|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 15:04:56 GMT -5
a critic of any entire genre is usually the most shallow of people. "the things i like are awesome. the things you like are rubbish. my consumption of other people's art defines me as a person of taste and learning and a person to be listened to." to define yourself by what you consume rather than your own actions and thoughts is a very shallow definition of yourself. superhero books don't need any defense from these people because the attack is more a indictment on the people making them than the genre itself. While I agree that painting an entire genre with the same broad brush stroke is usually a sign of an uninformed critic, I disagree with your very personal reasoning on why that is. There's noting wrong with being a critic, that's a position that has gone hand in hand with literature and art probably since there has been literature and art; when the first cave man took up a reed and drew the first picture on the cave wall there was almost assuredly another cave man standing behind him saying, "Your proportions are all off my good man." When the critique is done well it adds nearly as much to the artistic fields as the art itself as it causes us, the consumer, to stop and truly evaluate what we are consuming which gives you a greater appreciation of the field as a whole. Then there are those that add nothing to the field and scathing reviews of entire genres are such reviews as they seldom go into any great depth in their discussions and offer little real insight, which when you boil it down is pretty much just complaining and that is very different than offering a critique. And while offering up that kind of critique can be annoying it is not an invitation to throw out personal barbs against either that critic or the genre of literary critique as a whole because when you see the big picture that's all literary critique is a genre of writing in the same way that superhero fiction is and if it's wrong to paint all superhero fiction with the same brush it is then like wise wrong to paint all critiques in the same manner. I agree that even a partial argument, rooted in the critics' own preferences, can be valuable. Critics like Wright and Klock are only interested in a particular take on superheroes, but they do, as you say, force one to evaluate what they've said and suss out how much, if at all, their concerns overlap with your own. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 15:11:04 GMT -5
I think the reason that the superhero genre gets put upon isn't because of the content of the genre, but its utter dominance in the N American market. The problem is volume rather than form. Since there are so many superhero books, there are also so many mediocre superhero books that are generic and formulaic from a craft standpoint. I think we all know a good superhero comic when we see it. That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. Often I don't think it's so much a case of the absolutely good and the absolutely bad; it's rather an opposition between works that "break the mold" and those that fulfill it. Some of the latter are really bad, some are just average reads-- and one's definition of one or the other depends on one's personal tastes. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 15:12:56 GMT -5
None of which gives one the invitation to call such people shallow or make other such personal generalizations. of course for those with extremely limited means of consumption because of access and economic power - let alone the ability to choose what they consume - by valuing intellect/morality through consumption they are sentenced by these people to have little intellectual or moral worth. Having lived on the edge of the sahara I can safely say that's garbage. So yes - in my world anyone coming to me with that way of thinking will be told to go and check their head. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 9, 2014 15:15:12 GMT -5
So can any of you recall any defenses of the superhero that I might have left out?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 15:35:25 GMT -5
None of which gives one the invitation to call such people shallow or make other such personal generalizations. of course for those with extremely limited means of consumption because of access and economic power - let alone the ability to choose what they consume - by valuing intellect/morality through consumption they are sentenced by these people to have little intellectual or moral worth. Having lived on the edge of the sahara I can safely say that's garbage. So yes - in my world anyone coming to me with that way of thinking will be told to go and check their head. I don't think I can name many situations where a lack of civility is ever called for, but I can tell you with complete certainly that someone telling me an art form that I care for isn't very good isn't one of those situations. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 15:37:29 GMT -5
That's certainly a reason I've come across pretty often, but it's never really made sense to me as a valid critique. Would I like fewer mediocre or just plain bad books to be put out in favor of a wider variety of books put out each week? Absolutely, I mean what kind of question is that? Who wouldn't want that? But the fact of the matter is that it isn't nearly as easy that, especially when one has to weigh costs versus benefits. But really that's beside the point because the argument, " As a genre superhero stories are bad because x-amount of titles are bad/mediocre and only y are good." is beyond weak as it only boils down to numbers and not actual individual critical merits and that just isn't an educated way of evaluating anything. Often I don't think it's so much a case of the absolutely good and the absolutely bad; it's rather an opposition between works that "break the mold" and those that fulfill it. Some of the latter are really bad, some are just average reads-- and one's definition of one or the other depends on one's personal tastes. That tends to be my belief as well, it's an idle entertainment that I enjoy and every once in a while there is a story that is incredibly good while the rest of the time the stories are just entertaining and I see nothing wrong with that. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 15:41:22 GMT -5
