|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 18:30:30 GMT -5
I don't think any genre needs to be judged, just the work within it. I would say on an individual basis, but when shared universe is concerned I tend to paint the whole line with one brush. Same as if I had watched Fast And Furious 1-3 and didn't like them and someone insisted I'd like the fourth, I would pass. But I don't think any particular faults commonly found in genre work are a product of the genre, they're a product of the creators.
Not a good example of a positive work within a genre, but a good example of any tropes from within a genre being optional is Twilight. She wanted sparkly vampires that can come out in the sunlight, so that's what she wrote. It's still vampire stories, but no coffins and stakes through the heart, because it's fiction and it can be whatever you want it to be.
I would say a good example is Elfquest. A LOT of fantasy fiction with the elf/fairy/troll characters share a lot of the same characteristics that Elfquest chose not to follow. They're shape shifting aliens who lost their powers on a planet they got stranded on, and after thousands of years of natural selection no longer resemble the pale waif elf with flowing hair and flowing silk that they once chose to emulate. They've crossbred with wild animals and toughened up through generations of war. It really is unlike a lot of elf fantasy out there, and easily the best comic book within that genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 12, 2014 18:37:07 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 19:43:01 GMT -5
Debating with people who have decided that a genre can't be good is pointless either way. Debating with someone who has decided a genre hasn't been good can work by showing them good work within the genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 13, 2014 17:19:38 GMT -5
I disagree with that. Genres are a trope, but not bad. There are fantastic works within every genre, which tends to be what made it a genre in the first place more often than not. And people tend to gravitate toward one over the other. Sci-fi, horror, action, romance, Western, whatever. I don't think there needs to be multi-genre appeal for something to be good, and plenty of work that transcends genre isn't all that great either. Of course once a genre is established it allows the less talented to find a market among those who would gladly consume everything within the genre, but that's the fault of the consumer, not the genre. And it doesn't take away from good works within the genre. Good point that "transcending genre" doesn't in itself make a work good. I saw a minor spaghetti western that ended by calling attention to the fact that it was a movie. Did it "transcend genre?" Technically, yes, but it was still a blah film with no real redeeming traits. And I could tick off any number of underground/independent comics which were no more accomplished in that department. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 13, 2014 17:28:31 GMT -5
It fails to be a positive remark about the genre, when compared to another one. You can add layers of meaning to any "genre work", up to the point where it stops belonging to any genre and transcends it. The genre itself should be judged by its working set of principles, if at all. Adding layers of meaning wouldn't help any work of any genre transcend that genre, because "adding" implies that one is putting in something that isn't already there. It's true that you'll get variant interpretations on any story that becomes popular. But even a dubious interpretation, like Freud projecting his Oedipus complex onto HAMLET, isn't accomplished through a process of addition, but through amplification: taking particular details of a story and attempting to demonstrate thematic meaning through those details. This is the same process I use in interpreting FF #54; I'm not "adding" anything. You can claim that the nuclear motifs I found in the story don't have the significance I impute to it, but then you're obliged to show why they don't, or your whole argument comes down to "Nuh-UH!" To me a genre's "working set of principles" includes its ability to comment on whatever its audience finds important, apart from the genre's appeals to kinetic effects like action and humor. Can you clarify what "working set of principles" means to you? |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 13, 2014 17:34:27 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause. Judgments change over time. Science fiction was called "that Buck Rogers stuff" for the longest time, and works in the genre that didn't seem like pulp SF-- like the aforementioned 1984 and BRAVE NEW WORLD-- were given a special status that elevated them to literature, as if they made no use of SF tropes at all. That particular wrong has been more or less righted in modern times, to the extent that writers like Philip Dick can gain literary repute even when they have worked firmly within the genre as it is both pursued by fans and marketed by publishers. No judgment is immutable. Skim milk masquerades as cream, don't you know. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on May 14, 2014 3:34:36 GMT -5
