From the Michael Fleischer interview in COMICS JOURNAL #56 (1980):
"A lot of people think that a story is the place to be a good citizen. The place to be a good citizen is not in your stories. The place to be a good citizen is in your life and in your behavior... a story is an arena for the expression of real feelings, and not for the expression of platitudes or the feelings you think people ought to have."
This is actually a pretty good statement as to why I validate a writer like Frank Miller, even though I wasn't entirely happy with the implications of his 300 graphic novel (as noted in my review of the film-adaptation) and can't begin to understand his perverse political take on the Occupy Movement.
Now, I will note briefly that what we consider "canonical literature" is often if not always informed by some meditation on moral nature. Such moral concern causes me to label it the literature of "thematic realism," while those forms leaning more toward kinetic concerns I designate in terms of "thematic escapism." I won't say that the dividing line between the two is hard and fast; it's more like an equator, approximated rather than physically locatable.
Yet I do feel that great literature is never purely defined by morality, as some critics, like John Gardner and Wayne C. Booth, have implied. Expressiveness in the Cassirerean sense remains at the heart of both forms of literature.
Food for future thought? We'll see, but at present I'm trying more to work around to a response to Curt Purcell's thoughts on crossovers. So morality will have to wait for later.
Stirrings beyond the neo-liberal dead world
11 hours ago