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: More goal post moving
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 at 09:04:48 am EST (Viewed 78 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I've already done my work...
Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 at 08:51:31 pm EST (Viewed 144 times)

    LGDB: Great so you acknowledge the distinction I have been trying to make.

And I have pretty much consistently.

    Okay, so now the question is what are the metrics and let's look at some examples and see if it holds up.

I already told you, and now the onus is on you to counter with an objective definition of appropriate literary criticism.


    LGDB: First, I don't think the idea of writing straying from the source material is unto itself bad. As you mention, it can be technically good. If so, then my that measure the writing isn't of poor quality.

Sure, if its done right and if the readers are pleased with the result.

    There's a difference of course between the writing itself being bad, and your not like the choices a writers makes in the story or for the characters. A perfect example of that for me is Jane becoming Thor. I didn't like that choice, but I think despite my not liking that occurrence the story is very well constructed and executed.

Do you think after thousands of years the gods revolting against the tyranny of Odin and opting for democracy is a good use the franchise? Or does it show a lack of understanding as to how the gods operate and why it works for them?

Is Jane not playing the role of the White Savior who comes to a backwater region and introduces civilization to the savages?

    Was there a specific post you feel like you best illustrated him being a technically bad writer. I've seen you claim that quite a few times, but haven't really seen where you made a good case using the text.

'Technically a bad writer' is the most empty phrase in this message board's history. It has no objective meaning and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

    So specifically here, Thor or Galactus acting in a short tempered or short sighted way and doing some infighting to me isn't poor writing. You have two characters who aren't exactly known for having the coolest heads. Thor's extremely hotblooded and Galactus is prone to outrage when question by those he thinks are inferior to him.

Isn't that rather one-dimensional view of these characters? Isn't that exactly what I mean when I say that Cates can't write depth?

    Moreover, especially for Thor's part, this wasn't a situation that he elected to deal with.

This is called an excuse. You're coming up with reasons for why it makes sense, rather than calling a spade a spade. That's not objective. You're blocking for Cates out of personal preference. Totally subjective.

    Galactus collapses in Asgard demanding that Thor help him because the universe itself is at stake, and Thor has to choose to work with what he understands at a cosmic carnivore at a planetary level in order to stop an even bigger threat.

You almost understand a very superficial aspect of their alliance, congratulations.

    It stands to reason that Thor would have particular antipathy for Galactus (someone who he's suspicious of the whole time during the quest) and he's doing all this under duress and desperation.

While at the same time he has to shatter Bill's hammer and attempt to beat him while he was down, because that alliance is so important.

    And Galactus doesn't trust that Thor will do what he should to prioritize the salvation of the universe over any other interest; while Thor believes that Galactus is committing literal genocide not because it's the only way to generate the power to stop the Black Winter, but because he doesn't care about the collateral damage in the first place and is cutting corners at a planetary-genocidal scale. Now you might not have chosen to go in that direction with the story, but I think as such, not nearly as "ridiculous" a set of circumstances or characterizations as you indicate.

Sure if you don't try to bend yourself into a pretzel to make all the pieces fit, thus rationalizing Cates' literary choices.

    It almost might be a dumb move all things considered. But not the kind of "dumb" thing these characters wouldn't do given the intensity of the circumstances.

Any character can be compelled to behaviour in whatever way a writer chooses. And Cates' literary choices are under the microscope. That they 'might be dumb' (your words) means that Cates intentionally had these characters behave in a dumb way. Why would he do that? Does he want readers to think these characters are dumb?


    LGDB: Yeah that's certainly the case, I think by their own report. But there's little evidence that the only reason that people are reading Thor books now is because they like old comics and can't let go. In fact, I think the books sells far better than it has earlier before you know it was "completely ruined." More to the point if you go on Twitter, you'll see there are plenty of fans.

I would say there's a formula for accruing readers in comics, much as there's a formula for accruing a loyal following in politics. Appeal to the lowest common denominator.

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

    LGDB: for now look at my point about your short points about why Thor and Galactus infighting was "ridiculous."

Which I think I've thoroughly dismissed as your covering for Cates based on your subjective preference for him. Do better.

    LGDB: No, I'm saying that it doesn't meet the standards of a critical argument.

The standards of which you can't point to.

    Which Bill Thor incident are you talking about? And what way does it makes no sense? Is it that they fought at all? How the fought occurred? What their stated reasons were?

It's in my reviews. Thor has the ability to easily disarm and dismiss Bill, but instead he has to de-power himself, then shatters Bill's hammer and attempts to beat him (possibly kill him) while he's helpless, forcing Sif to intervene. The entire encounter was a series of false choices. Those are choices that Cates inflicted on the characters.

    Are you saying that your argument of Cates being a bad writer is the preponderance of all your complaints against him?

I don't like him as a writer, and I've outlined several reasons why. You can't disprove them and make me like him.

    Well if all the complaints are specious or arbitrary or unfair then it's not a very good argument.

Unfair and arbitrary by which objective standard? You have yet to point to any.

    It doesn't make any kind of sense that you wouldn't be able to generally summarize the larger principles by which he's a bad writer.

Inconsistent dialog and behaviour, false-choice dilemmas designed to provoke drama, one-dimensional character depictions, overly-focused on petty conflicts over the scale of threats, rushed or hastily summarized plot elements (2/3rds of the Black Winter story happened off-panel), flaccid conclusions.

Start with that after you've finished going through my reviews.

    What I understand is this: you shouldn't need to link to a dozen separate casually organized posts to point to a single example that you think strongly illustrates your position.

Oh look, more goal post moving! Now I'm providing too many examples to back up my opinion.

Pathetic and predictable.