LGDB: Yeah, sorry, this is kind of my fault because I blended this (which was me being wry and basically joking) and more serious conversation.
I think you're making an assumption based on literally nothing.
LGDB: Well the literally nothing that I'm basicing it on is the trope that old people are suspicious or resentful of new things. That's certainly not totalizing, but it's also not "literally nothing."
I would say its a statement of fact. Whether the correlation equates to causation is worth examining.
LGDB: Okay great, so it's a statement of fact, as in not opinion. But as it's apparently meant as a statement of fact I'd say it's pretty controversial on and apparently highly disputed. And not to be all "gotcha" but is this meant as a statement of your opinion or a statement of fact? You keep jumping back from one to the other. And I mean obviously you observe there's a difference between fact an opinion, right?
Well, you claimed that the reason for negativity is due to readers 'aging out of comics', which I think I've now thoroughly debunked. Which makes my claim stronger, especially since there's definite correlation.
LGDB: Yeah again, this was more of a joke. I agree with you there are all kinds of reasons a person might dislike something that is otherwise of decent quality. Congratulations on thoroughly debunking my joke lol
This is the worst kind of nitpicking. Every time someone speaks they're coming from a subjective viewpoint. Should I put an asterisk and disclaimer beside everything I say because you have trouble understanding how language is used?
LGDB: Yeah, you're not getting a distinction. You either don't want to recognize it or are glossing over it unintentionally, but I think it's fairly well established: namely that while everyone is coming from a subjective point of view (of a necessity) there are different kinds of claims we can be making from that subjective point of view. In this case (1) claims about our personal feeling about something, e.g. "I like this thing," "I enjoy this," "this is good to me" or (2) claims about what we believe things in the world are like irrespective of our personal taste e.g. "this writing is poorly done." "This is objectively bad writing." In other words despite, just because something is obviously a matter of your opinion, doesn't mean that the claim you're making (in your opinion) can't be subject to criticism or be capable of being wrong.
And no asterisks is needed. I don't have trouble so much understanding how language is used so much as I'm trying to point out how it's often (and in this case) misused. I also don't think it's a good idea to mistake a subtle but crucial distinction as "nitpicking." It's usually through subtle and small distinctions that people try to wriggle out.
I've stated repeatedly what my issues with current writing are, and my conclusion is that its a result of bad writing. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
LGDB: Yeah I'm not trying to convince you of anything either. We're having a public conversation. I'm not in your DMs as it were. We're both making a case on a public forum.
Wild inconsistencies (even from the same writer), over-reliance on gimmicks, nonsensical plot resolutions, nonsensical displays of power, building up of threats that fizzle out and go nowhere, but at the same time utterly undermine other characters who serve as the foundation of the Marvel Universes (e.g. Galactus). Just off the top of my head.
LGDB: These are at least gestures towards of evidence. Cool. Is there any of these that you think is the strongest case you'd have to make. The one's that rely on the least subjective impressions? I'd like to think one through rigorously. So for instance, "over reliance of gimmicks" for instance is pretty loaded. The difference between gimmicks and well-worn literary tropes or devices might be objectively the same, i.e. if it's an example you don't like you call it a gimmick, if it's an example you do like you call it a literary device. And the same with over reliance. Who decides the appropriate use of these and whether or not they're being "relied upon" as opposed to utilized?
My point being that each on probably requires a certain amount of analysis. We can go through all of them, but I think it might be a better use of our time to just pick one and discuss it at greater depth. So perhaps you should pick the one that you think is the least questionable. After all, obviously each of these reasons you over have the potential (but aren't necessarily) to be as unsupported or vacuous as the original claim that the writing is bad.
I've had these issues with Cates before he started writing THOR, by the way. His Thanos series was abysmal.
LGDB: I also liked that one lol I think we have different criteria for what makes a thing good. I'm curious why they're so different. Like why your criteria are so compelling to you.
Did you know that I was among this board's biggest Aaron defenders, until I could no longer stomach his garbage?
