Quote:
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
Very clearly I did.
Quote:
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 'objective standard' which you cannot in your wildest dreams even begin to define, and which you will continue to dodge (seemingly forever).
Quote:
An argument with evidence that would demonstrate Cates is a bad writer.
Bad dialog, bad character interactions, bad false choice dilemmas, bad conclusions... all of which I've demonstrated. Oh wait! Even if I clear provide evidence of these things, it's just my opinion. So what you want to do is trap me in a maze of circular logic. Got it.
Quote:
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.
Note to audience: Has LGDB provided a standard for 'bad writer'? Who is the judge and jury that I'm 'convincingly' trying to appeal? Notice how LGDB never establishes the rules or boundaries of his argument? That would require cementing some goal posts, wouldn't it?
Quote:
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?
*snickers*
Quote:
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.
I didn't anticipate 'debating' your in the future. Sorry for my lack of foresight in not addressing your non-criteria for an argument.
Quote:
These are mostly just musings.
Yeah, that's kind of how comic reviews go. People think about the story and express that thought.
Quote:
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.
With all due respect, you used a lot of words to say basically nothing.
Quote:
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.
Translation: I'm a liar, my intent wasn't sincere, I was always in it to trash Cates and never give him a fair chance.
Quote:
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 shows that I come from a place of good-faith.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with establishing Cates as any kind of writer, good, bad, or otherwise.
I only ever said I was stating my opinion, and there is no objective standard as to what as qualifies good writing; or a good writer.
Quote:
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.
Well, prove me wrong. Could Thor have dealt with Bill without shattering his hammer? If so, how is this not a false choice?
Quote:
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.
- Sif intervenes, calls Thor an ass for wanting to beat Bill while he's unarmed and defenceless; after previously (unnecessarily) shattering Stormbreaker.
- Thor is indignant, and attempts to strike both Bill an Sif with Mjolnir (which is barely under his control, mind you).
- The next FOUR PAGES are detailing where Sif transported Mjolnir, how Thor is upset, and Sif lecturing Thor on leadership.
Does this seem like good character interaction to you? Or for that matter, a good use of limited space? You're right, I didn't go into detail. I let those who read my review, and the issue, determine the validity that criticism for themselves. However, it's clear what I was talking about without scans or quotes.
Quote:
You also say the issue feels empty and that there's not enough to like and things don't mean much.
It took four pages of almost zero dialog to get back to the main story, which itself was Thor unnecessarily attacking and provoking Galactus while a universe-destroying threat was looming. It wasn't just bad writing, it was stupid. I should have stressed that in my initial review, but I was being kind.
Quote:
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.
Well, there wasn't much story to even critique in much of these reviews. It was just empty splash pages and little dialogue that went nowhere.
Quote:
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?
It again shows me good-faith effort to enjoy Cates work. I mean, you're entire premise is that I'm a bitter and out-of-touch old person who can't handle newer comics.
Quote:
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.
I use analogy to convey the sense of emptiness of Cates' writing, which I think most people agree with even if they actually like his rice-cake stories and displays of power.
Quote:
LGDB: And this is another positive review, which is nice to hear but basically irrelevant to our point of contention.
Perhaps you forget your own point of contention.
Quote:
LGDB: yes this is you mistaking the elements of a story as the definition of "plot" lol
You're the one with definition illiteracy.
https://wwivirtualacademy.com/five-types-of-plots/
Quote:
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?
What definition and objective standard of criticism have I ever been trying to meet? Have you finally found one that you're comfortable with providing?
Quote:
I'm not sure if there was a misunderstanding or if this was just a long protracted dodge?
Is that why it took you several days to weakly respond? Or did it take you that long to come up with an excuse as to why my criticism isn't valid and thus cannot be addressed (except in very broad, dismissive strokes)?
Quote:
Here's a straight line to set you up to say something mean to me... what am I missing? lol
I'm not sure what you wanted me to provide in the first place, since you said that my criticism had no justification, no foundation, and didn't meet the 'objective standard' (thus apparently requiring me to emphasis and asterisk it as 'my opinion'). I also showed that I was fair from start to finish, thus the predicate for your even challenging me (that I'm a grumpy old person who hates everything new) is a fundamental face-plant on your behalf.
