered to do what he did or at least she would have been able to stop him. We also see Jennifer's memory of Wendy sicing Gregory on her.
The only real thing to dispute that, is the storybook, in which the little girl tries to warn them but is not believed. Like I said, I really don't see Gregory going to the orphanage to kill them on his own, especially with Wendy beating him there if he were. I have quite a few theories about this book.
One, is that this is how Jennifer wishes to think of it. Rather than believe her former friend would do something so horrid, she tries to give her the benefit of the doubt. Another, is that she means it in a past-tense. Wendy did always keep control of them by warning them that a Stray Dog would eat them up if they wronged her. So, you could argue that she did try to warn the children. My third theory, is that Wendy just brought Gregory there to prove Stray Dog existed and get her rank back. But I imagine they just laughed at her and taunted her, causing her to start to get angry and perhaps warn them not to mock her or she would sic him on them. Knowing them, they would not stop, and in a moment of anger, she did. But one could argue how Jennifer would know if this had taken place, given the fact that she was indoors.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcastic_Kitty on Feb 28, 2007 0:36:09 GMT -5
I didn't mean to say Gregory set out to kill children. It's like when you play Power Rangers with your friends. The Rangers round house the Putties and then someone's mother yells it's time to come in, everyone gets up, says good game, and that person leaves and it's starts all over again.
And that's how I think of Wendy. Somewhere in her mind, none of it was real. Everyone who was sprawled out on the floor, bloody and dying, would get up when someone yelled, "Time out!" But no one ever did. And it was too late by then.
Gregory was mentally challeneged and Joshua's death ruined him : p
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Feb 28, 2007 0:43:47 GMT -5
Gregory was not!!! He was a little out of it after his son died, but all things considered, who could blame him? Then he had to go through that pain again when Jennifer left. Then, to top it off, Wendy made him think his son was alive again and abused him and manipulated him. That little girl obviously knew what she was doing. She has had animals killed before, so she knows that they don't come back to life. And remember, she was angry and hurt by what Jennifer had done, plus, chances are the other orphans were taunting her, no doubt. She must have known what she was going, even if the true realization did not hit her until afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcastic_Kitty on Feb 28, 2007 0:58:24 GMT -5
I'm not saying the blame should be pushed onto Gregory. His mind was gone, he can't be held responsible.
But to hold a child fully responsible is ridiculous. No jury would convict her, in the nineteen thirties or now.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Feb 28, 2007 1:04:10 GMT -5
Sure, they would! She had to at least partly understand death, as she is an orphan and has been responsible for the death of many an animal. While she may just be a child, she must be held accountable for what she did. She must have planned it to at least some extent, as she had Gregory trained and ready and had no problem with all the pain she inflicted on him.
|
|
|
Post by avidgamer77 on Feb 28, 2007 1:31:47 GMT -5
As a child, Wendy might have not been fully aware of the consequences she was doing, it's only when she realized that she had taken the lives of the ones she had been staying close with, did she feel a deep sense of guilt and remorse, but this emotion was triggered much later when she saw Jennifer surviving Gregory's attacks. That's why she chose to take her own life by letting Gregory (as the pawn) kill her. Wendy's mind was possessed by revenge all because Jennifer had broken her oath, her heart and her dignity.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Feb 28, 2007 1:43:15 GMT -5
I've said that the true realization might not have hit her until it was already too late, but I still think she knew what she was doing and ordered it to at least some extent. This kid was no stranger to death.
|
|
|
Post by Azure Princess on Feb 28, 2007 3:59:44 GMT -5
*comes to Princess Jennifer's aid*
"Hold me back Azure!" <-- Loved it. Absolutely loved it. =^w^=
Anyways, I do agree with Princess Jennifer on the Wendy thing. Wendy knew how to manipulate people and she did it to the fullest extent. In the process of her manipulating people, she did not feel any remorse or guilt. So naturally, taking that point of view, it would seem like Wendy orcehstrated the whole thing.
The only hitch in her plan was that she dies. ^^"
But also taking that note, as Princess Jennifer said - the realization did not hit her until the end when everything was done - she couldn't take it back and as they say, 'no use crying over spilt milk'.
I'm not saying that we should fully blame Wendy - but I'm not saying that we should fully blame Gregory either.
|
|
|
Post by avidgamer77 on Feb 28, 2007 11:09:38 GMT -5
For all that she had done, is it for the sake of love? Or is she evil at heart?
|
|
|
Post by Dinah on Feb 28, 2007 13:29:36 GMT -5
I have to agree with the other party on that part. No jury would hold a child resposible for what they were doing because children aren't capable of logical thought yet. They see everything as a game and don't really understand when they do something wrong, or something is wrong. Gregory can't be held resposible either because, to but it bluntly he was crazy. But Wendy probably didn't understand what she was doing either as at that age one can rarely seperate 'play' from real life.
Wendy was young, and didn't understand what harm she was doing. While she may come to terms with it and see the wrong as she gets older, she won't right now because it's just a game.
Gregory, wasn't stable. Wendy was just innocent. The end result is that no one can truly be blamed for what happened, other than everyone. Because they all had a part in starting it. The Orphans for adding to Wendy's ego and letting her think she could do these things. Wendy for doing such awful things, even if she didn't understand them. And Jennifer for leaving Gregory, only to abandon Wendy, the one who had 'saved her' and replacing her with a dog.
|
|
|
Post by PrincessJennifer on Feb 28, 2007 14:45:04 GMT -5
Seems like a lot of people prefer to think that Wendy really did not understand death and that she did not intend to kill her friends-it just happened by accident. But I think her reaction afterwards proves otherwise. She confesses feeling guilty for what has happened, but she does not have the sort of emotional breakdown that one would expect if she had just realized her friends were all dead. She is to together to have thought it was all make-believe. She knew exactly what she was doing, but it wasn't until after she had done it that she realized just what she had done and felt bad. It was the same way with Brown. She knew what she was doing when she ordered him to be killed, but it was only when Jennifer beat her up that she realized it was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bearprince19 on Feb 28, 2007 16:49:00 GMT -5
i agree with PrincessJennifer. Wendy must've understood what she was doing. she probabily did out of anger, jealousy, and sadness but the fact is she still must've understood the whole situation and only felt bad afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Azure Princess on Feb 28, 2007 20:36:33 GMT -5
Yes.
To an extent, I think Wendy understood the consequences of what she was doing - she shows little remorse for her 'friends', which may indicate that she hardly thought of them as anything other than pawns. Gregory was also just a pawn to her -- all of this against the one she 'loved' the most.
|
|
|
Post by avidgamer77 on Feb 28, 2007 23:01:02 GMT -5
Yes. To an extent, I think Wendy understood the consequences of what she was doing - she shows little remorse for her 'friends', which may indicate that she hardly thought of them as anything other than pawns. Gregory was also just a pawn to her -- all of this against the one she 'loved' the most. Would you say she is evil? Since she's the one who started it all?
|
|