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: 7,414
Subj: The Karen-esque entitlement of demanding all criticism meets your standards...
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:21:49 pm EST (Viewed 141 times)
Reply 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 150 times)

    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.

And your point in achieving that distinction would be...? Is this a personal project of yours? No one cares.

    There's a difference between the quality of a thing and your preferences.

Sure, but the quality of writing is entirely arbitrary to begin with. Which makes your whining an exercise in rhetorical self-gratification.

    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.

See, I've done the analytical thing. Beyond that I'm expressing an opinion based on a conclusion I've reached.

    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.

As you demonstrate whenever you respond. Your entire angle in challenging me is that you think you have a lock on what constitutes valid criticism. You think my criticism is invalid because of standards you've arbitrarily set.

    Every idiot think they're smarter than all the sheeple.

My criticism isn't predicated on intellectual superiority, but rather I have a different (and I think objectively higher) standard than you regarding this form of entertainment.

    Declaring yourself to have better taste than anyone isn't wrong per se, it's just an incredibly empty gesture.

Sure, because taste is subjective anyway. You're able to quite happily ignore the flies on your meal in order to consume the meal. You might not even see the flies. In the end, you're happy, and I never once said you shouldn't be happy. Have you shown me the same courtesy?

    As empty as just declaring yourself publicly an intelligent person.

Something I don't think I've ever done.

    Higher? You can't demonstrate by what higher principle if any.

Sure I can. If respecting the source material and maintaining quality and sensical interactions between characters are principles, then my standards are incalculably higher than yours. Yet, you're able to more easily accept and enjoy what you're served, thus making you happier as a reader. So I guess there's that benefit. I think you should be happy that you're happy, not unhappy that others disagree.

    Is it a sin?  I don't really care.  My argument is that you're position is vacuous not immoral.

I think your whining is Karen-esque in its sense of entitlement, so I guess we're clear on where we stand.

    LGDB:  When I say writing is hard, I think it's pretty obvious that I mean to write well.

Since we can't agree that Cates writing is 'well-written', you're putting the cart before the horse.

    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.

So we can now at least agree that it's far more difficult to write complicated, nuanced characters than the characters Aaron and Cates write (which I think we can both agree are rather one-dimensional; lacking in depth). We're getting somewhere, albeit painfully slowly.

By the way, it's a choice to write characters lacking in depth. It's not the fault of the entertainment medium.

    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.

It does vary. I think Gillen can weave together continuity and complex dialog on a level Aaron and Cates combined couldn't ever hope to match. Does Gillen make the same coin as Cates and Aaron? Probably not, I would imagine, since Cates and Aaron write half the comics in Marvel, whereas Gillen is off in his own corner, I would argue focusing on the craft rather than the buck.

Do you get what I'm saying?

    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.

The ending to IT is Shakespeare compared to the ending of the Blake or the Black Winter stories. Also, the notion of Blake going insane due to the machinations of the gods is a GREAT idea to begin with. It's Alan Moore-esque as a concept. So how did it turn out so badly? Remember, as you said, these are not novels where the story can escape the writer due to the density and complexity of the material (ala George R. R. Martin), these are like a few issues of comics. Is it expecting much to see a beginning, middle and ending that align?

For that matter, Loki effectively says (in Blake's defense) that Blake is a product of Odin and the gods who tortured him, then goes onto torture him in the next panel. Huh? Wha-??

    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.

I haven't been shy that I think Aaron and Cates are appealing to a much different type of reader than Gillen or Alan Moore or Gaiman. I think we can definitely agree on that.

If Gillen and Moore and Gaiman are quality, then we're starting to get an answer, aren't we?

    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.

Not really, I just think that you have little concern about the source material and coherence of dialog compared to me. As I even said, this can be a benefit, since you are clearly happy with Aaron and Cates.

    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.

I've already articulated it, and as I said, you are welcome to respond to the points I've made since Cates began his run. If you say that I haven't made any, I'll be forced to call you a liar because I've been quite clear on my points of criticism and have referenced some of them today.

    Neither saying something is bad TO YOU nor something is bad objectively based on some criteria, is bad.

Once again you're demanding that I conform to your standards of acceptable phrasing of criticism. Why don't you just admit 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