ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jun 5, 2014 5:04:48 GMT -5
While going through one of my 2012 essays I found this paragraph on the "defense" of fantasy in general-- not specifically superheroes-- and decided I'd place it here to see if anyone has a similar take. "In the era sometimes called the Silver Age, which happened to be the time of my own youth, one often had to justify a liking for fantasy. Now, there is no real cultural need to do so: enough people openly like it-- even in comic book form-- that justifications are rarely seen. Nevertheless, if one had to justify fantasy in terms of being in some sense "useful," I would do so by linking it to the human need to exceed nature, to make its own cultural "habitat," which is too often seen as human beings simply responding to nature." fantasy has always been a fundamental component of society and it's always been seen as a threat especially by a Christian elite. That's why we had a counter reformation. The difference today is that the power of those traditional authorities has been eroded by all sorts of different factors - world war / drugs / pill / civil rights etc - the desire to censure human expression is still there but the ability often isnt. However, in other countries the ability is certainly there and still happens daily. Even now though we do censor at what age one can be exposed to certain things and indeed what can be shown or what we ourselves judge acceptable regardless of the law. Story of the Eye was definitely one book, while totally legal to publish, definitely overstepped a lot of things I personally regard as acceptable. The human imagination can be a wonderful thing or extremely disturbing. There are many elements of fantasy that are pretty indefensible - the fantastical portrayal of women whether as photoshoped giraffe legged impossibilities of advertising or double f warriors in chainmail bikinis - parallel to an increasing rise in eating disorders and plastic surgery. Is there a scientific connection? i don't know - i only have anecdotal evidence from friends and work colleagues. One stat i read (which i may be forgetting accurately) is that children see up to 10,000 deaths in media today. Of course some are fantasy related, some not - but on the surface it doesnt seem particularly healthy to expose children to that amount of violence. how many of us could say "ah yes japanese tentacle rape imagery is fine" as an example. it's all part of a fantasy, it seems to be legal to publish it, but if we were the censor, would we allow it or not? Rap and the gangster fantasy is still regularly blamed for urban violence. There definitely seems to be a bit of the man/child thing going on amongst some fantasy / comics consumers too. That race back to being 5 where everything was nice and safe. Ok it's just a section of consumers but it's a legitimate target for satire. Fantasy / Super Hero comics are regularly criticised for sexism, racism, and violence. Don't forget the only reason we are on this board is because someone received a death threat and all sorts of harassment for writing a critique of a superhero comic. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jun 5, 2014 16:41:10 GMT -5
My knowledge of the Phantom is limited, but I always thought it was a brilliant concept that the character effectively has the "legacy" concept built into his framework. Would anyone have actually wanted Batman to have retired in the early 60's, never to be seen again and not passing on the mantle? Obviously, it's impossible to envision a corporation allowing a successful property to be shelved simply for storytelling purposes. That sort of thing is only possible in creator owned works. (Even Watchmen wasn't safe...) Yeah, I like ageless characters as well. If Bruce Wayne ages normally and turns his legacy over to others, then his origin will be in all likelihood. That's not to say that it's impossible to do reboots in which one sees the same characters from a new vantage point; after the characters of NEON GENESIS EVANGELION went through their major storylines, there were "alternate" takes in which the characters were re-imagined, rather than being supplanted. But in my opinion if the dominant aesthetic for American superheroes was in favor of sticking to a novel-like unity of narrative, as we get with most manga, the alternate takes would be no more frequent than we see in manga. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 6, 2014 2:30:25 GMT -5
Something I've thought ever since I first saw Batman: The Animated Series is that the characters would be best served by not having to be burdened down with modernity; Batman world just seems to work better as a quasi-1940's take with random bits of modernity added to the mix. Conversely, Superman's world probably works better as quasi-late 50's early 60's take. With Superman and Spider-Man, you'll eventually have to lose the Daily Planet and Daily Bugle, and for me personally, that's a huge loss to the mythos. I understand the need to keep the characters relevant, but I feel that can be an even bigger burden and often damaging to the core aesthetic. BTAS is proof positive that modernity is NOT a requirement for success. I don't think people care as much as creators and editors think about having references to iPhones and Facebook in every other issue. If anything, doing stuff like that is the easiest way to date a story.
