|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 16:40:07 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. It comes across as an argument from elitism though, especially when you rope in a comparison to independent comics and their sales and attempt to paint the buying habits of those who purchase superhero comics as a critique against the genre. I mean, one of your points is, " Character loyalty, brand loyalty, completionists, speculators. This is the driving force of keeping super hero comics in print." you never stop to mention that people might enjoy what they are buying despite your dislike but rather state that they are basically just sheep...you really can't create a better textbook definition of an elitist argument if you tried. Now, I don't disrespect you having these beliefs, I merely disagree with them. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on May 9, 2014 16:41:28 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. That's simply the way the cookie crumbles, we have zero control of that and it has little to do with whether or not superhero comics as a genre are good or bad. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 9, 2014 17:07:49 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. Intolerant times support intolerant critiques. Those critiques feed the ideology of the government. If you are happy to be labelled as "low brow" or inferior by some random cultural critic that's your business. me i dismiss that whole line of thought out of hand as crass and shallow - again thats my business. If you are happy to be labelled "low brow" or "inferior" by a senator or president - history will tell you that you might find many problems for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 9, 2014 17:26:56 GMT -5
Most people love heroic fiction.Detectives,spies,war,SF on and on. As someone who has read comics for a half century I understand the limitations of the superhero genre.For the most part,if you didn't like it by the time you were a young teen .you're never going to be a fan of it. Whys that.There are crtain tropes that are essential to the genre and they are silly at the same time. The gaudy costume is one.No one in their right mind would really wear one. I walk around in Times Square where there are all theses street performers dressed up in good looking superhero costumes and I must admit,even if they're bodies are in good shape,its silly.Very very silly
The powers.Gotta have a power.But if you have a power,then the villian has to have a power.So's the next villian.So's your superhero buddy/ally.Powers,powers,get your powers here.It can start off relatively grounded like enhanced strength,enhanced speed but they begin to esculate to the point of silliness
Thankfully we're past the little kid partner-or are we.Inevitably a popular superhero gets saddled with a Ms version,a different color version,an evil version.Thats why I like Krypto.Don't pretend this is serious-have fun with the fans
But what about the TV and movie versions?Are they not successful.Yes they are as long as the non-fan watches them in small doses.They have to tone down the silliness found in the comics.And a non-fan can find them fun as long as they are only seeing 2 or 3 superhero movies a year.TV shows need them toned down even more so for budget reasons as well as being on every week.And the best of them struggle to last beyond 2 or 3 years
I'm OK with the fact the superhero genre will reside in the lower rungs of heroic fiction.Just as long they survive.They entertain me-but I wouldn't make a steady diet of them.I don't need to justify them either.I admit they are inheritly silly.So what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 18:03:34 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. That's simply the way the cookie crumbles, we have zero control of that and it has little to do with whether or not superhero comics as a genre are good or bad. I know, but it does allow bad super hero comics to continue to be profitable. That was my point. In other genres, well, most other genres, bad comics don't sell. In Marvel and DC all comics sell, good or bad. And often times the sales figures have less to do with the quality of the contents and more to do with some sort of speculator hype, or the characters featured, which encourages the publishers to demand deaths and rebirths and first appearances and reboots and renumberings and Wolverine in everything instead of demanding a quality product. And then if they sell enough, they want it every couple weeks. At that point in my opinion it's impossible to assemble a good comic. But I have no doubt that all the talent at Marvel and DC are doing their best, and want to create great comics. A combination of the companies hiring people with a style that fits the company style rather than actual talent, and impossible deadlines, and overbearing editorial interference stack the odds against the product actually being good though. They all directly correlate to the quality of the product. Which is why I do not believe super hero comics can't be good. But I am of the opinion that long running ongoing monthly shared universe comics of any genre can't be good. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 18:05:57 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. Intolerant times support intolerant critiques. Those critiques feed the ideology of the government. If you are happy to be labelled as "low brow" or inferior by some random cultural critic that's your business. me i dismiss that whole line of thought out of hand as crass and shallow - again thats my business. If you are happy to be labelled "low brow" or "inferior" by a senator or president - history will tell you that you might find many problems for you. My favorite genre of fine art is called "lowbrow" |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 9, 2014 21:06:08 GMT -5
I would disagree in the sense in that once you develop a critical standard for an superhero story, you can do a quanitative analysis of how many comics achieve this standard and how many don't. If a particular genre is performing below a certain critical standard, we can point to that genre and say that is underperfoming from a qualitative standpoint. It's essentially the argument against terrestial radio these days, which can be further extrapolated to the majority of stations being owned by a handful of conglomerates who enforce rigid playlists.
