Without disavowing my previous statements on the NUM formula, I continue trying to come up a simpler way to express it for the purposes of the theoretical book project. I posted this today on CHFB.
________
While I don't disagree with the stuff I wrote all those years ago, I have to admit that, if one depends on the "affective argument"-- that terrors like Jaws and Quasimodo are meant to carry the sense of being supernatural even though they aren't-- that argument becomes dubious just because not every reader responds to the same set of signals the same way. One reader may feel that Jaws is meant to carry a supernatural vibe, another will say he didn't get that vibe at all.
It's the same thing with the "rational Gothic" stories I brought up recently in another thread. Even their authors thought that they were disavowing the supernatural by coming up with gimmicks like phosphorescent hounds to explain away the suggestion of ghostly apparitions. But my current line of thought is more like, "how much crap did an author have to come up with to put across this involved a deception?" And does that level of crap exceed what real swindlers do to gain their filthy lucre?
Real criminals usually try to keep things simple. if Al Capone wants to kill a rebellious underling, he shoots him, or (more famously) beats him to death with a baseball bat. He doesn't put him in an electric chair, the way Blofeld executes his subordinate in THUNDERBALL the book. Real torturers are direct in the ways they compel confessions, with unsubtle devices like the rack and the strappado; they don't engineer a whole "Pit and Pendulum" setup. Real dreams aren't as elaborate and structured as Alice's dream of Wonderland.
The opposition I'm currently playing with is that we're used to thinking of "marvelous things" are total inventions while "uncanny things" are supposed to be in line with the way the natural universe works. But the latter are arguably just as much inventions as the former. if you can't observe a real Pit and Pendulum in human history, or a real crime in which someone pretends to be a ghost to get rid of all the heirs to a fortune, then the phenomenon described is still a creation of the imagination-- just not one that requires as much imaginative effort as something overtly marvelous. (See Stephen King's DANSE MACABRE remarks on his preference for Batman over Superman.)
GENE,
ReplyDeleteA superhero comics fan since I was age ten in 1966, I agree with you; your "marvelous" versus "uncanny" is another of your bullseyes.
Except for the voluntary hiatus during my nineteen years of Bible-literalism, I've been a life-long ("no-anabolic steroids nor growth drugs") bodybuilder since age fifteen. The whole "iron game" including the branches of Olympic lifting and Powerlifting in which I'm not directly involved is another of my passions.
The "raw" (in contrast to the wearing various levels of specialized competition clothing which substantially amplifies strength) world record for the bench press is currently 783-ish pounds, set by a guy who weighs approximately 450 pounds and copiously uses anabolic steroids to exceed his natural limits of strength.
The raw world bench press record for a guy, who likewise uses anabolic steroids, in the 220 pound class is currently about 530 pounds.
Batman in the comics weighs between 210 (current canon) and 250 pounds yet is able to bench press 1,000 pounds (sometimes more).
I opine that Stephen King ought to stick to figuring out better endings for his stories.
I hadn''t heard that datum about Batman's lifting ability, but there are a lot of things he's done over the years that strike a false note. DARK KNIIGHT had him slam his hands through drywall to grab hold of a thug. While it's possible to do that, can you do it with any accuracy, to accomplish just the right effect (since he wouldn't be able to even see his target?)
ReplyDeleteFor a long time there's also been some false notes about his having a weightlifter body yet being a superb acrobat/martial artist. I think a few of the earliest Bat-tales made Batman fairly lean, but someone, maybe Jerry Robinson, made him barrel-chested and it stuck. I assume a barrel-chested guy COULD learn to be a great acrobat but I would think that activity would tend to streamline his musculature, as one sees with dancers. So DC depictions of Bats have the best of both worlds.
Yep - - it's understood among veteran bodybuilders and other large-mass strength athletes that excessive muscle mass substantially limits if not handicaps martial art/gymnastic/acrobatic capabilities. For various reasons, for those physical efforts, such excessive mass is a detriment practicably no different than excess bodyfat.
DeleteAn example is the special forces military in any nation, who excel at the sort of combat which the Bat often performs. Those soldiers almost always exactly as you described: muscled but quite lean. In fact, those soldiers purposely avoid adding surplus muscle, which could be readily accomplished if found beneficial to their efficiency by dosing with anabolic steroids while increasing their calorie and protein consumption.
Agreed - - a Batman and a Superman are comparatively no more realistic than the decomposing zombie which lumbers and the decomposing version which sprints.