Specifically, Feiffer's argument-- or the part of it I referenced-- made the distinction between "lower-class" and "middle-class," in the sense that Feiffer seemed to be suspicious of the self-congratulations of the middle class-- something I think can be extended to the so-called "high class" as well. But Feiffer would probably have more or less validated the lowbrow/middlebrow/highbrow distinctions that were current in his time. But he's almost alone in valuing "instant gratification" in itself. I think it's important to think about the reasons that people make the "high/middle/low" distinctions, but w/o taking them as representative of reality. By most standard evaluations, the Lee-Kirby FANTASTIC FOUR would be aimed at "lowbrows," but I find it more imaginative than many works validated as "high" art. The "archetypal approach" I'm talking about is aimed at understanding how "low art," even IF it's quickly made and aimed at instant gratification, can still embody the cultural viewpoints of the creators in complex ways, and deserves to be fairly evaluated in those terms. high/middle/low has certainly been a reality for many cultures - be it cambodia under pol pot, the soviet union, africa under European colonialism, British class system, the counter reformation, etc etc. you see i'd change that to: The "archetypal approach" I'm talking about is aimed at understanding how art, even IF it's quickly made and aimed at instant gratification, can still embody the cultural viewpoints of the creators in complex ways, and deserves to be fairly evaluated in those terms. many examples of "high art" are made quickly too. Action Painting, Warhol, Zen painting, improvisational music, automatic drawing etc etc. Speed of execution has little to do with the intellectual and moral substance of the work. "aimed at instant gratification" is purely subjective. One might finish Crime and Punishment and say "well that was a good story" and think no more about it while be haunted by Kirby's visions of the future for decades. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on May 14, 2014 4:07:02 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause. Like you say using works from a genre to defend it against someone attacking that entire genre is pointless. However, when it's governments, critics in positions of power, or those able to disseminate their ideas to a wide market (radio/tv/magazine columnists) which can create problems for creators and consumers of that art then... one does need some sort of defence and really the only defence left is to criticise their methodology. A classic example recently in the Uk was the riots in London. David Starkey, a very prominent historian and media figure, laid the blame on rap and the assimilation of certain elements of Afro-Caribbean culture into white working class. When asked to name one rap song, he couldn't, which is the worst thing a historian can do, not being able to cite primary sources. Debate stopped dead in its tracks after 2 mins. Realising he'd lost his only defence of his position was that he went to a "better" school than his questioner. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 14, 2014 16:25:28 GMT -5
Specifically, Feiffer's argument-- or the part of it I referenced-- made the distinction between "lower-class" and "middle-class," in the sense that Feiffer seemed to be suspicious of the self-congratulations of the middle class-- something I think can be extended to the so-called "high class" as well. But Feiffer would probably have more or less validated the lowbrow/middlebrow/highbrow distinctions that were current in his time. But he's almost alone in valuing "instant gratification" in itself. I think it's important to think about the reasons that people make the "high/middle/low" distinctions, but w/o taking them as representative of reality. By most standard evaluations, the Lee-Kirby FANTASTIC FOUR would be aimed at "lowbrows," but I find it more imaginative than many works validated as "high" art. The "archetypal approach" I'm talking about is aimed at understanding how "low art," even IF it's quickly made and aimed at instant gratification, can still embody the cultural viewpoints of the creators in complex ways, and deserves to be fairly evaluated in those terms. high/middle/low has certainly been a reality for many cultures - be it cambodia under pol pot, the soviet union, africa under European colonialism, British class system, the counter reformation, etc etc. you see i'd change that to: The "archetypal approach" I'm talking about is aimed at understanding how art, even IF it's quickly made and aimed at instant gratification, can still embody the cultural viewpoints of the creators in complex ways, and deserves to be fairly evaluated in those terms. many examples of "high art" are made quickly too. Action Painting, Warhol, Zen painting, improvisational music, automatic drawing etc etc. Speed of execution has little to do with the intellectual and moral substance of the work. "aimed at instant gratification" is purely subjective. One