The Rant Time-line/Family Tree *MAJOR SPOILERS*

I love you.

F*CKING AWESOME!!! Good work!

I had figured some stuff out, but not as detailed as this. Aweomse!

[QUOTE]I love you.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Ditto[/QUOTE]

Awww, you guyyyyssss...
:01:

:flirt:

[QUOTE=bigshrimpn;988114]I've tried to reply to this twice. Each one was about 3 times longer than your original post. With the server switch and some other BS, they were erased withoud being posted or saved anywhere.I refuse to try again[/QUOTE]

Well you kno what they say,"the fourth time's the charm..."

And by the by: Thanks for all the web-love :happysad:

chubz. you are a legend and a half. brilliant book made better by your brilliant analysis.

ok so i understand all of the green goes back and fathers himself stuff and how chet is rant who went back to try and stop green from raping irene and all that stuff but what i don't get (and don't even know if its important) is where green came from in the first place? WAS irene his mother? was that where he originally came from and if so who was his father? or was he his own father because he changed the past and made that so? this book does my HEAD IN! but in a good way of course. also, mildly confused about the "bride" in the car/train accident who survived without a scratch on her and said that she was some crazy age (can't remember what and don't have the book to hand) - did she come from the past? or from the future? argh!

so i had to join because this was bothering me so much. but the book claims you can go back in time and kill your parent(s) and become immortal, which it explain well by saying that you now have no beginning, and therefore no end. but it also says if you go back and screw your mom you become stronger and stronger, which doesn't make any sense to me at all. you couldn't be your own father, and the book doesn't explain how this happens. the only reason you exist in the first place is because a man and your mom had sex... if a different man has sex with your mom instead of that man, then you don't exist, but rather someone else does. if you and your mom had a kid, it would just be an inbred kid, it wouldn't be you. everytime chester goes back and sleeps with his female ancestry at the age of 13, he would just be creating a new kid, but it wouldn't be him that he is creating again, because the only thing that makes him HIM is the fact that a certain man and woman slept together and created him. does that make any sense?

[QUOTE=eyeson;1009890]so i had to join because this was bothering me so much. but the book claims you can go back in time and kill your parent(s) and become immortal, which it explain well by saying that you now have no beginning, and therefore no end. but it also says if you go back and screw your mom you become stronger and stronger, which doesn't make any sense to me at all. you couldn't be your own father, and the book doesn't explain how this happens. the only reason you exist in the first place is because a man and your mom had sex... if a different man has sex with your mom instead of that man, then you don't exist, but rather someone else does. if you and your mom had a kid, it would just be an inbred kid, it wouldn't be you. everytime chester goes back and sleeps with his female ancestry at the age of 13, he would just be creating a new kid, but it wouldn't be him that he is creating again, because the only thing that makes him HIM is the fact that a certain man and woman slept together and created him. does that make any sense?[/QUOTE]

That's where the Sci-Fi aspect kicks in...

Sometimes I think people forget that this is a book.

fine, of course he is old. BUT my point being: Rant and Green are the same person; Green goes back in time because of the accident when Echo was 8, and does all the Stoking; Rant is born, but Rant is Green, right? if Rant=Green, Rant has to be BORN at a later date than Green originally was based on the logic of when Echo's accident was, either that or Rant is fucking an 8 yr old Echo which we know is not true.

pieces, overall, do not fit, but that's part of the point I suppose.

its how Green came to be in the first place and who Charles Casey is that are the key pieces I think. NOWHERE does it say Charles and Green are the same. it is only implied. we all think it is so because it filsin missing pieces. it is only implied that Green was the one to hit Echo's parents (similar accidents only). the math does NOT add up. we know that Charles Casey was the one who was in the Lawence Family accident, but there is no sign that he is Green besides the similarity in the accidents.

sooooo, who was Charles Casey then??

[QUOTE=AnarchX;1014507]fine, of course he is old. BUT my point being: Rant and Green are the same person; Green goes back in time because of the accident when Echo was 8, and does all the Stoking; Rant is born, but Rant is Green, right? if Rant=Green, Rant has to be BORN at a later date than Green originally was based on the logic of when Echo's accident was, either that or Rant is fucking an 8 yr old Echo which we know is not true.

pieces, overall, do not fit, but that's part of the point I suppose.

its how Green came to be in the first place and who Charles Casey is that are the key pieces I think. NOWHERE does it say Charles and Green are the same. it is only implied. we all think it is so because it filsin missing pieces. it is only implied that Green was the one to hit Echo's parents (similar accidents only). the math does NOT add up. we know that Charles Casey was the one who was in the Lawence Family accident, but there is no sign that he is Green besides the similarity in the accidents.

sooooo, who was Charles Casey then??[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry dude, I don't see your logic. Perhaps a graph? I think you may need to reread.