of course for those with extremely limited means of consumption because of access and economic power - let alone the ability to choose what they consume - by valuing intellect/morality through consumption they are sentenced by these people to have little intellectual or moral worth. Having lived on the edge of the sahara I can safely say that's garbage. So yes - in my world anyone coming to me with that way of thinking will be told to go and check their head. I don't think I can name many situations where a lack of civility is ever called for, but I can tell you with complete certainly that someone telling me an art form that I care for isn't very good isn't one of those situations. in the case of high / low - its more than saying whether its good or bad. many artists around the world have been beaten, tortured, imprisoned, and killed because someone else decided their art was "inferior". |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 15:44:44 GMT -5
I don't think I can name many situations where a lack of civility is ever called for, but I can tell you with complete certainly that someone telling me an art form that I care for isn't very good isn't one of those situations. its more than saying whether its good or bad. Not in the context we've been discussing here in the thread, I mean we're talking about critics opinions of the superhero genre not whether we think a figure like Hitler burning books was a great idea or anything like that and there is huge difference between those two topics. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 15:47:59 GMT -5
its more than saying whether its good or bad. Not in the context we've been discussing here in the thread, I mean we're talking about critics opinions of the superhero genre not whether we think a figure like Hitler burning books was a great idea or anything like that and there is huge difference between those two topics. not at all - good luck making a communist super hero in 50s america. even better put that character in a team with a homosexual hero, and a black hero - many many problems for that creator - most likely never be allowed to work again. another example i can think of - here in the Uk we had a police chief in manchester who believed he was god's chosen one, or an instrument of god or something along those lines - who launched a campaign of harassment, police raids, and persecution of the publishers and creators of Lord Horror. Having not read Lord Horror i am not sure if the character was a super hero or a super natural figure or just deranged but persecution does happen. the idea of high / low perpetuates class system, intolerance, racism, and imperialism. the genre itself is irrelevent - it's that line of thought that is extremely dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 16:19:33 GMT -5
Critiquing work didn't lead to the situations you listed rather intolerant times did.
Dupont on the last page(and in many other similar conversations we've had in the past) expressed ,what I would term, an elitist argument but though I disagree with it I have nothing but respect for him and in no way think that his views could lead to the ends you describe, nor do I think that way of anyone else who may espouse such views. That slippery slope argument that you are in effect advancing is a huge logical fallacy and one which I think you should rethink as it is just as bad as the generalizations against superhero comics that you are arguing against.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 16:25:06 GMT -5
DEFENSE #4-- Superheroes Can Be as Elitist as Anything Else Geoff Klock's 2002 HOW TO READ SUPERHERO COMICS AND WHY departs from any and all critiques that start with analyzing superheroes in their Golden and Silver Age manifestations. In contrast to the other books mentioned, Klock really does focus only on the genre of superheroes, because he's interested in the "third movement" of superhero comic books, exemplified by DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN. To many fans these works represent the period in which almost nothing but the superhero genre sold well in the Direct Market, but to Klock they symbolize "the birth of self-consciousness in the superhero narrative." Klock is only interested in reading superhero comics if they demonstrate a level of complex thought approximate to that of canonical literature; that's why he fairly salivates when he sees a character like the Joker-- whom Klock calls a "reservoir of reflexivity"-- say something that makes him sound aware of his own status as a comics character. While Klock definitely speaks to a segement of comics-readership that likes self-aware superheroes, he really doesn't end up saying anything pertinent about the genre as a whole. But at least he clearly sets himself apart from other methodologies in his introduction, even if his summation of those methodologies can be criticized-- as I'll show in my next post. Look at the lowest selling Marvel super hero comic with a #1 on the cover. Now look at sales for Walking Dead #1, Raw Magazine #1, Bone #1, Cerebus #1, pick a celebrated comic, pick a universally praised comic, and compare the sales of the first issue to Dazzler #1. In fact, for the overwhelming majority of them, pick the highest selling issue in the run and compare it to Youngblood #1. In some instances I bet you can add up the total print run of every issue and not quite catch up to Jim Lee X-Men #1 or Todd McFarlane Spider-Man #1. I think Marvel and DC's cancellation threshold is significantly higher than the average print run of Love And Rockets, or Strangers In Paradise. Now look what happens when you have a variant cover, sales multiply. That's an indisputable fact. Look at the names that boost sales. Rob Liefeld is one. Look at any Marvel/DC board and count how many complaints are posted for every single issue by loyal (habitual) fans. They buy every month, and complain every month. Look at the people who were denied interior work at Marvel and DC, like Sam Keith, and compare that to the dude that traces pornography, who actually did land steady interior work. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 16:27:15 GMT -5
Classifying someone's intelligence and morality by definitions of high / low is intolerance. At a political level this can get very sinister very quickly.
