|
Dan Didio posted:That dude obviously hasn't read the actual comics, because at no point in Jason Aaron's Thor or The Mighty Thor or even Unworthy Thor does any of that stuff happen. yea isn't the entire point of that storyline that even as 'unworthy' Thor is still a good man who needs to figure out where he stands in the grand cosmic conflicts of the universe because hey while he was an rear end in a top hat maybe the guy who thought the gods need to get the gently caress out wasn't 100% wrong? That's hardly making GBS threads on the dude, if anything it's some of the most chance for growth Thor has gotten in ages.
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea isn't the entire point of that storyline that even as 'unworthy' Thor is still a good man who needs to figure out where he stands in the grand cosmic conflicts of the universe because hey while he was an rear end in a top hat maybe the guy who thought the gods need to get the gently caress out wasn't 100% wrong? That's hardly making GBS threads on the dude, if anything it's some of the most chance for growth Thor has gotten in ages. The only people I can recall 'making GBS threads' on him are straight up villains, or Odin, who's a straight up antagonist and a complete rear end in a top hat, or his own internal narration. And Odinson repeatedly proves everyone who doubts him wrong, even when he's wallowing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:That was probably easier to do when the sum total of your knowledge about the author came from a one-paragraph blurb on the back of the book, if that.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Here is another Fables bit that really loving bugged me by Bill Willingham. from Fables #100  You may argue that this is the way the world is (if you're a oval office) or you can say that this is from the perspective of Snow White who grew up in a medieval fantasy setting and not the writer. (She is portrayed as one of the more heroic and morally pure characters who is very well respected in the community for her intelligence and judgements. Which undermines the whole loving character when she starts talking like a Scott Adams Twitter post or Christina Hendricks from Mad Men) Those are pretty much your only two possible justifications for that kind of behavior. Now sure the nurse goes away and does something nasty. But if I was treated like that, you loving bet I would too. There are diplomatic ways of telling someone that they are constantly being an arsehole. Maybe ask why they feel they need to behave that way and she starts saying it's because she feels insecure about her looks, she can explain that people are judged more strongly for their good actions then their looks and people will like her if she is nice. I mean, they are immortal, magical beings. Maybe go on weight watchers and ask the nurse if she wants to go jogging in the loving mornings. For gently caress's sake. Even if she has to stay fat for magic reasons, there are loving trolls and literal pigs who are people's best friends. I had heard that some people though that Fables was a kind of female centred book, if not feminist. I don't know who the gently caress came up with that nonsense. Don't get me wrong, there are some really great female characters in it. But, most are defined by their men and their relationships with them and in some cases just drop out of the book when they start having kids. I don't know about anyone else, but it felt really dodgy reading that part. Something like that is too fully realised to not be the opinion of the writer. (Who is by all accounts, a cock) Lonos Oboe fucked around with this message at 00:39 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Pierson posted:My line for seperation of art and artist has always been "does buying this work benefit the person who made it or the people who share his ideology?" I refuse to buy anything by Orson Scott Card because I don't want any of my cash to go to that rear end in a top hat, but I'll sometimes get H.P. Lovecraft's old work because as far as I checked his estate are just regular people who had a terrible ancestor. Barnes and Noble had a real pretty hardcover of 'everything he wrote, pretty much' for $20. They don't do that if they had to pay anybody.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Folks there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Some portion of every dollar you spend goes to some piece of poo poo somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:Folks there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Some portion of every dollar you spend goes to some piece of poo poo somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Nothin' gets past this guy! Har har but fretting over whether buying a book you think you'd enjoy is going to somehow reward bad people is dumb. zoux fucked around with this message at 16:52 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:Har har but fretting over whether buying a book you think you'd enjoy is going to somehow reward bad people is dumb.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't get how come. If I buy a new copy of Ender's Game, I know that Orson Scott Card is getting a cut. If I instead buy Terry Pratchett books, or dildos, then OSC isn't getting that money - or if he does, it's at a much greater remove and involves him purchasing shares in the dildo factory. Right, but OSC is never going to feel you not buying that book. If you can't get past OSC being a homophobic piece of poo poo to the point that it impacts your enjoyment of the book, by all means don't buy or read his poo poo. But your individual purchasing habits are in no way going to impact the lives of the creators, the only person you are affecting is yourself. So, self-denying in order to punish a person for having bad politics or morals isn't actually doing anything.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