[QUOTE=AnarchX;1015701]yes i think i'm not making myself clear at all. i know simms is OLD. very obvious. ok, i'll give ya casey=simms although i think there is something else there.

my problem is more subtle. if simms did not go back in time he would be young, yes? ok, then, and the implication is that he is a different version of rant. right? implying that if he did not go back in time he would be the same age as rant. ok, that's what isn't making sense to me. the lawrence family accident occured 16 years before rant came to the city (stated in book). at the time simms is same age as rant (stated in book) when rant comes to the city 16 yrs later. therefore, simms if he didn't time travel would be 16 yrs older than rant. WTF? the timelines do not add up if you see what i mean. if i'm wrong please explain to me. thanks.[/QUOTE]Yes, you're wrong. Chubbz, our most patient Rant expert, will be along shortly to assist you.

Ok, I think AnarchX has a point, but isn't being clear on it. I had the same question myself.

Rant and Simms are the same person, that's clear. Simms should be around 83, based on being 23 when he got sent back 60 years.

The problem comes in with Charlie Casey being Simms. While that does seem to be clearly what the book suggests, given that the Lawrence car crossed the center line without braking and Simms' car was hit by a car crossing the center line without breaking, there is a problem.

Simms got sent back at 23 after he was in the city. If he's Charlie, he got sent back when he hit the Lawrence vehicle. Echo Lawrence was supposed to be 8 years old when her vehicle got struck by Charlie.

In the timeline of the book, when Rant comes to the city right after high school, he can't be older than 23. But he meets Echo and she should be 24, given that the accident was 16 years prior and happened when she was 8. That puts them at the right age to be falling in love, 23-24ish. BUT... if Rant, Simms, and Charlie are the same person, then Echo should be 8 when Rant comes to the city, she should be just about to get in the accident that kills her parents and sends Charlie time traveling. Rant at this time should be the same age as Green when he went to the city, they should both be 23 to be the same person. The issue is that Charlie Casey got knocked to the past 16 years earlier when Echo was 8 years old and Rant/Simms should have been 7 years old or so. That's what calls into question about whether or not Charlie is the same person as Rant/Simms. Does that make more sense?

I get what you're saying, but the problem is, it is implied that Green Taylor Simms is Rant from a timeline that no longer exists. So if that timeline doesn't exist any longer and Simms is Charlie Casey, Charlie Casey should not have existed in order to get in the accident with Echo's parents. Since he alters his birth, the book implies he exists but is not from the timeline currently occurring, hence a Historian. So Charlie Casey shouldn't exist in this timeline if he and Simms are the same, but clearly Charlie does exist since Echo still remembers the accident and there are records of it. So I see two options:
1. Charlie is another character entirely that is not developed in this book
2. Simms and Charlie are the same person, and this is a plot hole

Also about the ages, I would think Rant should be older than Green was when he goes to the city if they're implying they ended up born at different times. Since Green was raping all of his maternal line at 13, Rant probably should have been born a little earlier than Green actually was in the original, undisturbed timeline. So when Echo was 8 maybe Rant would be 23 in this scenario, but it is implied that they're about the same age. So again, it just doesn't add up for Charlie and Simms to be the same.

I've only read it once, and just today went and go it at the Library so I could re-read it after reading all these posts. From what I've read in the posts and remember, is it possible that Simms isn't Rant himself, just the father? He's born as a normal person, get sent back in time, rapes whatever part of his family is alive then, creates a new blood line, and continues until a male is born. He's too old himself to go back and kill off people so he asks Chet to do it. Chet realizes what happens, that hes some imbread of someone raping their family and decides to try and stop it rather than make Simms more powerful. It doesn't make sense that Simms can be Rant himself considering how one has to be born (one egg, one sperm, if either is changed it would create someone new), although I do realize it's only fiction and anything is possible. Rant and Chet are for sure the same, but could Simms just be the orginator? Just some thought, going to go back and reread it right now.