It doesn't REALLY bother me as a fan of classic comics, but it can still be slightly jarring to crack open a Jim Aparo Batman comic to see Batman confronted by a bunch of hippies with one wearing a t-shirt reading "Reality is the best high." As much as I love 70's era Batman, I never liked the way most artists seemed to draw Gotham as a generic "big city" without all the stylized touches and art deco flourishes. I'd much prefer Marvel and DC abandon the "modern world + superpowers" approach and go the timeless route; fit the worlds and cities to suit the individual characters at their most iconic and mix and match anachronisms right along side the modern touches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 2:48:28 GMT -5
That sounds like it would work and actually be pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 6, 2014 3:41:26 GMT -5
So I partially agree with dupont, in that stories should end and new stories be told, but the problem is not in continuing the characters-that is something we have done with heroic characters for centuries-but with trying to weave all the stories of these characters into a single narrative-it's untenable and counterproductive. And I say this as a fan of the shared universes and a longtime reader of them. But I think the need to become less insular, to grow the audience, to tell new stories, outweighs the desire and preferences of the insular audience with a limited lifespan. Yes, continuity isn't the problem. Ridiculously long continuity is. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 6, 2014 3:44:25 GMT -5
I'd much prefer Marvel and DC abandon the "modern world + superpowers" approach and go the timeless route Absolutely yes, I've been advocating for a "Marvel 1984" universe for quite some time, and this is the first time I see someone proposing something similar. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 6, 2014 10:58:00 GMT -5
That's kind of a big reason why I think creator owned works are better though. In general, that's probably true. Barring that, continuing characters need a strong steward to keep things on track (think ERB enterprises or non-evil Disney), not a "custodian" who constantly wants to let the latest hot creator "shake things up." But, cripes, outside of U.S. mainstream comic books, what other characters have had multiple stories coming out every month for 30, 40, 50 years? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 14:10:32 GMT -5
That's kind of a big reason why I think creator owned works are better though. In general, that's probably true. Barring that, continuing characters need a strong steward to keep things on track (think ERB enterprises or non-evil Disney), not a "custodian" who constantly wants to let the latest hot creator "shake things up." But, cripes, outside of U.S. mainstream comic books, what other characters have had multiple stories coming out every month for 30, 40, 50 years? U.S. daytime soaps. Daily not monthly. Many of the characters have endured since their show's inceptions. Many have finally gone off the air in the last few years but some started on radio before the advent of TV and continued for 50+ years. And longevity in an of itself isn't necessarily a virtue, neither is monthly... If you take monthly and replace it with regularly, you have at least Asterix (since 1959) and Tin Tin (since 1929), add in comic strips you have Dick Tracy (daily since 1931), Garfield (daily since 1978) etc. There are lots of enduring characters that have appeared regularly for the time frame you asked about. Some more frequently than American mainstream comics, some less but still appearing regularly with new material for that time span. Some n a "comic" format, others in different medium. Super-heroes aren't the only long term enduring regular characters and mainstream US comics are not the only delivery system for such things. -M |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jun 6, 2014 16:18:02 GMT -5
While going through one of my 2012 essays I found this paragraph on the "defense" of fantasy in general-- not specifically superheroes-- and decided I'd place it here to see if anyone has a similar take. "In the era sometimes called the Silver Age, which happened to be the time of my own youth, one often had to justify a liking for fantasy. Now, there is no real cultural need to do so: enough people openly like it-- even in comic book form-- that justifications are rarely seen. Nevertheless, if one had to justify fantasy in terms of being in some sense "useful," I would do so by linking it to the human need to exceed nature, to make its own cultural "habitat," which is too often seen as human beings simply responding to nature." fantasy has always been a fundamental component of society and it's always been seen as a threat especially by a Christian elite. That's why we had a counter reformation. The difference today