So you're making the argument that boycotts don't work? Because that doesn't seem to be the case as witnessed by reality.The position you are stating is slacktivism to the extreme. I'm not saying that everyone should fully vet what they consume, but acting like you're an idiot for trying to not give shitheads money is some of the dumbest poo poo I've heard on this forum. Saying the author isn't affected by someone not purchasing their work, and at least in the case of royalties that's fully untrue. They're denied that money they get from the sale of the book-- this makes more of a difference in normal books where there's full returnability of new stock. It's less true with comics, where the solution has to be to keep stores from ordering them in the first place, since Diamond is where the royalties would be calculated from since they're the last step that is returnable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
No I'm saying that wringing your hands over whether to buy stuff that you like because the author, or publisher, or whatever might be a "bad person" is stupid. zoux fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:Right, but OSC is never going to feel you not buying that book. If you can't get past OSC being a homophobic piece of poo poo to the point that it impacts your enjoyment of the book, by all means don't buy or read his poo poo. But your individual purchasing habits are in no way going to impact the lives of the creators, the only person you are affecting is yourself. So, self-denying in order to punish a person for having bad politics or morals isn't actually doing anything. Maybe he won't, but the more people I encourage not to purchase his works, the more likely it is he will feel it. Orson Scott Card in particular is funny-rear end example to use because people refusing to purchase his products has had a negative impact on him and the work he can get.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Maybe he won't, but the more people I encourage not to purchase his works, the more likely it is he will feel it. Orson Scott Card in particular is funny-rear end example to use because people refusing to purchase his products has had a negative impact on him and the work he can get. Like what? Genuinely don't know. Look, people can buy or not buy what they want for whatever reason they want. But if you dig into artists and other creators, you're gonna find out that a lot of them did lovely things, because almost everyone does lovely things. Do you not listen to the Beatles because Lennon was a wife beater? Do you not buy their music because Yoko Ono is getting royalties and she made Julian Lennon buy back his father's letters at auction? Is Chinatown a bad movie now? Does Superior Foes of Spiderman suck now because Spencer is writing a "problematic" book today? Can you no longer read Hyperion because Dan Simmons had a islamophobic meltdown? Can you not watch Mad Men or Handmaiden's tale because Elizabeth Moss is a Scientologist? zoux fucked around with this message at 22:45 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:Like what? You don't remember the backlash when he was going to write a Superman comic?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:No I'm saying that wringing your hands over whether to buy stuff that you like because the author, or publisher, or whatever might be a "bad person" is stupid. Boycotts are just this on a large scale though. I get that my 50 cents or whatever that goes to a shithead like OSC is not a meaningful amount of money individually. In aggregate across a larger community it is however. Your position is simple learned helplessness that I've seen all over the left. everything is poo poo and nothing can ever get better, so you might as well lean into it. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does reality. Making sure that known shitheads get less sales for publishers make them less valuable and limit their potential to harm later. It's the equivalent of making sure that skinheads and klansmen don't get decent jobs and lose them when they get them. You can act like it's nothing, but using money as a tool to make people comply has a fairly well documented history.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You don't remember the backlash when he was going to write a Superman comic? No, but I don't read DC. rkajdi posted:Boycotts are just this on a large scale though. I get that my 50 cents or whatever that goes to a shithead like OSC is not a meaningful amount of money individually. In aggregate across a larger community it is however. Your position is simple learned helplessness that I've seen all over the left. everything is poo poo and nothing can ever get better, so you might as well lean into it. Sorry, I don't buy it, and neither does reality. Making sure that known shitheads get less sales for publishers make them less valuable and limit their potential to harm later. It's the equivalent of making sure that skinheads and klansmen don't get decent jobs and lose them when they get them. You can act like it's nothing, but using money as a tool to make people comply has a fairly well documented history. Ah sorry didn't realize I was going to be an exemplar for everything you are mad about politically.