might finish Crime and Punishment and say "well that was a good story" and think no more about it while be haunted by Kirby's visions of the future for decades. That's a fair rewrite. It's true that there are some works accepted into the Canon of Art that value speed and improvisation: I'm reminded of the story where Jack Kerouac writes one of his novels on a roll of toilet paper, in part because getting it out in one big burst was more important than fine-tuning the work. Or so the tale goes. I agree that these judgments are subjective-- as well as being mutable, as I mentioned to Ozymandias. Still, many cultural gatekeepers have consistently harped on the same theme: Art takes time and deep thought, Junk is just tossed off with little thought. This is an unfair generalization, and there are many works that don't conform easily to one category or the other, as with LORD OF THE RINGS. But the "time and effort" argument has been made so many times that anyone mounting a defense of the popular has to answer that frequently-made argument somehow. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 14, 2014 16:34:51 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause. Like you say using works from a genre to defend it against someone attacking that entire genre is pointless. But it can work, as it did over time with the SF genre. The genre suffered from ill repute as long as the doyens of High Culture could convince themselves that the only time it was good was when it was written by reputable authors with no pulp associations-- Orwell, Huxley, Zamyatin, arguably Stapledon. But a sort of "loose canon" within the commercial genre was articulated in the 60s and 70s, allowing outsiders to sample the best of the American magazine tradition-- Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Herbert, Zelazny, LeGuin, Delany and so on. The same thing has been happening in the reception of comics for at least the past 10-15 years, and it seemed to have caught fire long before the rise of the "superhero blockbuster" film. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 14, 2014 16:45:54 GMT -5
It fails to be a positive remark about the genre, when compared to another one. You can add layers of meaning to any "genre work", up to the point where it stops belonging to any genre and transcends it. The genre itself should be judged by its working set of principles, if at all. Adding layers of meaning wouldn't help any work of any genre transcend that genre, because "adding" implies that one is putting in something that isn't already there. It's true that you'll get variant interpretations on any story that becomes popular. But even a dubious interpretation, like Freud projecting his Oedipus complex onto HAMLET, isn't accomplished through a process of addition, but through amplification: taking particular details of a story and attempting to demonstrate thematic meaning through those details. This is the same process I use in interpreting FF #54; I'm not "adding" anything. You can claim that the nuclear motifs I found in the story don't have the significance I impute to it, but then you're obliged to show why they don't, or your whole argument comes down to "Nuh-UH!" To me a genre's "working set of principles" includes its ability to comment on whatever its audience finds important, apart from the genre's appeals to kinetic effects like action and humor. Can you clarify what "working set of principles" means to you? When I say that "you" can add layers of meaning, I mean both the author and the reader. Any work of art, as a living thing, adapts to its viewership and evolves with the times. Saying that Freud "amplifies" rather than "adds", is a moot point. The FF #54 example isn't exactly the same, because it lacks enough complexity to be considered anything else than "genre work". But any work that seems, at first glance, as pertaining to a given genre, but actually transcends it, does so when the basics of the genre are dislodged trough meaning. Let's take "Watchmen", does having superpowers mean the same for Doctor Manhattan, than it does for other characters? Or do they "mean" a totally different thing here? |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 14, 2014 16:48:04 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause. Judgments change over time. Science fiction was called "that Buck Rogers stuff" for the longest time, and works in the genre that didn't seem like pulp SF-- like the aforementioned 1984 and BRAVE NEW WORLD-- were given a special status that elevated them to literature, as if they made no use of SF tropes at all. That particular wrong has been more or less righted in modern times, to the extent that writers like Philip Dick can gain literary repute even when they have worked firmly within the genre as it is both pursued by fans and marketed by publishers. No judgment is immutable. Skim milk masquerades as cream, don't you know. I didn't even consider you were talking about such crude attacks. I wouldn't lose my time with such trivialities, so I will follow my advice here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 14, 2014 16:50:40 GMT -5
