|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: There's really no point of trying to jockeying over what you think I initially said or meant.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 06:56:57 pm EST (Viewed 144 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Before I breaks this down, let's clarify something.
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 05:23:05 pm EST (Viewed 145 times)
I've said repeatedly that I'm speaking for myself. I said I was speaking for myself months ago when you initially challenged me. I've said it recently. I'll say it now. I posted links to me saying this. So are you pretending to be stupid or are you not pretending? We've passed the point where this isn't a serious question.
LGDB: Which speaks past my point to begin with. I understand you're only speaking for yourself. I'm not disputing that. I've said repeatedly, I'm arguing whether or not the thing you are saying (in speaking for yourself) is anything but an articulation of preference. There's a difference between the quality of a thing and your preferences. I've said this already, and you're dodging the point. You can not care about it all you want, but to be clear you're arguing cross purposes here.
OR, are you again demanding that I put an asterisk beside every comment where I criticize Cates or Aaron? Because, as we've established, that's not how language works on even a fundamental level. Anyone who makes such a demand is being, to be polite, unreasonable. And entitled.
LGDB: No this is a strawman. There's a difference between expecting people to be rigorous in their casual speech versus maintaining that lack of precision when asked to be analytical. I'm not criticizing your regular posting that "Cates sucks!" or what have you. I'm saying that even when asked to do a more critical analysis, you still insist on maintaining the same vague kinds of conflations.
Why? Because it isn't polite or because it isn't true? Yes, Cates provides certain entertainment to people with certain expectations. My expectations are different, I would argue much higher. Is that a sin?
LGDB: No because let's face it, EVERYONE thinks they're one of the smart few who understand things better than the stupid people out there. Every idiot think they're smarter than all the sheeple. Declaring yourself to have better taste than anyone isn't wrong per se, it's just an incredibly empty gesture. As empty as just declaring yourself publicly an intelligent person. I see no reason to think you've got better taste or "higher" expectations than anyone. Different sure. Higher? You can't demonstrate by what higher principle if any. Is it a sin? I don't really care. My argument is that you're position is vacuous not immoral.
No, it's not. It simply isn't. Writing GOOD is hard. Writing bad is very, very easy. Many artists become writers because writing is much easier than doing artwork. Between Cates and Aaron, they are writing a good portion of the Marvel Universe at this point. Monthly. Clearly they aren't struggling over plot directions and weaving together complicated character elements like George R. R. Martin. If you believe they are on his level or anywhere in the same literary universe, I'll just snicker and leave it at that.
LGDB: When I say writing is hard, I think it's pretty obvious that I mean to write well. If you say an activity is difficult then generally what you mean is that it's hard to not do it poorly. But fair enough. I'm clarifying that now if it was confusing lol And As far as comparing George R. R. Martin, clearly the comparison is apples to apples. You're comparing deeply dense novel with comic story arcs. They have different aims, audiences, mediums, and tones. And even it were a fair comparison, the fact that George R. R. Martin is better at intricate plot construction and nuance characterization (which by the way is his stock in trade) that wouldn't make Aaron or Cates abysmally bad. It would only make them less good.
Similarly, they are not on the level of Gillen or Gaiman or Alan Moore in his prime. The stories of Aaron and Cates are written for people with easily satiated appetites who don't care about continuity, coherence and aren't bothered by inconsistencies even within their own sphere of writing. That's fine, it's not for me.
LGDB: Yes, Gaiman and Moore are literally some of the most esteemed writers in all of comic history. I'm not sure if trying to establish Cates or Aaron as crappy by suggesting they fall short of two of the greatest writers to ever do it is a reasonable or fair standard whatsoever. Personally I think the distinction between Gillen and Cates is somewhat less extreme. But your mileage may vary.
Feel free to include the entire story. I'm not sure why it matters, because if you can't finish a story in a sensical way -- well, that doesn't speak to your quality as a writer, does it?
LGDB: I'll definitely try to explain how I see it fitting into the larger story. Further, I would say you can have a weaker ending and still have written a good even great story. Stephen King has made a career out of this; he's even parodied himself over it in IT. If the ending was absolutely awful then perhaps you can argue it destroys the whole book, but I dont' think this examples fits that. And for your part is that what you're saying the story is otherwise good, but the ending ruins it, or did you basically just not like the whole thing.
And what you let slip here, this idea that your not liking these writers or stories is based on some kind of superiority, you have a less "easily satiated appetite'' is where I think you step over the line of whether the stories are good in your opinion. However obliquely, you're suggesting your understand something that people that like it don't or have sense of taste that's more attuned to something. If anything that's what makes me all the more curious if you can demonstrate what you're talking about or if it's just empty posturing.
Wait, you're the one who said that good writing is a function of literary composition and not taste. Thus, anyone who speaks from a point of taste (preference) is wrong and a dastardly meanie for voicing their opinion without the mandatory asterisks and disclaimers.
LGDB: No neither is dastardly, mean, or whatever other kind of silly description you want to give it. It's just that one isn't the other. Neither saying something is bad TO YOU nor something is bad objectively based on some criteria, is bad. But conflating the two or passing one off as the other unintentionally is sloppy and confusing, and if done intentionally is illicit and done for all kinds of bad faith reasons.
---the late great Donald Blake
Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.110 on Windows 10
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|