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:No, but I don't read DC. Me neither, but I'm like Ray Smuckles in that I pay attention (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=12112007)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:Like what? He lost work with DC because decent people stood up and said they wouldn't buy his work because he was making it and they don't want to give money to a homophobe like him. I don't know how much money he lost (because I don't know how DC pays) but he didn't end up doing work for them. It's one of the few times DC has acted like functional humans about this kind of stuff in the last decade or so (see not making GBS threads on Julius Swartz while he was still alive, plus the missing stair jackass in the Superman office) so it sort of stands out. zoux posted:Ah sorry didn't realize I was going to be an exemplar for everything you are mad about politically. You're being the exemplar because you're using the same lazy line I've seen out of piles of slacktivists. Don't want to be criticized for saying something stupid? Don't say it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:No I'm saying that wringing your hands over whether to buy stuff that you like because the author, or publisher, or whatever might be a "bad person" is stupid. no one is demanding self-flagellation or whatever, we're just saying we like being able to control our money a bit better.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:no one is demanding self-flagellation or whatever, we're just saying we like being able to control our money a bit better. Sure that's fine, I'm just talking about situations where you like something but worry about supporting a "bad person". My argument is, it probably doesn't matter, and staying out of it is hurting you more than the creator. If you legit can't get past poo poo, and there are for sure people who say can't enjoy Rosemary's Baby because they can't stop thinking about Polanski, I don't think those people should have to set aside those feelings or whatever and suck it up.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
From what I recall, and this was years ago, the artist that was tapped to work on OSC's proposed Superman story actually stepped down and said that after all the backlash they didn't feel they could in good conscience go ahead with the project after which DC put it "on hiatus" which is corporate-ese for "we're canceling this but don't want to come right out and admit that we blinked first." zoux posted:Right, but OSC is never going to feel you not buying that book. If you can't get past OSC being a homophobic piece of poo poo to the point that it impacts your enjoyment of the book, by all means don't buy or read his poo poo. But your individual purchasing habits are in no way going to impact the lives of the creators, the only person you are affecting is yourself. So, self-denying in order to punish a person for having bad politics or morals isn't actually doing anything. I prefer to not directly patronize artists who spend their free time campaigning to deny gay people basic civil rights, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
To chime in on all of this, Dave Sim, while (in my non medical opinion) is clearly unwell and has some troubling and/or odious views about a number of things, but in contrast to just about any other 'bad actor' creator people talk about, Sim has spent the past decade or so in a more or less monastic small town life in Ontario and (apparently) doesn't support rhetorically or monetarily any lovely politicians, organizations, etc. that might hypothetically support his views. He does a weekly video blog now and it's really just him showing off old pieces of art and kind of earnestly reviewing self-published comics that get sent to him and stuff like that, as lovely as his opinions are at least he seems to have reached the decision that the world disagrees and he might as well just keep his mouth shut. That puts him ahead of a lot of the "comparable" people being discussed. I'd also argue that (especially in the realm of comics, if not beyond) Dave Sim is a far more remarkable and important talent/artist than Nick Spencer or EVS or Ardian Syaf or Orson Scott Card or anyone else you might be thinking about boycotting. He is also an incredibly important figure in the comics industry and spent much of the 1980s and 1990s explicitly and implicitly influencing the industry, and there's a solid argument that Image, Vertigo, Bone, and who knows what else wouldn't have happened without him. Plus you can download Cerebus and High Society for free. If you end up buying the whole thing, the money will pretty much directly go to him (and Gerhard, and whoever he's employing to run his site/remaster the old art) which I suppose is a more obvious payment to a Bad Actor, but again, he's not going to funnel that money into Focus on the Family or a Trump re-election campaign or anything like that. Then again, the person who first said they didn't want to give money to Sim also mentioned Alan Moore, who is by all accounts not someone actively destroying society but is by many accounts a creep, so go with your conscience.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