Dupont isnt classifying people's intelligence and morals according to their tastes though. Very big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 16:27:55 GMT -5
Critiquing work didn't lead to the situations you listed rather intolerant times did. Dupont on the last page(and in many other similar conversations we've had in the past) expressed ,what I would term, an elitist argument but though I disagree with it I have nothing but respect for him and in no way think that his views could lead to the ends you describe, nor do I think that way of anyone else who may espouse such views. That slippery slope argument that you are in effect advancing is a huge logical fallacy and one which I think you should rethink as it is just as bad as the generalizations against superhero comics that you are arguing against. I don't see how it's elitist. My first comment in the thread was that super heroes as a concept is fine. The way the two major publishers choose to handle that concept is where criticism is completely valid. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 16:30:09 GMT -5
DEFENSE #4-- Superheroes Can Be as Elitist as Anything Else Geoff Klock's 2002 HOW TO READ SUPERHERO COMICS AND WHY departs from any and all critiques that start with analyzing superheroes in their Golden and Silver Age manifestations. In contrast to the other books mentioned, Klock really does focus only on the genre of superheroes, because he's interested in the "third movement" of superhero comic books, exemplified by DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and WATCHMEN. To many fans these works represent the period in which almost nothing but the superhero genre sold well in the Direct Market, but to Klock they symbolize "the birth of self-consciousness in the superhero narrative." Klock is only interested in reading superhero comics if they demonstrate a level of complex thought approximate to that of canonical literature; that's why he fairly salivates when he sees a character like the Joker-- whom Klock calls a "reservoir of reflexivity"-- say something that makes him sound aware of his own status as a comics character. While Klock definitely speaks to a segement of comics-readership that likes self-aware superheroes, he really doesn't end up saying anything pertinent about the genre as a whole. But at least he clearly sets himself apart from other methodologies in his introduction, even if his summation of those methodologies can be criticized-- as I'll show in my next post. Look at the lowest selling Marvel super hero comic with a #1 on the cover. Now look at sales for Walking Dead #1, Raw Magazine #1, Bone #1, Cerebus #1, pick a celebrated comic, pick a universally praised comic, and compare the sales of the first issue to Dazzler #1. In fact, for the overwhelming majority of them, pick the highest selling issue in the run and compare it to Youngblood #1. In some instances I bet you can add up the total print run of every issue and not quite catch up to Jim Lee X-Men #1 or Todd McFarlane Spider-Man #1. Now look what happens when you have a variant cover, sales multiply. That's an indisputable fact. Look at the names that boost sales. Rob Liefeld is one. Look at any Marvel/DC board and count how many complaints are posted for every single issue by loyal (habitual) fans. They buy every month, and complain every month. Look at the people who were denied interior work at Marvel and DC, like Sam Keith, and compare that to the dude that traces pornography, who actually did land steady interior work. That's just marketing though and doesn't really factor into a discussion of the overall quality of the genre. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 16:31:50 GMT -5
No, but it does illustrate that some people are buying super hero comics regardless of quality. And that "some" is in my estimate arounf thirty thousand people, or possibly significantly less, but buying multiple copies adding up to a built in guaranteed thirty thousand copies sold for the worst garbage Marvel or DC can think up. While a comic with countless awards and a thirty year run will be lucky to sell one tenth of that.
|
|
