Previous Post
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. 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.
according to LGDB you cannot criticise ANYONE for ANYTHING unless you have the same profession (and presumably all the other attributes we can't refer to on this forum).
Can we assume LGDB extends the same courtesy to criticisms of politicians or their policies. 
So Donny Cates is beyond reproach and all reviews of his work should just be 10/10 from now on (as per the shill media). Dissenting voices will not be tolerated.
...and to be honest Norvell - you have basically signed up to all this.
Don't be surprised when Marvel end up giving Thor the same treatment that DC are giving Superman right now.
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake
|
Critics, the same thing.
As a user of a product, I certainly have the right to criticize that product and why I don't like it, even if I can't make that product.
If Ford builds another Pinto, and my car won't stay at highway speeds going uphill on the interstate, or the brakes tend to fail, or handling sucks, I can criticize the hell out of it because it isn't giving me what I want/need out of it, and I can say there are design flaws or things that were missed....and I don't need to be an automotive engineer, mechanic, or racecar driver to do so.
If I am a consumer of literature, fiction, or art, I can certainly express why I think that result is flawed. If everything from that 'artist' seems to fall into that category, then I may decide that they are not a good writer. And that IS ok. There are plenty of published and working people in every field who aren't very good at their jobs, but manage to keep working on an ongoing basis through good networking, potential, or being in the right place at the right time.
Other people may note that a 'writer' has amazing dialog, or that they can write prose as well as anyone, but suck at story resolution, or at cohesiveness.
I also agree that well thought out arguments that are constructed and presented more clearly are helpful i.e. define what the criteria for 'good writing' is, and why they violate, but most literary criticism doesn't follow that approach, and this isn't exactly a peer reviewed journal either. If anything, it is more editorial than anything.
Personally, in this discussion, I have no idea. I haven't read the stuff, and may eventually do so, but I am SO frustrated with the status of the MU as a whole that I barely read anything new. That is because in a shared universe, I have high expectations in terms of internal consistency that get more and more poorly executed over time, but that is a LONG criticism that I won't go into here.
The idea that someone cannot look at data, product, or whatever and draw reasonable conclusions or criticisms based on that information because 'they can't do it' or 'they haven't lived it' is ridiculous to me. If anything, it may (or may not, or be situational) allow for a more unbiased, non emotional evaluation.