The whole "Death Of The Artist" thing is a hard one to argue. Everyone's moral spectrum is different and I don't think that paying money to someone whose opinions you disagree with is immoral (not that anyone here said it was) I do feel however, that if you really do strongly disagree with someone's views, chances are their writing won't appeal to you anyway. I picked up Ender's game, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide as part of a bundle years ago. I had heard great things about Ender's game and knew very little. I have to admit the "twist" of the book hit me a lot better as I assumed the other two books in the trilogy followed the plot directly. I enjoyed Ender's Game well enough, even though I had some problems with some of the ideas in the book. Without going into detail, I was the perfect demographic for that book. However, while the book paints Ender as this Christ-like figure who can do no wrong because his heart is pure no matter what actions he takes and everyone else is wrong and he is always right. I found reality to be so much different and found it hard to buy into it. I was very compelled to relate to him though. At surface, I felt Ender was a lot like me when I was a kid. (The way people identify with Harry Potter or that woman from Fifty Shades of Grey who likes being psychologically abused when she thinks she is only being physically abused.) But I could never make that leap. Speaker for the Dead cemented what felt wrong about Ender's Game. Others could explain it better. But the stark, wooden way people express themselves was totally off. It was fine in the first book as I had considered it a book for adolescents. (Hoo boy, was I wrong) Ender came across more like a creepy priest and the way he marries some woman felt more like "taking a wife" instead of falling in love. I muddled through and when I finally started Xenocide I could not take the self satisfied condescending attitude. Mostly the idea that people of lesser intelligence have no value. It was only later I found out that OSC was in reality, a cock. My point is that the idea of giving money to an author whose views or belief's you disagree with of usually moot. Because more often than not it will not be work you will relate to. If I read Ender's Game for the first time today knowing in advance how the author thinks, it would completely color my perspective on the book and I would judge it harshly. (As I do now) Someone mentioned Alan Moore and that is a similar point. Sure, he is a bit weird and a creep. But reading his work knowing his points of view on authority and society help you understand works like Watchmen and V for Vendetta. If you are opposed to his personal politics, then chances are you will not like his work. It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's worth keeping in mind. I just know I find my Sin City collection harder to read nowadays because it's more dificult to write them off as trashy, self aware pulp. Likewise with Phillip K. Dick. Knowing the guy had a obscenely hosed up upbringing, was often homeless, was mostly off his head on drugs and was married 5 times can help you from judging him on some of his points of view or opinions because you know he comes from a very unique place and his perspective is probably worth hearing even if you don't subscribe to it. I really think that is the balance. I am not casting judgments on anyone for thinking either way. But think about it, when you do start judging an author, can you still enjoy their work? Also, at the risk of turning this thread into Ender's Game discussion, here is a fantastic essay about it written By John Kessel. http://johnjosephkessel.wixsite.com/kessel-website/creating-the-innocent-killer
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
zoux posted:No I'm saying that wringing your hands over whether to buy stuff that you like because the author, or publisher, or whatever might be a "bad person" is stupid. There's also always the secondary market. If I buy Ender's Game at the library book sale, that money goes to them, not Card!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Likewise with Phillip K. Dick. Knowing the guy had a obscenely hosed up upbringing, was often homeless, was mostly off his head on drugs and was married 5 times can help you from judging him on some of his points of view or opinions because you know he comes from a very unique place and his perspective is probably worth hearing even if you don't subscribe to it. I really think that is the balance. Philip K Dick is a great example for this thread, for sure. There was a biography on him, "I Am Alive And You Are Dead", that's as fascinating as any of his stories. Knowing that he was actually bugged and harassed a lot by the FBI helps make you realize exactly what his worldview is about. Yes, he was on drugs and mentally ill, but his fear of all-encompassing authoritarianism is actually well founded. That's one of the big reasons why a lot of his work is so enduring. To bring it back to comics, here's a comic about his religious experiences. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
The comic adaptation of 'Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep' is pretty well realised. It's basically the book including huge chunks of the prose. As a comic, it's a slow and kinda slogging read, but it captures that feeling of loneliness and paranoia alongside the weird co-dependent relationships that pepper Dick's work. So in that regard I would say Dick is fair game. The art is not really my cup of tea but it gets the job done. You can get it in a big 24 issue hardcover that is currently breaking my shelf next to my hardcover editions of The Incal and Metabarons. (AKA the most metal comic in existence.) I posted a few pages below as the style is something you have to warm to.    
