NOAH'S ARGGHS, part 2

Still respondin' to this thing here.

HowardD said:

"If Gene Phillips beleived that telling other people what to like is bad, his reponse should be "Nobody should tell someone what to like," which is a pretty simple response, and isn't going to make for very long blog posts. But of course, he can't resist trying to engage the critic on his own level"

I agree with Nietzsche that though one may go Beyond Good and Evil one should still be able to tell the difference between what's good and what's bad.

That said, "this thing sucks" doesn't show much analysis, does it? In practice you're not likely to change the opinion of anyone who doesn't at least have a tendency to valorize what you valorize. But a good critic, who in theory should be able to review anything, should have some insight into the variety of human perspectives. The elitist isn't mature enough to deal with the proposition that "one man's meat is another man's poison." He's gonna try to convince you the meat is poison even to the guy who likes it. Objectively speaking, this is a silly-ass falsification that is to me worse than a mere bad work (like BLACKEST NIGHT will probably be).

Howard D also says:

"So why does he doth protest so much? Is the critic worth responding to, or is his opinion inherently invalid?"

No critic is inherently invalid. For all I know Deppey may've said some things I would agree with. But in that particular blogposts, I "protest" his attempt to put his thumb on the scales.

Jon Hastings said:

'But that said, Dirk's statement (and coinage of the phrase "superhero decadence") is part of a larger conversation that centers around the (ill) health of the direct market and to pull it out of that context, as if it's from an essay in the NY Review of Books, is a dodgy move.'

From my perspective I'm trying to pull Deppey's assertions into an even larger conversation about aesthetics and niche marketing in general, both of which have some ramifications outside the direct market.

Bryan said:

"IMHO, Deppey's biggest sin was accusing the readers of super hero decadence when he is actually talking about the writers and publishers of super hero comics."

I disagree; I think Deppey got that one right. I'd grant that the publishers may start the ball rolling with a given overhyped event-- let's say "death of Superman." But nothing forces the fans to keep buying event-stories. In a few cases the fans have voted with their feet against certain events, like the Spider-Clone saga, where I understand sales took a precipitous dip. But to the extent that the fans accept the marketing stunts, it seems likely that the events do have some pleasurable aspects to the fans who buy them. Deppey chooses to analyze the audience's pleasure only in terms of the comics-medium's history: I choose a wider literary context.

Also from Bryan:

"I seems to me Deppey is saying super hero comics have a foot in two different worlds (adult and children's literature) and doing neither very well, while Phillips is arguing that it's OK for adults to like fantastic things."

I'm arguing that, by virtue of the fact that a substantial number of adults like a fantastic genre once relegated to juveniles, that genre becomes "adult," at least in terms of market concerns.

Deppey's also stated that superhero comics were "created for children," as if that datum determines their nature for all time. I disagree.

Noah B gets back into it:

"He thinks Dirk is making fun of children's comics. But Dirk is in fact arguing that children's comics are good. Thus we have a disconnect."

Yes, and it's your disconnect. I clearly stated that Deppey is "making fun," if you want to call it that, of adult fans who haven't moved on from a children's genre.

"That's nothing compared to Phillips posts on torture, though. Oi."

Wow, you summoned up the energy to read 'em? I'm impressed.

Eric B said:

"Comics buyers will keep buying/reading Superman or X-Men whether they like the stories or not. They hope that a Superman story they like will come along...a creator they like, art they like, or whatever, but they don't necessarily buy for that reason (some do, but many don't). Why do they buy? Well, they like the character (or liked him)--they enjoyed some stories with that character at some point...and they're hoping something good will come along."

Exactly right. I had a similar point that got left out, noting how Stephen King claimed (in DANSE MACABRE) that horror fans were the most optimistic of fans, endlessly searching through tons of dreck in search of that unique frisson. (Wonder if Curt Purcell will agree? No, by now he's probably jumped ship, and is the better man for it...)

Mother of Mercy, will this be the end of responses?