is that the power of those traditional authorities has been eroded by all sorts of different factors - world war / drugs / pill / civil rights etc - the desire to censure human expression is still there but the ability often isnt. However, in other countries the ability is certainly there and still happens daily. Even now though we do censor at what age one can be exposed to certain things and indeed what can be shown or what we ourselves judge acceptable regardless of the law. Story of the Eye was definitely one book, while totally legal to publish, definitely overstepped a lot of things I personally regard as acceptable. The human imagination can be a wonderful thing or extremely disturbing. There are many elements of fantasy that are pretty indefensible - the fantastical portrayal of women whether as photoshoped giraffe legged impossibilities of advertising or double f warriors in chainmail bikinis - parallel to an increasing rise in eating disorders and plastic surgery. Is there a scientific connection? i don't know - i only have anecdotal evidence from friends and work colleagues. One stat i read (which i may be forgetting accurately) is that children see up to 10,000 deaths in media today. Of course some are fantasy related, some not - but on the surface it doesnt seem particularly healthy to expose children to that amount of violence. how many of us could say "ah yes japanese tentacle rape imagery is fine" as an example. it's all part of a fantasy, it seems to be legal to publish it, but if we were the censor, would we allow it or not? Rap and the gangster fantasy is still regularly blamed for urban violence. There definitely seems to be a bit of the man/child thing going on amongst some fantasy / comics consumers too. That race back to being 5 where everything was nice and safe. Ok it's just a section of consumers but it's a legitimate target for satire. Fantasy / Super Hero comics are regularly criticised for sexism, racism, and violence. Don't forget the only reason we are on this board is because someone received a death threat and all sorts of harassment for writing a critique of a superhero comic. Re: your last comment: "Don't forget the only reason we are on this board is because someone received a death threat and all sorts of harassment for writing a critique of a superhero comic"-- even though the CBR boards have nothing directly to do with this topic, I can't resist repeating a comment here that I printed on THE BEAT: "...it still seems to me that whenever a businessman is willing to alienate so many members of his base with such a strategy, it’s usually because he feels that his entire project is in greater danger." IMO no form of fantasy is indefensible. All one can say is that a majority of people may choose to reject the defenses of say, your "giraffe-women" fantasy or whatever. As with your example of THE STORY OF THE EYE, there are many types of literary work that have aroused censure without being either based in fantasy or wild heroics, and I'm sure we can all think of censorship we've considered unwarranted. A recent survey claims that of all comic-book works, including vaguely comic-like works, CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS has racked up the greatest number of objections. It's natural that people get upset about elements that transgress, or seem to transgress, boundaries. All creators use transgressive material precisely to get a reaction; they may have other goals as well, but the first goal is always, "Here, look at my stuff!" It's because there's a tendency to despise anything that smacks of sensationalism that we recently had a couple of real rocket scientists deriding the She-Hulk as a "slut." One of them backpedaled and said that he wasn't calling the character a slut so much as the way she was marketed, but that's coming from a guy who wrote 3 of the 4 SCARY MOVIE films. While I accept that some blowback is inevitable and maybe even societally necessity, I subscribe to the idea that we should desire total freedom in our art. I like this Camille Paglia quote: "We may have to accept an ethical cleavage between art and reality, tolerating horrors, rapes, and mutilations in art that we would not tolerate in society. For art is our message from the beyond, telling us what nature is up to."-- Camille Paglia, SEXUAL PERSONAE, p. 39. Here's a similar quote from Carl Jung, in a more metaphysical mode: "Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him. Carefully amputated, it becomes the healing serpent of the mysteries."-- Jung, The Integration of the Personality (1939) |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 6, 2014 17:13:21 GMT -5