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Someone mentioned Alan Moore and that is a similar point. Sure, he is a bit weird and a creep. But reading his work knowing his points of view on authority and society help you understand works like Watchmen and V for Vendetta. If you are opposed to his personal politics, then chances are you will not like his work. Moore is almost a special case here. I'm the one who mentioned him, and it's honestly not his politics that I find off putting. He wrote Lost Girls, which can be best described as a very lovingly designed book of child pornography. I have a general rule about only hoping the worst things happen to child pornographers and pedos, and I don't see this as a particularly political stance. Recent offline conversations have somewhat disabused me of this, unfortunately.  To use a sports analogy, it's like clumping my dislike of Tom Brady for his politics with my dislike of Aaron Hernandez for killing 1-3 people.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:I just know I find my Sin City collection harder to read nowadays because it's more dificult to write them off as trashy, self aware pulp. Miller seems like a pretty self-aware guy. He just doesn't really care about what others think of him. But the interviews I read with him in he book about him showed he's aware of, say, how psychotic his Batman is. or that Leonidas was absolutely no hero. I'm generally against trying to psychoanalyze a writer based on their work. That's why I made this thread, really. No interpretations here or theories based just on the writing. I wanted plain text with hopefully some actual quotes from the writer. I think a lot of people get carried away thinking they know a writer's beliefs/personality based solely on a work of fiction and that's just kinda dumb in my view.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Miller seems like a pretty self-aware guy. He just doesn't really care about what others think of him. But the interviews I read with him in he book about him showed he's aware of, say, how psychotic his Batman is. or that Leonidas was absolutely no hero. Well we do know he hates Islam due to Holly terror and his rants about the occupy movement where he said the occupy movement was pointless when there is the real enemy out there
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Moore is almost a special case here. I'm the one who mentioned him, and it's honestly not his politics that I find off putting. He wrote Lost Girls, which can be best described as a very lovingly designed book of child pornography. I have a general rule about only hoping the worst things happen to child pornographers and pedos, and I don't see this as a particularly political stance. Recent offline conversations have somewhat disabused me of this, unfortunately. I never read lost girls. But I find it hard to believe that he was writing it out of thoughts or gratification. It's more based on Moore's previous writing. He never shied away from pedophiles in his work and the only time I can recall where he did not portray it in a serious light. (Like V for Vendetta or Watchmen) was in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen where the Invisible Man is raping young girls/women. From panel one of that section it's OTT and comes across like a Carry On film or an old Bluesie comic strip, clashing with the real world. Same with the "Yellow Peril" section. I certainly don't agree with a lot of his politics or even like all his writing. But he strikes me as a guy whose views are worth hearing I am not saying he is not a pedo freak. I just find it hard to believe based on what I have seen. He has certainly gone a bit crazy recently. Here is an interview from the early 2000's with Stewart Lee where he comes across as a really sound guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6wg4f_XAYA NikkolasKing posted:Miller seems like a pretty self-aware guy. He just doesn't really care about what others think of him. But the interviews I read with him in he book about him showed he's aware of, say, how psychotic his Batman is. or that Leonidas was absolutely no hero. Frank Miller posted:“For the first time in my life I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die. All of a sudden I realize what my parents were talking about all those years,” I am cherry picking some quotes there. Miller certainly is not the worst of them. But some of those quotes would not sound out of place coming out of Marv or Batman. I can certainly enjoy a shclocky pulpy writer even if their content is a bit dodgy. (As mentioned above about Alan Moore)But since 9/11 it feels like the irony is gone from Miller's work. As a history buff (and someone who enjoys beautiful comics) I enjoyed 300. But if you listen closely you can really hear the author's voice. He admires the Spartans and does disservice to history by not showing things like them declaring war on their slaves every year or the fact that they shaved the heads of the brides so men would not be freaked out by banging something with long hair. I am not saying you need to show all that in detail. Just that he showed exactly what he needed to, to express his personal bias. They are only shown in a heroic light. I am not trying to poo poo on Miller or analyze him. All I am saying is that I can get why people find him distasteful.