The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,353
Subj: I've already done my work...
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 05:58:11 pm EST (Viewed 140 times)
Reply Subj: It's funny you say it's easier, when it seems like I'm doing way more work than you here lol
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 03:02:04 pm EST (Viewed 131 times)


    LGDB: No it's not splitting hairs. It's the difference between talking about the art itself versus whether you like it. And actually you've brought up a valuable kind of example to demonstrate. The very idea that you can recognize something as technically good i.e. that it meets all your criteria for a competently produced piece of work, and still not enjoy it personally . If you've ever had that moment (or if anyone reading has) where you think "okay, yes this is well written, I just don't personally enjoy it," then you're already observing the distinction I mean to indicate.

I can acknowledge that Kurt Busiek is a good writer, even though I don't like his work. I think Cates is a bad writer by most metrics.

    And if 99% of people don't like something it's very unlikely that the work at hand is "hitting every mark of composition."

Why? The work can be bad because it strays from the source material to the point where it is unrecognizable to long-time readers, thus making it unappealing. Some writing can be technically on-point but leave readers with a bad taste in their mouths.

I would say this is different from Cates, who I think is just a bad writer on even a technical level. Which I detailed rather well in my early reviews, IMO.

For example, the fate of the universe being on the line with [whatever that stupid villain was; Black Winter?], and Galactus and Thor continually trying to provoke each other, sabotage the effort to repel Black Winter, belying the seriousness of the situation or why Galactus sought out help in the first place. These are literary choices that sabotaged the readers' sense of the threat. Thor and Galactus were both acting petty, and frankly stupid. The story ended up being a mess, with Galactus as a character being turned inside out for... what?

    But in context here that's not relevant, because as I've reminded plenty of times, Donny Cate's Thor and Aaron's Thor were and are big sellers for the company. They're almost always in the industry top 25 best selling comics and often the break into the top 10. So the better question here would be if they're so bad why do so many people buy them?

The last three seasons of Game of Thrones were among the most watched in TV history, thus the most profitable. Were they good? Or were readers already invested in the series thus tagged along for the ride in the hope that something could be salvaged and resolved?

    If your answer is well those people are stupid or don't know get writing, that's pretty much a BS universal solvent of any argument against your position.

You mean like critics being too old to 'get comics'? Oh wait, you said you were joking! Haha, I forgot. It's almost as if you were called on something, were embarrassed, and came up with an excuse.

    I'm asking you to provide criteria for what makes the writing good or bad

I already told you. Repeatedly. If I don't like it, it's bad. That's the only criteria I have to give to express that point. Thankfully I've explained WHY I don't like it, and you are welcome to follow the links I've kindly provided. Go try picking apart my previous critiques. Yes, that's a challenge. Post your critiques of my points and we'll go through whether or not they are valid.

I've done my work, time to pony up.


    "So, as an example, I might criticize a piece of art by saying the dialogue is unrealistic. That's an objective claim about the text. Judging whether or not it's true is subjective in some sense, but the point is I've moved away from talking about my feelings

So I invite you to go through my reviews, where I've done this, and counter my points.


    LGDB: You think questioning the validity of someone's evidence in an argument is absurd?

Where did you challenge me on specific points I made in those reviews? Seems to me that you just said, 'Not good enough!' without any substantive counter-argument.


    LGDB: But I'm disputing you met the criteria. Other people can judge if you did or not.

Funny, you set criteria in this very thread that I've met. Specifically unrealistic and nonsensical dialog and character behaviour.

    What I'm asking is simple: Establish the criteria by which some piece of work is bad writing.

We literally did this several times, and I'll be waiting for you to finally address it with the Blake story. And for that matter the Galactus / Black Winter story, where I outlined how ridiculous both Thor and Galactus acted as the 'threat to end all threats' approached. Feel free to explain how the Thor / Bill incident made any sense, as well. I also outlined that in my reviews.


    LGDB: I'm not sure what you mean here.

I said that my critical opinion (that Cates is a bad writer) is a function of my entire critique of his writing, which consists of many different parts. You said you understood this, then asked me to slice up my critique so you could dispel a single part. ????

So either you didn't understand what you said you understood, or you're playing games with me. Which is it?

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 95.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software