The initial quote I was debating, stated that critics attack some genres, but apparently, not all of them. That means judgment has already been passed. That's wrong, but you don't right a wrong with another one, and citing examples of work from within a genre can't help its cause. Like you say using works from a genre to defend it against someone attacking that entire genre is pointless. However, when it's governments, critics in positions of power, or those able to disseminate their ideas to a wide market (radio/tv/magazine columnists) which can create problems for creators and consumers of that art then... one does need some sort of defence and really the only defence left is to criticise their methodology. A classic example recently in the Uk was the riots in London. David Starkey, a very prominent historian and media figure, laid the blame on rap and the assimilation of certain elements of Afro-Caribbean culture into white working class. When asked to name one rap song, he couldn't, which is the worst thing a historian can do, not being able to cite primary sources. Debate stopped dead in its tracks after 2 mins. Realising he'd lost his only defence of his position was that he went to a "better" school than his questioner. When confronting the powers that be, the real ones, I'm rather pessimistic. I don't like to wage war, when I can only anticipate losing battles. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on May 14, 2014 16:59:30 GMT -5
Adding layers of meaning wouldn't help any work of any genre transcend that genre, because "adding" implies that one is putting in something that isn't already there. It's true that you'll get variant interpretations on any story that becomes popular. But even a dubious interpretation, like Freud projecting his Oedipus complex onto HAMLET, isn't accomplished through a process of addition, but through amplification: taking particular details of a story and attempting to demonstrate thematic meaning through those details. This is the same process I use in interpreting FF #54; I'm not "adding" anything. You can claim that the nuclear motifs I found in the story don't have the significance I impute to it, but then you're obliged to show why they don't, or your whole argument comes down to "Nuh-UH!" To me a genre's "working set of principles" includes its ability to comment on whatever its audience finds important, apart from the genre's appeals to kinetic effects like action and humor. Can you clarify what "working set of principles" means to you? When I say that "you" can add layers of meaning, I mean both the author and the reader. Any work of art, as a living thing, adapts to its viewership and evolves with the times. Saying that Freud "amplifies" rather than "adds", is a moot point. The FF #54 example isn't exactly the same, because it lacks enough complexity to be considered anything else than "genre work". But any work that seems, at first glance, as pertaining to a given genre, but actually transcends it, does so when the basics of the genre are dislodged trough meaning. Let's take "Watchmen", does having superpowers mean the same for Doctor Manhattan, than it does for other characters? Or do they "mean" a totally different thing here? I disagree that the "amplifies" distinction is a moot point. It's salient to the process of criticism. I don't think authors "add" meaning either, except in cases where the author is consciously trying to make some allegorical point. Geoff Klock might agree that a work transcends its genre when "the basics of the genre are dislodged through meaning," since he favors a Bloom-inspired theory of "misprision"-- though I assume he wouldn't word it quite that way. I'm not sure what process takes place when something is "dislodged through meaning." Bloom would see misprision taking when "strong writers misread or misinterpret their predecessors." I see that not as any "basics" being dislodged; what is dislodged is one author's meaning, by another's. Captain Atom is a genre work that is not even as complex as the most minor Lee-Kirby adventure; CA's only "meaning" is "look how much fun it is to get turned into a radioactive superman who fights crime and alien invaders." Alan Moore critiques that naïve POV with Doctor Manhattan, but he does so by intentionally misinterpreting-- or re-interpreting-- the Captain Atom fantasy for his own purposes. But even if there wasn't *much* meaning in Captain Atom, that's not the same as saying that there's nothing at all there-- which is a common enough attack made on genre fiction of all types. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 14, 2014 17:14:28 GMT -5
But even if there wasn't *much* meaning in Captain Atom, that's not the same as saying that there's nothing at all there-- which is a common enough attack made on genre fiction of all types. Of course there is "something", we aren't talking about the vacuum of space. But even if what "is", turns out to be rather superficial, that doesn't mean it should be attacked. You can do perfectly adequate "genre work" and accomplish the goal, of entertaining those who feel at home inside its walls. |
|