LGDB: Okay now this part to me is gosh darn fascinating. So what was the point at which his stuff was the kind of quality you thought was worth defending transformed into garbage? You at one point like his stuff. Now that stuff you originally liked, did you later decide it was garbage after the emergence of the stuff you realized was garbage? How does that work? Like so after the tipping point happens, does then his other stuff (the stuff you at one point defended in such a big way) did you then go back and realized that older stuff was in fact always garbage that fooled you? If so, what does that say about your original judgement. Given the fact that you like earlier stuff and then hated later stuff, doesn't that that Aaron isn't a crappy writer, but a good writer at least some of the time. Or does it mean that after having written crappy, then by definition his earlier work (that you big defended) was by definition crappy unbeknownst to you as you were originally like this. I'm not just putting you on. This is legitimately interesting when I try to walk myself through this.
Spoken like someone with an entitlement complex.
LGDB: Oh pray tell what am I acting entitled to? If it's considered entitled to expect someone to justify their claims (especially their strong and strident claims) then I don't think it's an inappropriate or unjustifiable form of entitlement.
Example: Donald Blake being driven to madness by the machinations of the gods, resulting in him nearly taking down the gods. The conclusion is Thor seeking the advice of Loki; ultimately giving Blake to Loki, who went on to subject Blake to cosmic torture. Because now Blake is the God of Lies or something.
On what planet is that good writing?
LGDB: I think this is a pretty jaundiced account. This is your taking story beats and generally ordering them without much context. The conclusions is that Blake is defeated, and I think generally speaking the idea is that while he might have had a sort of tragic and sympathetic origin, he did some truly deplorable things that he would have to take responsibility for, regardless of how poorly he was mistreated. It's hard to lay Blake's choice to murder any number of heroes and innocents who happened to be blessed by Odin entirely on the feet of Odin.
As far as Blake being punished in the way he's being punished, it's certainly in keeping with the kinds of punishment the Aesir would dole out in the mythology. While Thor in the mythology wasn't the architect of the kind of punishment Loki was subjected to, we have not reason to think he had any kind of moral misgivings there. So insofar as Cates is just trying to apply the kind of godly punitive measures in the mythology directly in the comics, I think that's a decent writing choice. Further, this is Loki's choice to punish Blake, and Loki is a pretty morally questionable type. Further, it wasn't purely sadistic either. The idea of Loki trying to evade his fate as in this case the God of Lies and shuck it on the Blake is pretty in keeping with his character motives lately. And I think it's fair to question how wise it was for Thor to give Loki responsibility for punishing Blake. I think you say even if this is unwise, trusting Loki is the kind of unwise behavior Thor has repeatedly demonstrated, especially in the modern era. And even if this part isn't the strongest part of the writing, it doesn't appear to me kind of writing error that's SO AWFUL that it renders the whole work crap.
I think also, if I may say, you have this tendency of abstracting out the elements you least like and having them represent the entirety of the work. There are parts in the story I like less than other parts, but they don't totalize such that the whole thing is bad in my opinion. And I don't think if we're being objective they should be weighed so disproportionately.
This isn't a court room, and you're not qualified to be the judge or the jury. Are you?
LGDB: Not anymore or less that you or anything else on the board I'd expect. And technically I'm not qualified to be a jury because I'm not plural lol. That's not what I'm up to, anyway. I'm just articulating what I understand to be a reasonable standard, and why I don't think you're necessarily operating according to one.
Also, if you missed my past essay-reviews detailing my issues with Cates and Aaron, that's actually your problem, not mine.
LGDB: Oh sorry I'm not familiar with your entire message board canon. lol But seriously I'd be glad to click on any links for these essays that you think illustrate your points in more detail. I was being sincere when I said I've never seen you make an actual argument about why these comics are bad. I didn't say you'd never made one. In the vast majority of threads you just kind of operate from the assumption that new Thor comics are plainly bad. I would be honestly interested in reading an essay you wrote that you feel compelling establishes it.
cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake
