The Thor Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Late Great Donald Blake
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,353
In Reply To
Norvell

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
Subj: Okay so I was finally able to go through this stuff, and I'm pretty torn.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2022 at 12:20:06 am EST (Viewed 98 times)
Reply Subj: A brief history of Norvell's critiques of Cates
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 at 09:59:12 am EST (Viewed 315 times)

Previous Post

My Welcome to Cates: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2019110714465798&layout=thread

My suggestion on how Cates can improve: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020020718540119&layout=thread


Issue #3 Bullet-Point Review: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020021214221079&search=review&layout=thread

(Funny, LGDB participates in these threads but mysteriously doesn't remember substantive critiques. HUH).

Issue #4 Bullet-Point Review: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020031118034415&layout=thread

Issue #5 Break-Down (trying my hardest to like Cates' stories): https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020062416072299&search=Thor+%235&layout=thread

Issue #6 Break down: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020081917444969&layout=thread

Issue #7 Break down: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020091707283360&search=Thor+%237&layout=thread

And, oh look, me having the exact same discussion with Mod-Blake as we're having now, despite Mod-Blake being present throughout my entire substantive-critiquing history on these forums: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=thor-2021041711375726&layout=thread

Because it's on one hand not that I think it's all ridiculous or unreasonable. It's just that this is either a big misunderstanding between us or you're being obstinate to try avoid where the rubber ultimately meets the road: my point wasn't that you didn't go into enough detail on this board about your complaints or even that your comments about Aaron or Cates were uniformly bad. What I asked was if you at any point had an actual argument, and if so what was to you the most compelling argument you had that Donny Cates was a bad writer, that was distinct from mere preference. An argument with evidence that would demonstrate Cates is a bad writer. Now obviously you and I are probably never going to agree about this, but what's confusing here, is that many of these links AREN'T EVEN YOU SAYING HE'S A BAD WRITER. This was what I was getting at before when I said I'd never seen you present a decent argument that establish convincingly that he's a bad writer, and I asked you if you could present that since you said you had written them in the past. Now... how on earth can some of these articles be presented as a kind of evidence for Cates being a bad writer, when never mind proof, they don't even make that claim in many cases? This is what I mean when I said this was just a bunch of links to your having talked about the subject in the past; it's not even clear if you're trying to actually make a strong and compelling case. These are mostly just musings. Again, I'm saying that most of your criticism here are just preferences, and by no means principles that we could universalize as how to understand and identify good writing. You keep talking about moving the post (which seems like a dodge to me); move it, how be we try recognizing it to begin with? We can dig into any of these that you like, but I'll give you my short synopsis for each one. Keep in mind I'm trying to demonstrate this to the board. It's not important whether you're personally receptive or whether you humor it or not.


My Welcome to Cates: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2019110714465798&layout=thread


LGDB: This is just you saying that you'll give Donny Cates a chance. And who knows if that's the case. Everyone says that. I mean, no one would cop to "well I didn't give this a chance at all. I came in with prejudice and found the conclusion I was looking for." More importantly what does it have to do with our discussion? It has nothing to do with establishing Cates as any kind of writer, good, bad, or otherwise.



Issue #3 Bullet-Point Review: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020021214221079&search=review&layout=thread


LGDB: This is a list of things you didn't like about the comic. You mention things happening "for no reason" or there being "false choices." You don't try to make a compelling argument or evidence for saying these were false choice or that things happen for no reason. You just proclaim it as a mere observation or to be taken as given. You barely clarify you meaning in most cases. So... obviously this wouldn't count.



Issue #4 Bullet-Point Review: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020031118034415&layout=thread


LGDB: Here you mention that Cates big weakness is character interaction. You do no work to substantiate it. It's just a claim here. You mention things happening unnecessarily which I would argue is a meaningless standard. Whether a thing is necessary in a story doesn't equate to whether it being in a story is bad. Many choices in good works can't be explain as NEEDING to be in the story. Moreover, you don't even explain or justify things being unnecessary. You just label them that way.

You also say the issue feels empty and that there's not enough to like and things don't mean much. Those claims are just overtly subjective. They're not even describing the things happening in the text or its elements. They're just broad sweeping judgements and undemonstrated abstract, amorphous descriptions. How did you determine that "it doesn't much"? Or sense that's entirely vague, shouldnt' you at least clarify what you're even talking about here.

Again, these sentiments aren't wrong or inappropriate. And perhaps they could even be well established, but you don't do any of that work here. Regardless these bullet points they in no way constitute an actual argument. It's not even a bad argument. It just isn't one.

If I say Norvell is a bad message board poster because he doesn't write in iambic pentameter, none of his post rhyme, and none of this posts are 10,000 words long. Is that a good argument just because I've listed three reasons, having done no work to explain why those criteria are appropriate for judging something good or bad or how your posts relate to them. And of course these example is more obviously absurd, but the point you haven't done anything more to justify your criticism in any of these posts than I have here.




Issue #5 Break-Down (trying my hardest to like Cates' stories): https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020062416072299&search=Thor+%235&layout=thread


LGDB: This is for the most part a positive review. So... what's it doing here? What does this have to do with an argument for Cates being a bad writer?






Issue #6 Break down: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020081917444969&layout=thread


LGDB: This is even lighter than most of the others. Here you're just describing Cate's depiction of the events with Galactus in the least generous light. And even if it was the case that these story points were bad according to some coherent notion of what is or isn't good writing... you never explain WHY that's the case. And you make this analogy about it being nonnutritious which I'd argue is totally vague and is really just a fancy way of describing it as bad or poorly written. And even if it means more than that, it by no means there's not evidence, argument or demonstration here.





Issue #7 Break down: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?msg=thor-2020091707283360&search=Thor+%237&layout=thread


LGDB: And this is another positive review, which is nice to hear but basically irrelevant to our point of contention.



And, oh look, me having the exact same discussion with Mod-Blake as we're having now, despite Mod-Blake being present throughout my entire substantive-critiquing history on these forums: https://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=thor-2021041711375726&layout=thread



LGDB: yes this is you mistaking the elements of a story as the definition of "plot" lol




here's what I want to know, why are you presenting this as a substantive critique? How are you conflating here a laundry list of things you didn't like and are claiming are bad writing with a robust argument for something being bad writing? I'm not sure if there was a misunderstanding or if this was just a long protracted dodge? Here's a straight line to set you up to say something mean to me... what am I missing? lol



cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


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