Also with Echo being disformed, is it possible she's some kind of imbreed, that her father did the same thing Simms did, just happened to end up fucked up? (totally throwing that out there, I don't really remember Echos family story so I could be way off.)

[QUOTE=bskyb;1032208]echo's disformity came from the car crash... she wasn't born that way[/QUOTE]

Oh, okay, thank you. I definitly need to re-read it.

these are some points i've come up with in a quick brainstorm so please correct me if these have been answered:
-charles/green was the first to go back in time and he ISN'T rant/chester, just their father.
and even if charles/green IS rant/chester, he must live the exact same life as them but turns evil after not being able to rescue his mother, changes his name and goes even further into the past to rape his great-grandmother.
but i see NO logic in that.

and also, why were shot, echo and neddy travelling to middleton to see if irene was alive?

i'm pretty sure no one has brought this up yet:
charles/green originally went back and raped hattie, which spawned ESTHER, not chester/rant.
hattie raised esther then 13 years later, charles/green raped [I]her[/I]. esther then gave birth to IRENE.
that makes esther and irene both children of charles/green even before rant/chester.
this makes me think that maybe rant/chester was not supposed to be a male, instead a female for green to come back in the future and rape again.

i just wish that chuck would jump on here and set the record straight for us all.

[QUOTE=_eNdLeSs_MiKe_;1033685]Quick Echo question. What was her fate? I noticed she wasn't mentioned in the last chapter of contributors.[/QUOTE]
same question here... I noted that on the rant-webpage, echo's bio simply states "dead". now where did that happen?

[QUOTE=Ironman;1004010]You are a God! i for ever hold a special place in my haert, i kow i say a lot of bull shit most of the time but seriosly speaking, man to man, you are extrordinary intellect, and for same reason i feel like i have to stop screwing around, you are listening to a rebornd IRONMAN,may we all dance in Hell![/QUOTE]

I was so naive.

Good night cult.

Thats really sweet

Is it possible that Shot Dunyan seeded the Green Taylor Simms that first went back in time? We know that Simms only adopted that name some time after having travelled back in time

Echo Lawrence: Whether she believed it or not, he raped her, that girl had a child she named Irene, and the man, now calling himself Green Taylor Simms, disappeared for another thirteen years.

Green Taylor Simms askes after he goes back in time if anyone has invented boosted peak technology yet, and in the final chapted Echo Lawrence speculates that Shot Dunyan would be involved with this if he time travelled.

It would also explain why Shot's egg said Green Taylor Simms on it.

And... Shot Dunyan disappears in the middle of a car crash, according to the piece at the end of the book.

You guys are doing this pretty well =D

Not going to bring up anything right now because I just lent my book to someone to keep me from reading it again and again and again (Like I want to do now. Must read 1984 first!)

Anyway, do you guys know that there's going to be 2 sequels to this? There's plenty of stuff that can occur in those two sequels that will fill up any of those plot holes you might be finding.

Keep in mind that the sequences that Rant/Chester/Green go back in time are not the only ones that occur. There may be more that happen in the next books!

In any case, as soon as I get my book back, I'm re-reading this again and then again with a piece of paper next to me so I can draw a visual timeline. Maybe. Maybe.

The problems with your theory is the fact that wouldnt Shot be superpowered too?

I figured the only reason Green asked bout Boosting is to see what time he was in... Because the rabies made him a bit slow, and the only symbol of change in time in the Book is boosting and party crashing.... since he knows all about Party Crashing, and nothing of Boosting peaks, because he couldnt boost, thats why he asked about that

Another thing to consider is that your  probably reading too much into Echo's line about Shot going back and inventing Boosting. That chapter is just summing up everyone's own personal desires. answering, "what would you do if you could go back in time."

Another thing is now there is way too many people being the same person and that just makes the book pretty lame... Next thing you know Echo is really Rants mom....

I do see the connection your making, but its what your getting out of it...  I honestly didnt get that impression the first time i read it.

Good idea though, original enough to be presented, about Shot being the original Rant...

I feel like I'm a year too late to the party, but I just finished reading the book for the first time this week.  I see that I'm not the only one who came away with several questions.  Putting any questions about what happened to Echo/Shot/Neddy/Tina or anyone else aside, my main concerns center around Sims and Rant/Chester.

