The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Fri Aug 21, 2015
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,414
Subj: Debunking your argument...
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2022 at 06:23:53 am EST (Viewed 89 times)
Reply Subj: I actually think this is a pretty thoughtful response.
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2022 at 04:11:25 pm EST (Viewed 92 times)

    You are trying to say that someone cannot understand something unless they do it (at presumably the same level) themselves. Which is total nonsense. Extending your lack of logic to its extreme how can Donny write about Thor when he's never been an immortal super-hero himself?


    LGDB: lol I mean that's a fun comic analogy. But no. But IF immortals were real and existed in our world, and then regular mortals posted constantly about how to be the God of Thunder having no experience, know how etc, should be better at being God's, despite not knowing a thing about being a God, that'd be a closer analogy.

False analogy; you are assuming we have zero exposure to immortals when in comics terms we have 59 years of Thor material.

In terms of overall comic book stories we have almost a century of exposure.

In terms of storytelling itself we have millennia of exposure.

    My point is more that art and writing are ones of those things where people feel free to criticize publicly and mercilessly despite having no idea how to do it. And people free to do that because there's no pressure to be good or fair at being a critic. In our society now, critic means license to crap on things, and everyone's a critic.

Well certainly that's a byproduct of social media. But anonymity doesn't necessarily mean individuals can't make valid criticisms.

    When you let people who hate characters, write those characters, don't expect good things.

    LGDB: you can do whatever you want. My point isn't what people should have qualifications to express an opinion. My point is more about there being a disparity between how easy it is to criticize something even when you don't know how to do it, and have never risked doing it versus actually knowing how to do that thing.

But you don't know that I am not a writer? You don't know if I have created a comic book or not. So even under your criteria (which is completely elitist) you don't know my credentials.

    If you can make a good argument about something, I don't care if you're qualified (whatever that means) if the argument is good. My point here is about our character, our humility or lack there of, not our epistemology.

That's just a roundabout way of saying I shouldn't criticize someone (even though I am not, I am criticizing their stories measured against past stories) because I may not have 'walked a mile in their shoes'.

    I think the political argument here doesn't work. I think you make a good point that at some level my point about artists should also apply to politicians, in that I don't know what it's like to be one or know how hard it is to be one. But I think the difference is that as a citizen, you're going to be affected (often times at life and death stakes) by the consequences of political policy. So the citizen who criticizes the politician does so not on the basis

How is that different from being a fan of Thor and seeing the character (in my eyes) systematically deconstructed (which is modern code for ruined).

If someone grows up a fan of Star Wars, loving Luke Skywalker and then they see the hateful deconstruction of the character in the Last Jedi - then that fan is AFFECTED.

    of expertise or understanding of the process of politics, but instead on the basis of their being a stakeholder, i.e. they're going to suffer the consequences of bad politics. In contrast, no one is forcing us to read these comics, and if the comics don't come out to our liking we're not seriously affected by it.

If I have been reading Thor for almost 40 years and then new leadership at Marvel deems deconstructing Thor is fair game then yes I am affected by it because I am emotionally and financially invested in it for 75% of my entire life.

Which is of course directly the point of activist writers.


    Also, where are you getting the idea that these creators hate these characters? That seems very left field to me. I think Donny Cates is a self professed Thor fan.

When a writer stands for the complete opposite to the mantra of the character, yet still chooses to write that character (for the purposes of activism) and then deconstructs (ie. changes and ruins them) to the point that character is unrecognizable to the fan, then its hate.

For instance who would have guessed an admitted feminist atheist (Aaron) would make Thor unworthy and give his power, possessions and NAME to an undeserving mortal woman (and by undeserving I am referring to the old story where Odin makes Jane an immortal and she is literally found unworthy).

You address Omnipotence...tread carefully.
Posted with Google Chrome 96.0.4664.110 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