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Oh so it turns out, shockingly, that Cap wasn't actually a nazi after all  Who could've forseen this except anyone who knows even the barest thing about comic books.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
People who think Alan Moore is actually a pedo are so loving moronic that they are not worth engaging with on any subject whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Sentinel Red posted:People who think Alan Moore is actually a pedo are so loving moronic that they are not worth engaging with on any subject whatsoever. Right, I don't like Lost Girls much-- actually I think it's profoundly stupid-- but he's obviously saying something pretty thoroughly worked-out about the ideology of the construction of childhood and of sexuality in the 19th/early 20th c. (granted, like a lot of what he's concluded about that period I think he's off the mark, and really like a lot of what he says about sexuality I think he's not half as progressive as he thinks he is) and not just giving people something to jerk off about. It's like saying Salo is only for scat fetishists. How Wonderful! fucked around with this message at 23:01 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Archyduke posted:Right, I don't like Lost Girls much-- actually I think it's profoundly stupid-- but he's obviously saying something pretty thoroughly worked-out about the ideology of the construction of childhood and of sexuality in the 19th/early 20th c. (granted, like a lot of what he's concluded about that period I think he's off the mark, and really like a lot of what he says about sexuality I think he's not half as progressive as he thinks he is) and not just giving people something to jerk off about. It's like saying Salo is only for scat fetishists. Being willing to discuss adolescent sexuality does not make a person a pedo or a pornographer. But it seems like it's something that can't really be discussed without people jumping in with their own personal axes to grind. (Not referring to you) He wrote this book about women discussing their past sexual experiences as teens and was instantly villfied by some for writing about a subject matter that made some people uncomfortable. Now you could argue that the way it's portrayed in the comic is designed to arouse. As I said, I have not read it. But I did read From Hell which is a graphic novel absolutely filled with people loving drawn in great detail. None of it felt arousing and it mostly served to tell us about these characters and their depressing filthy lives. It was masterfully done in my opinion. (Mostly down to the artist.) That goes a long way to convincing me Alan Moore did not write it to get people off. The argument that he is writing lovely pretentious bullshit is kinda moot. As long as what he writes is not something that is promoting loving kids. (Which was decided it was not in the UK by a panel who actually sat down and read it to decide if it was child porn.) The Salo point is an interesting one. The fact that some critics of the film considered it as pornography is kind of hosed up as it makes me wonder how they perceive tortured sexually abused naked women eating poo poo before being burned alive. It reminds me of when Victoria Beckham kissed her daughter of the lips and everyone was grossed out because they thought it was sexual. Are the people who think there is something wrong with that getting horny when they kiss their kids? Because even though it is a film filled with sex and fetish and depravity, it is not a titillating film nor portrayed as such. It's not pornographic in the sense that it is setting out to arouse an audience. Now if some guy gets turned on by folks eating poo poo and being raped and tortured and burned alive then that is in no way the writers fault. Although gently caress knows, maybe Paolo Pasolini wants people jerking off to his movie. It proves his point. gently caress, that's more than I ever want to get into defending that kind of poo poo. It's a fine line between Takashi Miike and the dude who made the Human Centipede movies. I personally don't think anyone really needs to watch Salo. Reading plot on Wikipedia gets the point across enough IMO. And if I saw it in someones dvd collection I would have to wonder why exactly they have it. It's not like you get it as part of a 5 for $20 deal.