I believe that Charlie Casey and Sims are the same person.  I think that the timeline suggested by Echo's accident would make him approximately 100 years old.  My math is based on him being 23 at the time of the accident and going back 60 years (83) and then another 16 years since the accident happened.  It's stated repeatedly that the man is old, but it's also stated that every time he conceives a child with one of his ancestors/decendants he gets a burst of vitality.  So I think it's plausible.  (Of course, it might just be some poor writing on CP's part because he has Shot say, "Sixty years ago, the other Rant Casey got bumped back in time...".  (pg 260) and that doesn't account for the time since the accident.  So oversight, maybe?)

My real question is exactly how he's related to Rant.  They are supposed to be the same person, I get that.  Sims refers to Hattie as his Great-grandmother according to Shot (pg 257) which is the same relationship she is to Rant.  Sims also evidently has all the same scars as Rant does which implies that he lived the exact same life up to a certain point.  And that's what confuses me.

Ok, let's say that once upon a time there was a kid named Charlie Casey.  He was born to a normal mother and a normal father.  I don't know that we can say for sure that his mother was the same Irene that Rant was born to.  As it's been stated, every time he interferes with the family, he's effing up the person that would have been born if things had been the old way.  But we can agree for the sake of argument that Hattie, at least, is the same person and when he goes back and rapes her, Charlie, as he was at the time he traveled back, ceases to exist.

Rant is Chester.  His entire life is accounted for.  He goes into the water around 19 years after his mother was raped and shows up that very day as a 19 year old man.  Chester has all the same scars that Rant had from sticking his hands into animal holes and all the same experiences including Sims showing up to kill Esther and telling him where to find the coins.  There is no period from the time Rant is born and the time he shows up as Chester for him to be Charlie Casey.  Therefore, I find it really hard to buy that Sims is supposed to be the same person as Rant/Chester.  He's the person that Rant would have been in that other time stream, but since he changed his past they aren't the same anymore.  So why the mention of them having the same scars?  Even if they both stuck their hands down animal holes due to some weird compulsion, it wouldn't have been the exact same animal bites in the same places.

I think that what probably happened is that CP didn't edit the book as much as he should have and certain things slipped through the cracks.  One thing that bothers me is that he makes it a point to have a family friend talking about how a transient raped Great Great grandma Bel when she was 13 (pg 238), but after that there's no mention of it again.  The time line works if he rapes Bel, but not if he doesn't.  He goes back and rapes 13 year old Bel (0 years), he then rapes 13 year old Hattie (13 years), then he rapes 13 year old Esther (26 years), then he rapes 13 year old Irene (39 years), then approximately 20 years passes to the present (59 years).  But again, that doesn't take into account that extra 16 years between the accident that shot him into the past and the present day.  I'm not sure what's a typo and what's plot at this point. 

Chester was an enigma to me.  Some of what he did I can see as pushing Rant towards his ultimate destiny.  The spider bite incident on Easter is a good example.  I didn't get the significance of the egg scene though, when he comes into the kitchen while they are decorating eggs and tells Irene not to spoil the kid for marriage and then makes it a point to eat her eggs.  That just seemed like a total jackass move with nothing to be gained from it.  It also made him seem like he had no love or respect for Irene as a mother, which makes the fact that he went back through time and sacraficed his relationship with Echo seem less likely.  If you love your mom THAT much, why would you crap on what would have been such a nice childhood memory?

Unrelated to anything else I've mentioned so far, what was up with Irene and putting stuff in her food?  There was an entire chapter devoted to how she boobytraps her food and I have no idea what that really added to the book except to make the Casey family seem just that much more dysfunctional and make her seem less lovable to me. 

Minor gripes and confusion aside, the book was different than anything else I've read.  Writing this book must have been a real challenge because just keeping track of the overall story arc and what each character would know and wouldn't know would have been a pain in the ass.  If there were oversights in the editing, I can forgive that, but it does put a kink in the detective work.  Plus, everyone has to be considered an unreliable narrator because none of them would have truly known what Rant's motives were except Chester and he wasn't talking except to call Sims crazy and Rant a fool for believing him.

Any other thoughts on any of this?  Flaws in my logic?

Maybe someone can help me out...but I picked this book up as my first CP book - probably not the best things to do because I'm kinda lost in the first few chapters. I don't know his style real well. Any suggestions? Should I just start from the beginning and read Choke? Don't get me wrong, the book is interesting, but maybe I wasn't really right to start with this one...lol