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: 7,460
Subj: Well, no... I'm referring to a brand of entitlement.
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 08:35:52 am EST (Viewed 98 times)
Reply 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 155 times)

    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.

Translation: Rhetorical self-gratification.

    LGDB:  Arbitrary in what way?

In that what some people are willing to call quality writing other people find lacking in quality. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

    LGDB:  Yeah gimme some time to go through it, you laid down like a dozen posts lol


    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 is itself an arbitrary criteria. What YOU think is the standard for fair criticism isn't worth anything to me. Go find me an objective definition and standard for literary criticism. I challenge you.

    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.

Well, I'm waiting on you.

    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.

Sure it does. It means that I hold continuity and consistency at a higher value than you. There is no doubt that this is the case if you are a strong advocate of Cates and Aaron. If you simply like their work and don't care about consistencies (among other things), then I'm happy for you, but you almost objectively have lower standards than me.

    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.

Take a poll, do your homework. Do you think I hold the keys to this answer? Do you think you do?

    LGDB:  Oh you misunderstand something here.  I'm not entitled to anything.

More Karens don't think they're entitled, ether.

    I'm trying to get something.

Yes, your adherence to analytical research is really a thing to behold.

    Those are different things and in terms of expectation, I actually think you'd be obstinate the whole way down.

Obstinate with what? Modern writing quality? I've already pointed to contemporary writers whose work I enjoy and admire.

    And honestly I'm including you in the discussion out of fairness.

Thank you. Are you not generous?

    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.

Right, your whole angle is about respecting differing opinions. In truth, I've been far more respecting of other opinions than you.

    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.

Well, you just acknowledged right here that some writers are better than others. How do you make that determination? What is your criteria? If Neil Gaimen is a 10 (out of 10), then clearly SOMEONE has to be a 1 (out of 10). Right?

How do you OBJECTIVELY make that determination?

    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?

I haven't read it. The quality of a writer in a shared universe is how well they use the existing franchise. That's the metric by which I judge Aaron and Cates. If they need to turn it up side down and inside out -- well, actually, that can be a good thing. And I gave both Cates and Aaron ample time so they could do this effectively (see my previous posts). That they failed by MY standards is not a personal failing of my inability to deliver sound criticism.

    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.

Well, that's fair, I don't know. I only know that Cates and Aaron take on a lot more work, while Gillen produces more quality, at a less robust quantity. I'm admittedly drawing a conclusion that writers who produce less quality at greater quantity are not really in it for the craft.

    LGDB:  First how do they not align?  I'm not even disputing this I just don't know what misalignment you're referring to.

I just told you. Loki showed a degree of sympathy and understanding towards Blake, then arbitrarily assigned him his godly titled and began torturing him. For what reason was Blake tortured by Loki's rationale and why was he assigned the God of Lies title against his apparent will? Did Loki unload his credit card debt on Blake too?

    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.

I hope your upcoming analysis is better than this excuse.

    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.

And yet Thor is okay with this, because he gave Blake to Loki. Maybe in the Catesverse, all gods are just criminally stupid.

    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.

Well, I'm looking forward to your analysis, which I trust will be purely objective, not subjective. We can't have you contradicting yourself.

    LGDB:  I'm not demanding you do anything.

You just want me to.

    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.

What am I refusing to acknowledge SPECIFICALLY?

    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.

This is like the 100th time you've argued in favour of asterisks and disclaimers while refusing to admit that this is your goal. I'm still not sure what your point is if you're not asking that I make a 'distinction that I'm stating opinion/preference' every time I post.

Can you finally clear this up for me? Try to keep it simple and to the point. This isn't complicated.