It's developing that critical standard that is difficult as taste is always a factor in evaluation. However, you can develop a consensus from informed critics and work from there. For example, I am far more likely to take the advice of someone posting on this board where the breadth of knowledge and experience with comics is quite expansive rather than someone who only reads a particular franchise's books and expresses his/herself with statements like, "Wolverine rooools!!!!!"
While it's theoretically possible to do just that I've yet to see it done and until perhaps the time comes where the interest in superhero comics has waned to the point where the market can only sustain a few dozen books of that genre I don't expect such an argument to be artfully made. And even then, I would still insist that it was the individual books that were poor and that in no way truly reflected on the genre itself or its viability to continue to be entertaining. I do think you can see certain trend in comics that do add up to a certain aggregate. For example, once the loss of continuity is factored out with the New 52, most readers complains are that most of the books feature the same dark'n'gritty stories and feature a certain cookie-cutter approach to storytelling. I think the problem with DC's superhero books at the moment is a general lack of imagination towards stories and how they're told. There seems to be a push towards a universal expression of craft within most DC superhero books at the moment, and while I wouldn't say that any of the books are unreadable from a craft standpoint, there is quite a backlash against the so-called "house style". I do think you can measure that discontent, and how it effects readership.
To put it a little more clearly, I don't disagree that you can rate poor comics on an individual basis, but there certainly are trends that can also be seen, documented, amd interpreted, comics being one of the great 'copycat' mediums.
Also, I certainly don't want to make it seem like I'm belittling anyone's intelligence by suggesting that taste can be challenged. I don't see intelligence and taste as connected concepts. I mean, I still have all 13 Heroes Reborn: Avengers comics in my collection and own the tpb for Secret Wars. I think most people with a critical eye would say that they're terrible comics and a reflection on how comics were being produced in their respective eras, but I don't think anyone would say that they're a reflection on my intelligence in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 9, 2014 22:46:52 GMT -5
I think the bias against genre fiction by elitists and the literati, in general, has a lot to do with the long held notion that introspection and observation takes precedence over imagination and physicality. I think it's well understood that certain people tend to dislike traits that they themselves lack. Of course, it's unfair to frame every critic as an anemic wimp that has a burning hatred for manly men, or serious thinkers/utter bores without the ability to generate abstract thoughts, but I do think this comes into play.
