Moist von Lipwig posted:

Fantasy is an inherently regressive, garbage genre.

a cyberpunk goose posted:

Jk Rowling was on the dole for a time, I think welfare recipients are often pretty insecure about their status and probably have pretty elaborate brain castles built up about how they will be rich one day and would hate to be taxed and how welfare sucks to be on but I'm one of the good ones and this is embarrassing and so on.

I wish we could say that economic hardship would lend itself to solidarity with people who need support and care most.

quote:

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain's; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major's Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism. On the available evidence, I suspect that it is Lord Ashcroft's idea of being a mug

razorscooter posted:

TheBigAristotle posted:

https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/873632851123720192

Crazycryodude posted:

Seriously, how have the rich not been eaten yet?

Sebadoh Gigante posted:

There are essentially two ways to go about making a superhero movie. You can make a “superhero” movie, (Christopher Nolan’s Batman films or Bryan Singer’s Superman) which takes the tropes, symbols and larger-than-life characters of the comic book universe seriously, analyzing the semiotics and psychology of superheroes and the culture that produces them. Or, you can say screw that egghead stuff and make a SUPERHERO movie, (John Favreau’s Iron Man or Richard Donner’s Superman) focusing on the technicolor spectacle that is the essential justification for the genre and leave the parsing of subtext to film critics and American Studies majors.

People interested in crowning a “greatest ever” superhero movie are really looking for a film that combines the two approaches to form the ultimate: a “SUPERHERO” movie. Whether such a beast is even possible is up for debate. Many people have claimed that The Dark Knight embodies the synthesis, but it really doesn’t. Are the action scenes (except for that kickass truck crash) on anyone’s list of the twenty most memorable things about that film? As great as it is, TDK is a pure “superhero” movie. Other films, like Ang Lee’s Hulk, attempt the synthesis and fail miserably.

The triumph of Joss Whedon’s Avengers is that it never wavers in it’s commitment to delivering the titanic action pageantry and iconic superhero personalities that drew us all to these characters when we were not-yet-jaded youngsters. And that’s why The Avengers is the best SUPERHERO movie of all time.

If The Avengers were just a string of high-octane action scenes, it would already claim the throne, but what makes this movie truly extraordinary is the attention paid to the characters. Considering that Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the Hulk have all carried entire films by themselves, the main danger of a film featuring them all is that they might just blend together into one Uberhero. But Joss Whedon masterfully avoids this pitfall by focusing on the very different ways that each of these characters views their role as a superhero. For Bruce Banner, it’s a curse. For Steve Rogers, it’s a duty. For Thor Odinson, it’s a birthright. And for Tony Stark it’s a chance to have fun and show people just how awesome he is. These divergent visions of superheroism not only help the characters stand out from one another, they also create the interpersonal friction that sparks the kind of glorious intramural smackdowns that will thrill anyone who made their action figures fight each other as a kid.

By focusing on delivering core comic book thrills, by vividly representing a group of indelible superhero characters that have been painstakingly reintroduced to moviegoers over the past decade, by taking the time to shape relationships and conflicts sharply and efficiently, and by delivering a monumental finale of smashing and crashing that could have been pulled directly for a fanboy’s cream dream, Joss Whedon and company have made the finest SUPERHERO film to date. Until the sequel, at least.

review by Matt Christman

Doctor Teeth posted:

Have the Dry Boys put out a list of books they like or anything like that? I learned about The Twenty Days of Turin from Will's twitter and George Saunders stories from Matt's AMA a few months ago and was hoping they'd recommended more good stuff.

Mr. Lobe posted:

tell that to Ursula K Le Guin!

Phobophilia posted:

oh for gently caress's sake, the first thing you get if you google jk rowling welfare is


it is possible to respect her for not balking at redistributing some of her wealth, but also criticize her for failing to back political steps to make it systematic

Mr. Lobe posted:

tell that to Ursula K Le Guin!

Zikan posted:

specifically with mark fisher it's the book "Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?" and the essay "Exiting the Vampire Castle", the latter of which you can read here: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11299

Phobophilia posted:

oh for gently caress's sake, the first thing you get if you google jk rowling welfare is


it is possible to respect her for not balking at redistributing some of her wealth, but also criticize her for failing to back political steps to make it systematic

Phobophilia posted:

i see no evidence that jk rowling wants to eject non-british people, and i just see misguided respect for the technocratic elite, and a reflexive doubling down on her original opposition to corbyn. wanting to support the british social safety net she fondly remembers isn't some absurd pro-british nationalism, just because she wrongthinked and framed her argument around "britishness"

ffs, there are alot of liberals that can be reached without being outright sidelined. remember felix remaining silent during some points of his interview with david hayter because hayter wasn't quite as left, but even then he admitted hayter was an ally

rowling isn't an ally, but she isn't an outright opponent. remember the rl stephens interview where problematic people are still useful as part of the movement. rowling can still be reached with a class message

Condoleezza Nice! posted:

Sure, but I was responding to the idea that nationalism in and of itself is good. Which I don't think it is. Anyway. Moving on.

Phobophilia posted:

rowling isn't an ally, but she isn't an outright opponent.

Moist von Lipwig posted:

Exception that proves the rule, IMO

Moist von Lipwig posted:

Fantasy is an inherently regressive, garbage genre.

little munchkin posted:

well you sure eviscerated the imaginary person who was trying to make that claim, so good job

TomViolence posted:

Gee I wonder how superhuman vigilantes who solve problems through spectacular violence might be interpreted as fascistic or reactionary.

quote:

At the beginning, Superman was very much a socialist superhero. He fought for the unemployed, the oppressed, he beat up wife-beaters. It's about a man driven by a burning sense of injustice -- there are no monsters or robots, he fights against corrupt council officials! He was conceived as a Depression-era superhero, who dealt with the problems of ordinary people.