|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Oh are we calling each other girl names, now? Then you my friend, are Candice lol
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 09:32:08 pm EST (Viewed 150 times)
Reply Subj: The Karen-esque entitlement of demanding all criticism meets your standards...
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:21:49 pm EST (Viewed 148 times)
And your point in achieving that distinction would be...? Is this a personal project of yours? No one cares.
LGDB: Personally? I'm curious if it can be done effectively and how you'll explain it. No one needs to care, but me in this case, but I think some other people might.
Sure, but the quality of writing is entirely arbitrary to begin with. Which makes your whining an exercise in rhetorical self-gratification.
LGDB: Arbitrary in what way? You certainly seem to think that what allows you to recognize good from bad writing is more that arbitrary, what with your whole grasping the subject matter better.
See, I've done the analytical thing. Beyond that I'm expressing an opinion based on a conclusion I've reached.
LGDB: Yeah gimme some time to go through it, you laid down like a dozen posts lol
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.
LGDB: Well I'm not sure academic standards are things I'm either making up or that are arbitrary. Like I said before there's a difference between literary analysis in a more robust sense of the word and what I think you're doing. Which again is fair, given this is just a message board. My curious is if when we drill down is if your criticism will have a substance beyond your personal taste. If it does, it should be something you can demonstrate.
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.
LGDB: Yeah, so I doubt that. But I am curious about it. Is that standard demonstrable. Because if you crap on more things or like fewer things that doesn't demonstrate objetively better and higher. You can choose to interpret what you think my motivations are all you want, but part of my interest is if someone suggests that they can see something I can't in terms of its formal qualities or worth. I'm instantly going to be interest in how the see it, what they're seeing, how they understand it. And I happen to have the time now to drill down on this. Believe it or not I want you to have something more than bluster and contempt to contribute.
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?
LGDB: I AM happy to show the courtesy that if you don't like these comics, that's MORE than valid. My interest is figuring out if the thing you don't like, that you've discovered some flaw or problem that's observable to others. Or if the kind of thing where it's only a product of your own personal feelings.
Something I don't think I've ever done.
LGDB: Yeah I know I'm drawing an analogy.
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.
LGDB: The first one seems to extrinsic to the piece of writing. Maybe a writer should respect the source material, the writing that came before them, but even you'd have to admit that's not really a matter of whether the writing is well written so to speak. Now quality and sensical interactions of characters is actually a objective claim, so that's something that I think can be disputed, and that's what I'll be doing.
I think your whining is Karen-esque in its sense of entitlement, so I guess we're clear on where we stand.
LGDB: Oh you misunderstand something here. I'm not entitled to anything. I'm trying to get something. Those are different things and in terms of expectation, I actually think you'd be obstinate the whole way down. And honestly I'm including you in the discussion out of fairness. I don't need your participation to just take things you've posted and break down what I think makes little sense about it. I'm having the discussion without out of respect. If you don't want to particpate or respond you're ENTITLED to that. lol
Since we can't agree that Cates writing is 'well-written', you're putting the cart before the horse.
LGDB: Either way, I'm clarifying.
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: No I do not agree whatsoever that Aaron or Cates work lacks all depth. I think some of Aaron's work has marked depth. But besides these famous auture who are some people that you think have that level of depth, because again, I don't think it's fair to say if a writer isn't equivalent to the greatest writers, they're bad.
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?
LGDB: To me this is less clear, but I've never done a kind of direct comparison. Also both Gillen does a bunch of big Marvel stuff like his upcoming X universe stuff and Eternals, while Aaron and Cates have both done creator owned stuff. Do you think their creator owned stuff is equally atrocious?
And no, I don't think it's true that Gillen writes to write while Aaron and Cates write just for the money, nor do I know how you've come to that.
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-??
LGDB: First how do they not align? I'm not even disputing this I just don't know what misalignment you're referring to.
And there a few things here that I think you're glossing over. One Loki is a trickster god, the idea that he would contradict himself is a feature not a bug. He says that Odin has created this monster by torturing him, and then goes on to torture him. We don't yet know what Loki's up to. And further, the idea that Loki would castigate Odin for doing something, (like lying or ill treating someone) and then go on to do exactly that thing isn't just not unprecedented. It's barely uncommon.
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?
LGDB: No we can't agree on that. Because I like Moore and Gaiman easily more than Cates and Aaron. Gillen I probably put closer to a Cates and Aaron. I don't think whatsover this is some categorical issue where if you like Gaiman and Moore then you understand that Cates and Aaron are bad writers. I think they're varying degrees of quality in these cases, and they have various merits.
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.
LGDB : Yes and as I've said already, from what I can tell most of what you've articulated (which you make clear in most of the posts) just your review without attempt at much justification. It seems like you think saying that something is bad and then saying "because" followed by practically any stated reason is equivalent to establishing criteria and then demonstrating how to work is measured against them. It don't think that a a rational conflation.
Once again you're demanding that I conform to your standards of acceptable phrasing of criticism. Why don't you just admit it?
LGDB: I'm not demanding you do anything. I'm arguing that those things are different. I can't make you acknowledge something you refuse to, even if it's plain and true. My issue with your turn of phrase isn't a style problem, it's that I'm saying is that you're confusing an important distinction which is (intentionally or otherwise) in various places misleading, equivocating, and disingenuous.
---the late great Donald Blake