In general, that's probably true. Barring that, continuing characters need a strong steward to keep things on track (think ERB enterprises or non-evil Disney), not a "custodian" who constantly wants to let the latest hot creator "shake things up." But, cripes, outside of U.S. mainstream comic books, what other characters have had multiple stories coming out every month for 30, 40, 50 years? U.S. daytime soaps. Daily not monthly. Many of the characters have endured since their show's inceptions. Many have finally gone off the air in the last few years but some started on radio before the advent of TV and continued for 50+ years. And longevity in an of itself isn't necessarily a virtue, neither is monthly... If you take monthly and replace it with regularly, you have at least Asterix (since 1959) and Tin Tin (since 1929), add in comic strips you have Dick Tracy (daily since 1931), Garfield (daily since 1978) etc. There are lots of enduring characters that have appeared regularly for the time frame you asked about. Some more frequently than American mainstream comics, some less but still appearing regularly with new material for that time span. Some n a "comic" format, others in different medium. Super-heroes aren't the only long term enduring regular characters and mainstream US comics are not the only delivery system for such things. -M I'm not talking about just how long characters have been around, but characters constantly coming out with multiple stories/story lines, sometime without a single vision behind them. Three panels a day of Dick Tracy doesn't burn through material like 40 pages of Batman every month. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 17:34:26 GMT -5
In general, that's probably true. Barring that, continuing characters need a strong steward to keep things on track (think ERB enterprises or non-evil Disney), not a "custodian" who constantly wants to let the latest hot creator "shake things up." But, cripes, outside of U.S. mainstream comic books, what other characters have had multiple stories coming out every month for 30, 40, 50 years? U.S. daytime soaps. Daily not monthly. Many of the characters have endured since their show's inceptions. Many have finally gone off the air in the last few years but some started on radio before the advent of TV and continued for 50+ years. And longevity in an of itself isn't necessarily a virtue, neither is monthly... If you take monthly and replace it with regularly, you have at least Asterix (since 1959) and Tin Tin (since 1929), add in comic strips you have Dick Tracy (daily since 1931), Garfield (daily since 1978) etc. There are lots of enduring characters that have appeared regularly for the time frame you asked about. Some more frequently than American mainstream comics, some less but still appearing regularly with new material for that time span. Some n a "comic" format, others in different medium. Super-heroes aren't the only long term enduring regular characters and mainstream US comics are not the only delivery system for such things. -M Those characters aged though. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Jun 6, 2014 17:39:42 GMT -5
Dick Tracy aged somewhat, but I didn't think either Tintin or Asterix did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 18:35:45 GMT -5
I mean the soap opera characters. The characters that debuted in the 50's either died or became old in the show, and new characters were cycled in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 6, 2014 18:49:28 GMT -5
I mean the soap opera characters. The characters that debuted in the 50's either died or became old in the show, and new characters were cycled in. Not neccessarily. Many times on TV a new actor or actress assumes a character role and there's no explanation but the character continues unchanged.Ask Samantha Stevens what happened to her husband Darren.I'm no soap opera buff,but if a character is popular enough and the actor quits,I could see the sponsors deciding to just continue with someone else-the audience will get used to it.(and I know there were instances where the character was in an accident and got facial surgery) |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jun 6, 2014 21:19:53 GMT -5
IMO no form of fantasy is indefensible. All one can say is that a majority of people may choose to reject the defenses of say, your "giraffe-women" fantasy or whatever. As with your example of THE STORY OF THE EYE, there are many types of literary work that have aroused censure without being either based in fantasy or wild heroics, and I'm sure we can all think of censorship we've considered unwarranted. A recent survey claims that of all comic-book works, including vaguely comic-like works, CAPTAIN UNDERPANTS has racked up the greatest number of objections. Of course one can put up a defense of heavily photoshopped and elongated women in advertising - but that defense will be paper thin. Of course we can all think of works that have aroused censure that have nothing to do with fantasy - but that's not that the debate whereas Story of the Eye is very much rooted in fantasy. |
|
