Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2023 12:13:30 GMT -5
In life, there are things we can observe and know to be true. It’s a fact that I own a microwave. That is an objective reality. And while no-one on this forum can be 100% sure I own a microwave, I hope all of you would trust me enough to know that I am being truthful when I tell you that I own a microwave.
Other things are filtered through our subjective experiences. I might tell you that Person A mistreated me and was rude. Person A might tell you that he wasn’t rude, and he might go on to tell you that I am simply barking up the wrong tree or misinterpreting his motives. If I was to share a specific anecdote about such an occurrence, some of you might have different views on it.
Then there are things it feels impossible to know unless one was there. But we can make educated guesses about things - and weigh up various factors, perhaps so much so that we can be almost certain that something occurred.
And that brings me to comics: years ago, I remember reading some harsh comments about exactly what Bob Kane’s contributions to the Bat-Mythos were. I’d say 85-90% of the comments were anti-Kane (I am not referring to this forum, by the way). On that issue, none of us were around in 1939 and working in an office near to Bob Kane. So how sure can we really be about anything? Is there a paper trail about Kane’s contributions, what Bill Finger contributed, etc? Are we reliant on subjective anecdotes from people who were there, at least when there is no paper trail or evidence of this or that?
So, I guess my question when it comes to comics, whether it be about Bob Kane or John Byrne’s battles with editors, is how sure can we be about something? At what level (percentage-wise) do we go from “It’s likely to have happened” to “we can be almost certain it happened”?
There will be evidence of some things, and I’d wager the paper trail today is more robust and ironclad than it was in 1939 or 1961. Bob Jones or John Smith creating a character for DC in 2023 is gonna have more of a paper trail than what was happening at DC in 1950 or Marvel in 1961. Whatever is discussed, the keyword “subjective” is an irksome one.
But there’s the other side of it, too: I feel people should not be quick to dismiss *some* gut feelings - or what facts we have available at any one time. A member here might have a compelling argument, and at least some facts and guesses, to have an informed opinion on any number of issues. While it’s wrong to just assume or state things without *any* facts, I feel the other extreme is when people dismiss something with the old chestnut, “I wasn’t there, I didn’t have an office at DC.” If we go to that extreme, none of us would ever believe anything about any subject.
If, for instance, mrp offered an opinion on what he believed happened with the Dungeons & Dragons franchise, I would have enough trust in him to accept he could be close to the truth. If, say, Confessor told me what he believes happened with a rock band, I’d have enough trust in him to accept he could be close to the truth. I certainly would not, in those scenarios, dismiss such people just because they were not there.
We do have to make some assumptions, presumptions, leaps of faith, etc. I can’t take a time machine back to DC’s offices in the 80s in order to witness John Byrne’s interactions with his editors, but I feel I have some things at my disposal which allows me to make an educated guess. I might not be 100% sure about some things, but I believe 99% (or 90%) is a good batting average when it comes to having an informed opinion. So, on the Bob Kane issue (or any issue you may be thinking about), I like to think I have some trust in what has been written or said; of course, actual evidence and paper trails are preferable.
Anyway, the discussion point I am considering here, with regards to any comic issue you can think of, is this: what constitutes evidence for you? What do you need to accept something? If there’s no specific evidence or paper trail on something, how do you personally take a leap of faith? There may be two extremes: an anecdote from your friend’s brother’s cousin’s roommate, who worked as a janitor for DC, or actual evidence/a paper trail. The former is probably worth ignoring, the latter is beyond dispute. But what’s the middle ground for you?
Other things are filtered through our subjective experiences. I might tell you that Person A mistreated me and was rude. Person A might tell you that he wasn’t rude, and he might go on to tell you that I am simply barking up the wrong tree or misinterpreting his motives. If I was to share a specific anecdote about such an occurrence, some of you might have different views on it.
Then there are things it feels impossible to know unless one was there. But we can make educated guesses about things - and weigh up various factors, perhaps so much so that we can be almost certain that something occurred.
And that brings me to comics: years ago, I remember reading some harsh comments about exactly what Bob Kane’s contributions to the Bat-Mythos were. I’d say 85-90% of the comments were anti-Kane (I am not referring to this forum, by the way). On that issue, none of us were around in 1939 and working in an office near to Bob Kane. So how sure can we really be about anything? Is there a paper trail about Kane’s contributions, what Bill Finger contributed, etc? Are we reliant on subjective anecdotes from people who were there, at least when there is no paper trail or evidence of this or that?
So, I guess my question when it comes to comics, whether it be about Bob Kane or John Byrne’s battles with editors, is how sure can we be about something? At what level (percentage-wise) do we go from “It’s likely to have happened” to “we can be almost certain it happened”?
There will be evidence of some things, and I’d wager the paper trail today is more robust and ironclad than it was in 1939 or 1961. Bob Jones or John Smith creating a character for DC in 2023 is gonna have more of a paper trail than what was happening at DC in 1950 or Marvel in 1961. Whatever is discussed, the keyword “subjective” is an irksome one.
But there’s the other side of it, too: I feel people should not be quick to dismiss *some* gut feelings - or what facts we have available at any one time. A member here might have a compelling argument, and at least some facts and guesses, to have an informed opinion on any number of issues. While it’s wrong to just assume or state things without *any* facts, I feel the other extreme is when people dismiss something with the old chestnut, “I wasn’t there, I didn’t have an office at DC.” If we go to that extreme, none of us would ever believe anything about any subject.
If, for instance, mrp offered an opinion on what he believed happened with the Dungeons & Dragons franchise, I would have enough trust in him to accept he could be close to the truth. If, say, Confessor told me what he believes happened with a rock band, I’d have enough trust in him to accept he could be close to the truth. I certainly would not, in those scenarios, dismiss such people just because they were not there.
We do have to make some assumptions, presumptions, leaps of faith, etc. I can’t take a time machine back to DC’s offices in the 80s in order to witness John Byrne’s interactions with his editors, but I feel I have some things at my disposal which allows me to make an educated guess. I might not be 100% sure about some things, but I believe 99% (or 90%) is a good batting average when it comes to having an informed opinion. So, on the Bob Kane issue (or any issue you may be thinking about), I like to think I have some trust in what has been written or said; of course, actual evidence and paper trails are preferable.
Anyway, the discussion point I am considering here, with regards to any comic issue you can think of, is this: what constitutes evidence for you? What do you need to accept something? If there’s no specific evidence or paper trail on something, how do you personally take a leap of faith? There may be two extremes: an anecdote from your friend’s brother’s cousin’s roommate, who worked as a janitor for DC, or actual evidence/a paper trail. The former is probably worth ignoring, the latter is beyond dispute. But what’s the middle ground for you?
