boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN) (09/27/85)
[Sorry this is so long after the fact, but I've been busy lately.] > From: cmu-cs-k!tim (Tim Maroney) > I also appreciated [Leeper's] point about heavy emotional scenes in the middle > of whirlwinds; this is one of the oldest and stupidest of comic book cliches. Why? I'm serious. Why is it stupid? It looks strange and silly to us, to be sure, because we don't have super-powers. But consider --- in a world in which super-powers *do* exist, and some character has the ability to create a whirl- wind with about the same effort as she can walk, why shouldn't she conjure one up to carry herself and someone else off somewhere for a *really* private con- versation. That's the key. Things that seem strange and silly for us may well *not* to inhabitants to such a world. Think about it. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) UUCP: {decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian ARPA: boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/03/85)
I usually don't respond to anyone who finishes with "Think about it", but what the hey, my standards have been slipping lately.... There are several reasons why I feel that such common comic book scenes as deep emotional discussions in the middle of a whirlwind, or simultaneously emoting heavily with a friend and being beaten on by super-villains, are stupid. First, it is reminiscent of those awful bands that can't play very well, so they play loud to cover it up. The writer is unsure of his (ordinarily I'd say "her or his", but this is comic book writers we're talking about) ability to interest the reader with the emotional content of the scene, so all sorts of semi-related flash is thrown in "to keep things interesting". This insults the audience even more than most television screenplays. Second, this is one of the most frequent of comic-book stylistic flaws; if someone had just done it once, I probably wouldn't have called it "stupid", but the ten thousandth reptition of the mistake is just too much to bear. It has nothing to do with seeming strange and silly; it is a matter of style. There's nothing wrong with strangeness and silliness, but they are too often used as excuses for stylistic mediocrity. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime) (10/08/85)
Ever had one of those no-win situations? Generally, I'd come straight out and respond to this article without any prologue, but this is, after all, Tim Maroney. Let me explain my options: 1) Ignore the whole article, which I would prefer doing, because I've got gobs enough of things to do on my own time than post follow-ups which will have no effect on the original poster. However, after making snide comments in his original article like: >[...] The writer is unsure of his >(ordinarily I'd say "her or his", but this is comic book writers we're >talking about) I don't want to let that go by with no comment. Some of these articles get to Eclipse, some of them get to Marvel, and there are writers there who I think are doing a good - to - excellent job; I don't want them (and Henry Vogel) to think I agree with Tim by silence. Besides, this is a newsgroup for comics fans; people making broad condemning statements about comics are about as pleasant and useful as writing to net.motss and saying "All gays will burn in Hell". So, gotta say something. What? 2) Answer Tim in a nice, pleasant manner, explaining that everyone has their own sense of style, and while he may not enjoy standard dialogue in unusual situations, many of us do, and I guess we just have a difference in stylistic tastes, right? And maybe suggest that making a general statement that all comic writers are sub-human is not very nice, and a generality to boot. This has appeal in the fact that net.comics is probably the most civilized newsgroup I read; incredibly disparate opinions cross are re-cross with an amazing lack of flaming. It really is quite pleasant, and I am uncomfortable by muddying the water to any extent. However, folks, I've seen Tim in action for three years, almost, and he basically seems to read any article that disagrees with him as an attack; net.religion is littered with his verbiage. Supporting him on his censorship from the net in North Carolina was unpleasant; Voltaire might have been a bit more conservative on his free speech statements if he'd had to read Tim's stuff day in and day out. So any politeness will probably be lost on him, and retaliation to my comments will be as harsh for honey-coated missives as for surface-to-twit missiles. 3) Basically ask him what the Hell bands playing loud music has to do with having conversations in unusual locals, criticize his general style of metaphor, suggest that making nasty generalities about all comic writers is about as unconstructive as possible, point out that I don't see how, from his sketchy arguments, it can be inferred that unusual settings diminish the power of emotional scenes, and suggest that if he is going to do criticisms of comics, that he clear up his comparisons and cut the wide-angle attack on comics in general. If he doesn't like comics, fine, that's his choice; I don't like religion, as a general rule. But I don't spew forth bile about religion in a group that is dedicated to people who enjoy discussing it. I expect him to show the same restraint for THIS form of entertainment. "I understand that in this country Coke comes in cans!" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty <*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/10/85)
I really think that you're overreacting to this. I'm a lifelong comics fan, I still collect several super hero comics, and I agree with Tim; conversations in the middle of whirlwinds are silly. Does that make me a bigot? Just because I dislike many of the cliches of super hero comics (and I wish you would stop talking as if super hero comics == all comics. You know better than that.) doesn't mean I don't find things to like about them. I don't understand your reaction to this comment at all: > However, after making snide > comments in his original article like: > >>[...] The writer is unsure of his >>(ordinarily I'd say "her or his", but this is comic book writers we're >>talking about) > > I don't want to let that go by with no comment. Some of these articles > get to Eclipse, some of them get to Marvel, and there are writers there > who I think are doing a good - to - excellent job; I don't want them (and > Henry Vogel) to think I agree with Tim by silence. Besides, this is a > newsgroup for comics fans; people making broad condemning statements > about comics are about as pleasant and useful as writing to net.motss and > saying "All gays will burn in Hell". So, gotta say something. What? > > ... > > And maybe suggest that making a general > statement that all comic writers are sub-human is not very nice. Implying that all comics writers are men says that they're sub-human?!? You've been reading too much Claremont stuff. Take my word for it, men are human too. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "Given a choice, most people would rather not be attacked by horrid undersea slime creatures." "NO!" "Truth hurts."