Of course serious criticism of the superhero genre (most famously done by Gary Groth in TCJ over the years) is often spot on; the faults of much of even the best criticism is that they almost always discount, or lack the ability to understand, fun and escapism. That's really what it's all about once you get past all detailed analysis. Quite simply put...real life is boring! (Unless you're a jet-setting billionaire, celebrity or professional athlete)
From my perspective, you have to understand and learn to appreciate aspects of high, middle and low-brow art and entertainment to be a complete intellect who has gotten the most out of human experience--in terms of culture. The main flaw I see critics make is to take something like the superhero genre, frame their criticisms using only the worse possible scenario (basement dwellers who only read comics) and proceed from that basis. Little to no thought is given for the thousands or millions who adore something like the Lee/Kirby FF, despise the mindless tripe of early Image comics, yet at the same time have read Faulkner and Hemingway.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 10, 2014 3:23:22 GMT -5
Most people love heroic fiction.Detectives,spies,war,SF on and on. As someone who has read comics for a half century I understand the limitations of the superhero genre.For the most part,if you didn't like it by the time you were a young teen .you're never going to be a fan of it. Whys that.There are crtain tropes that are essential to the genre and they are silly at the same time. The gaudy costume is one.No one in their right mind would really wear one. I walk around in Times Square where there are all theses street performers dressed up in good looking superhero costumes and I must admit,even if they're bodies are in good shape,its silly.Very very silly The powers.Gotta have a power.But if you have a power,then the villian has to have a power.So's the next villian.So's your superhero buddy/ally.Powers,powers,get your powers here.It can start off relatively grounded like enhanced strength,enhanced speed but they begin to esculate to the point of silliness Thankfully we're past the little kid partner-or are we.Inevitably a popular superhero gets saddled with a Ms version,a different color version,an evil version.Thats why I like Krypto.Don't pretend this is serious-have fun with the fans But what about the TV and movie versions?Are they not successful.Yes they are as long as the non-fan watches them in small doses.They have to tone down the silliness found in the comics.And a non-fan can find them fun as long as they are only seeing 2 or 3 superhero movies a year.TV shows need them toned down even more so for budget reasons as well as being on every week.And the best of them struggle to last beyond 2 or 3 years I'm OK with the fact the superhero genre will reside in the lower rungs of heroic fiction.Just as long they survive.They entertain me-but I wouldn't make a steady diet of them.I don't need to justify them either.I admit they are inheritly silly.So what? Do you think Wertham and the comics code forced/maintained certain tropes on the genre that affected it for decades? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 13:55:32 GMT -5
I think the tropes are based on upselling and corporate synergy. The negative ones anyway. Tropes like capes and secret identities I think are just inspiration from Superman.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Man of Tomorrow on May 10, 2014 14:12:04 GMT -5
I think the tropes are based on upselling and corporate synergy. The negative ones anyway. Tropes like capes and secret identities I think are just inspiration from Superman. The capes I can understand, but I will never understand why anybody would become a superhero without a secret identity. Just doesn't make any sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 10, 2014 14:17:16 GMT -5
Do you think Wertham and the comics code forced/maintained certain tropes on the genre that affected it for decades? |
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 10, 2014 16:02:18 GMT -5
Do you think Wertham and the comics code forced/maintained certain tropes on the genre that affected it for decades? I do think that the imperative towards a moral-- and often simplistic-- resolution did limit the kinds of stories you could tell. However, I also think the CC was so arbitrarily applied that you were able to sneak things by as early as the late '60s. The nation's reaction to Watergate certainly opened things up as far as how authority could be depicted in a CC approved book, which makes the early '70s an important milestone for the application of the Code.
There was a also an air of capriciousness to the CC-- if Kevin O'Neill were to tell a innocuous Silver Age-style story that reinforced morality and authority, it would still be rejected because it was by Kevin O'Neill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 10, 2014 18:09:27 GMT -5
I wrote up a large response about Wertham and superhero comics.Insightful,witty,articulate,controversial.Proud of it.Posted it and it got lost.
Basically,I said the comics code stunted the intellectual growth of comics in all genres-except superheroes
That is a genre by its very definition that remains juvenile power fantasy.Adults can enjoy it.But the more literary conceipts you throw into it,the more mature you try to stretch it,it begins to feel like a parody.An adult version of a fairy tale.I can enjoy a good superhero tale for what it is.But if it really wants to be mature and evocative of the human condition,get rid of the capes and other tropes of that genre
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 18:14:27 GMT -5
I think the tropes are based on upselling and corporate synergy. The negative ones anyway. Tropes like capes and secret identities I think are just inspiration from Superman. The capes I can understand, but I will never understand why anybody would become a superhero without a secret identity. Just doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make a ton of sense, but it doesn't ruin the comic for me. In fact, I think the secret identity makes more sense than the cape. I guess it's possible people still wore actual capes in the 30's, otherwise I can't imagine why that article of clothing was resurrected for super heroes. The tropes that ruin super heroes for me are the shared universes, crossovers, events, variant covers, and any number of things I've slammed in the past. But a fun guy with a bright colored utility belt, no reason to put too much thought into it, it's just cool. |
|