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Being willing to discuss adolescent sexuality does not make a person a pedo or a pornographer. But it seems like it's something that can't really be discussed without people jumping in with their own personal axes to grind. (Not referring to you) He wrote this book about women discussing their past sexual experiences as teens and was instantly villfied by some for writing about a subject matter that made some people uncomfortable. He wrote a comics that describes sex between a minor and adults in a way that an actual pedo could crank to. Comics already have a seedy unbelly of weird fetish comics that do a decent part to keep LCS nerd dungeons the way they are. Moore is making this worse, because the acts he's depicting are both incredibly non-consentual, but also tacitly allowed be society. We don't heavily punish adult male/minor female pedophilia in this country, and even go out of our way to define it down in court when it shows up. We give light sentences to perpetrators of these crimes, and even in some cases fail to prosecute crimes that are open and shut when the ages of parents and children are known. Hell, there's even a channer/reddit meme (epebophilia or whatever it's called) that is designed to give cover to people fantasizing about minors. Several people I deal with closely have been victims of this kind of crime as children, and our court system did nothing to protect both these children and other children from the victimizers by at least getting them on a registry if not into prison or other instituions. I treat this stuff as serious because I see the effects on a daily basis, and get more than a bit worked up when people begin defining it down. Mainstream comics already have huge issues with the depiction of sexual assault being normalized, and Moores stuff isn't helping. I'm fine with young people have authentic sexualities, but it's not a thing for adult to luridly view, period. Lost Girls does at least try to show the relationships as damaging to the young women, but everything about it screams being "Crime Does Not Pay" but for sex crimes against young girls. quote:The argument that he is writing lovely pretentious bullshit is kinda moot. As long as what he writes is not something that is promoting loving kids. (Which was decided it was not in the UK by a panel who actually sat down and read it to decide if it was child porn.) Again, Western society tends to define down sex crimes that are committed against women in general. We also allow the anime creeper poo poo like the "She's a 10,000 year old in a 10 year old's body" stuff into the West instead of being the kind of thing that gets you put on a registry, so I wouldn't exactly hold legality up as if that makes a work acceptable. Jesus Titty loving Christ, I did not think the line "Don't show kids having sex" is something that would be a controversial opinion on SA. It really makes me sad that I have to defend this position from people who aren't just standard channer trolls. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Part of the reason political discussion is impossible on the internet is that it tends to become a contest on who is the most morally righteous person in the discussion. More succinctly: performative wokeness.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh so it turns out, shockingly, that Cap wasn't actually a nazi after all That's not the crux of why people have been complaining about Hydra Cap, though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:That's not the crux of why people have been complaining about Hydra Cap, though. Well, educate me my friend.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
zoux posted:Well, educate me my friend. Me too, I kinda skimmed through the first issue and know a little about the writer's background from this thread, but I too would appreciate a good overview. I have been out of the loop since Bucky took over for cap. I heard that Steve came back to life but decided not to be Cap any more. So was the idea that this was THE Steve Rogers and not a clone. Crazy changes to continuity have worked well in the past. Superior Spider-Man was way more fun than it had any right to be. But I can't imagine how they pulled this one off, even with a great writer. It would make a great "What If " story but it sounds like it was a cluster gently caress. Considering what I have heard about the writer. I would be very interested to get the key points that pissed people off. Lonos Oboe fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 16:09
|
|