I am too lazy/occupied with other things to bother with them much of the time, but I feel like I should be into them given their current cultural dominance.
Their current cultural dominance is due to superhero movies, not the comics.
The comics are now just a testing and breeding ground for stuff they don't want to risk on movies yet.
"What if we made Thor a lady? Good, good"
"What if we made Captain America a nazi? Okay don't try that on the films, but the ultranerds who buy our comics are going to keep buying them forever regardless so no actual harm done"
Sandman was a really gripping depiction of the human condition, being one of the few 90s comics to seriously take advantage of their newfound ability to deal with mature themes.
But it also had Brute and Glob, and the DREAM DOME of all things. So yeah, pretty stupid.
Superhero comics aren't bad because of conventions like that. They're bad cause as they change writers the new ones are forced to use, and often greatly change, existing characters, and conform to years and years of "continuity" that don't actually mesh with what people want to write.
There are people who claim that genre fiction is escapist fluff that doesn't speak to the human condition, but most of those people have now turned to proclaiming that people should only read non-fiction because anything that isn't factually true can't give you insight into how the world really works and serves only to distract from reality.
I think you can figure out how I feel about these attitudes without me having to spell them out.
There are people who claim that genre fiction is escapist fluff that doesn't speak to the human condition, but most of those people have now turned to proclaiming that people should only read non-fiction because anything that isn't factually true can't give you insight into how the world really works and serves only to distract from reality.
I think you can figure out how I feel about these attitudes without me having to spell them out.
The first part sounds sort of like the critical movement sometimes (slightly pejoratively) termed 'liberal humanism', but i wasn't aware of them having mutated into a movement that denounces all of fiction. Can you elaborate, please?
There are people who claim that genre fiction is escapist fluff that doesn't speak to the human condition, but most of those people have now turned to proclaiming that people should only read non-fiction because anything that isn't factually true can't give you insight into how the world really works and serves only to distract from reality.
I think you can figure out how I feel about these attitudes without me having to spell them out.
The first part sounds sort of like the critical movement sometimes (slightly pejoratively) termed 'liberal humanism', but i wasn't aware of them having mutated into a movement that denounces all of fiction. Can you elaborate, please?
There's a somewhat infamous Guardian article where one of their op-ed people proclaimed that she had stopped reading fiction because the stories weren't about real people and that people should be obliged to read non-fiction because they need to know about how the world really works and facts and I can't even pretend any of this isn't remarkably pretentious and more indicative of the person's issues than anything with fiction as an art-form (or non-fiction, for that matter). I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek saying that it comes out of the "all good fiction must be as realistic as possible" mentality, but honestly, it's a weirdly similar mindset. It's like how certain hardline socialist groups in England saw punk music as a revolutionary tool but had no real understanding of the culture or the musical landscape: These people seem to understand writing about "the truth" in the same literalistic terms.
There are people who claim that genre fiction is escapist fluff that doesn't speak to the human condition, but most of those people have now turned to proclaiming that people should only read non-fiction because anything that isn't factually true can't give you insight into how the world really works and serves only to distract from reality.
I think you can figure out how I feel about these attitudes without me having to spell them out.
The first part sounds sort of like the critical movement sometimes (slightly pejoratively) termed 'liberal humanism', but i wasn't aware of them having mutated into a movement that denounces all of fiction. Can you elaborate, please?
There's a somewhat infamous Guardian article where one of their op-ed people proclaimed that she had stopped reading fiction because the stories weren't about real people and that people should be obliged to read non-fiction because they need to know about how the world really works and facts and I can't even pretend any of this isn't remarkably pretentious and more indicative of the person's issues than anything with fiction as an art-form (or non-fiction, for that matter). I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek saying that it comes out of the "all good fiction must be as realistic as possible" mentality, but honestly, it's a weirdly similar mindset. It's like how certain hardline socialist groups in England saw punk music as a revolutionary tool but had no real understanding of the culture or the musical landscape: These people seem to understand writing about "the truth" in the same literalistic terms.
That second article was the one I was thinking of, and it is literally those two dubious views of fiction verbatim coming from the same person in the same thinkpiece. It's repellant.
Doom Patrol and Animal Man, but that's like asking for magical girl shows and saying Madoka Magica or something: Correct, and a solid recommendation, but entirely beside the point.
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Fucking awesome.
Dr Two Apes all the way down
The reverse is way common though
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Having said that i don't remember ever meeting anyone who wouldn't read any genre fiction.
I think you can figure out how I feel about these attitudes without me having to spell them out.
There's a somewhat infamous Guardian article where one of their op-ed people proclaimed that she had stopped reading fiction because the stories weren't about real people and that people should be obliged to read non-fiction because they need to know about how the world really works and facts and I can't even pretend any of this isn't remarkably pretentious and more indicative of the person's issues than anything with fiction as an art-form (or non-fiction, for that matter). I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek saying that it comes out of the "all good fiction must be as realistic as possible" mentality, but honestly, it's a weirdly similar mindset. It's like how certain hardline socialist groups in England saw punk music as a revolutionary tool but had no real understanding of the culture or the musical landscape: These people seem to understand writing about "the truth" in the same literalistic terms.
That second article was the one I was thinking of, and it is literally those two dubious views of fiction verbatim coming from the same person in the same thinkpiece. It's repellant.