Don;
Read this year's "patriotic" 'toon entry, Miss America. For some reason, I seem to read into your comments that your aren't the biggest fan of Roy Thomas.
If that is true, is it because of his writing style, or, that he has been one of the biggest people to reconstruct back stories of old characters in the eighties, and, nineties?
Login to reply to this topic
Comments:
|
Posted by: *don*
Posted on: 2008-07-05 at 08:20:38 AM
|
Scott Shaw!, who worked with him on Captain Carrot, has noted that Roy Thomas is the Plains Indian of comic book writers. He leaves no part of historical comic book continuity unused.
I don't mean to put the guy down. Certainly, he constructs a good enough story. But the same thing that many people find so appealing about his work -- the fact that he leaves no part of historical comic book continuity unused -- is, to me, something to mock about it. And as you may have noticed, I do enjoy mocking superheroes.
I find it especially mockable that simple fantasies become faux-scientific mumbo-jumbo when modernized, apparently to make them more believable to today's more sophisticated readers. The fact that they're no more believable, but are certainly sillier and more mockable, seems not to signify. What's wrong with magic as an explanation for Miss America's super powers? These are funnybooks, f'goshsakes!
By the way, I object to the word "patriotic" in this context. What, Mr. Scarlet and Pinky weren't patriotic? Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't indicate patriotism in superheroes any more than it does in politicians. I post flag wearers on July 4 simply because that's the day's theme, like when I posted Santa Claus on Xmas (and will post Jingle Belle on a future Xmas (not this coming one)).
I was dead serious when I suggested, just after Memorial Day, that Barak Obama dress like Captain Flag. That should make those get-a-lifes who put him down for not wearing a lapel pin, look as dumb as they really are. But it would constitute a healthy attitude and might even get a laugh, neither of which seems to be acceptable in a presidential election.
Quack, Don
I don't mean to put the guy down. Certainly, he constructs a good enough story. But the same thing that many people find so appealing about his work -- the fact that he leaves no part of historical comic book continuity unused -- is, to me, something to mock about it. And as you may have noticed, I do enjoy mocking superheroes.
I find it especially mockable that simple fantasies become faux-scientific mumbo-jumbo when modernized, apparently to make them more believable to today's more sophisticated readers. The fact that they're no more believable, but are certainly sillier and more mockable, seems not to signify. What's wrong with magic as an explanation for Miss America's super powers? These are funnybooks, f'goshsakes!
By the way, I object to the word "patriotic" in this context. What, Mr. Scarlet and Pinky weren't patriotic? Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't indicate patriotism in superheroes any more than it does in politicians. I post flag wearers on July 4 simply because that's the day's theme, like when I posted Santa Claus on Xmas (and will post Jingle Belle on a future Xmas (not this coming one)).
I was dead serious when I suggested, just after Memorial Day, that Barak Obama dress like Captain Flag. That should make those get-a-lifes who put him down for not wearing a lapel pin, look as dumb as they really are. But it would constitute a healthy attitude and might even get a laugh, neither of which seems to be acceptable in a presidential election.
Quack, Don
|
Posted by: Chuck Taine
Posted on: 2008-07-05 at 09:00:52 AM
|
Wow! I asked for it, didn't I? I thought that Roy Thomas' reconstruction of superhero continuity might be the reason for your seeming dislike of
him.
I'm sorry if the use of the term "patriotic" as a category for the general theme of the articles posted on July 4th got your "dander" up. I didn't mean to imply that any of the non-flag themed costume wearers weren't patriotic. As I said I was just using the word to describe the postings for July 4th as a general theme. Maybe there was a better word to use. But you have to admit, that generally speaking, most of your postings for July 4th have been "patriotism" inspired heroes.
him.
I'm sorry if the use of the term "patriotic" as a category for the general theme of the articles posted on July 4th got your "dander" up. I didn't mean to imply that any of the non-flag themed costume wearers weren't patriotic. As I said I was just using the word to describe the postings for July 4th as a general theme. Maybe there was a better word to use. But you have to admit, that generally speaking, most of your postings for July 4th have been "patriotism" inspired heroes.
|
|
Posted by: *don*
Posted on: 2008-07-06 at 06:48:50 AM
|
It's not just you. I'm starting to develop a bad attitude in general toward what people nowadays call "patriotism", but which I think would more accurately be called "jingoistic boosterism".
Patriotism is love of your country, right? If so, it simply doesn't make sense to fault people for not showing enough of it. I mean, you can't just decide whether or not you have it. Either you love something or you don't. Either way, your value as a human being (or a candidate) isn't changed Furthermore, you can love the hell out of your country, and still not care one little bit for what its government is doing. In 1776, it was those trying to overthrow the lawfully-constituted government who were called "patriots".
Patriotism is often confused with a philosophy I've heard called "American Exceptionalism" -- which is nothing new. The Catholic Church officially cited American Exceptionalism as a heresy and therefore, in its eyes, a sin, as long ago as 1897. It's the idea that America can do no wrong -- everything its government does is not only morally correct -- it's also wise. If it's been tried over and over, resulting in disaster for the country doing it, that's okay. For America, it'll work.
I could go on and on. And may yet, if any troll picks up on the intention I expressed a few days ago, to write up Captain Confederacy. (I've already been faulted, in private e-mail, for writing up The Crusaders, because the correspondent found Jack Chick morally repugnant.
As for Roy Thomas, don't make too much of the fact that I mock some of his modernizations. As I said before, I like to mock superheroes. That's one of the ways I enjoy his work.
Quack, Don
Patriotism is love of your country, right? If so, it simply doesn't make sense to fault people for not showing enough of it. I mean, you can't just decide whether or not you have it. Either you love something or you don't. Either way, your value as a human being (or a candidate) isn't changed Furthermore, you can love the hell out of your country, and still not care one little bit for what its government is doing. In 1776, it was those trying to overthrow the lawfully-constituted government who were called "patriots".
Patriotism is often confused with a philosophy I've heard called "American Exceptionalism" -- which is nothing new. The Catholic Church officially cited American Exceptionalism as a heresy and therefore, in its eyes, a sin, as long ago as 1897. It's the idea that America can do no wrong -- everything its government does is not only morally correct -- it's also wise. If it's been tried over and over, resulting in disaster for the country doing it, that's okay. For America, it'll work.
I could go on and on. And may yet, if any troll picks up on the intention I expressed a few days ago, to write up Captain Confederacy. (I've already been faulted, in private e-mail, for writing up The Crusaders, because the correspondent found Jack Chick morally repugnant.
As for Roy Thomas, don't make too much of the fact that I mock some of his modernizations. As I said before, I like to mock superheroes. That's one of the ways I enjoy his work.
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: *don*
Posted on: 2008-07-06 at 07:27:23 AM
|
P.S.
You mentioned "the reason for your seeming dislike of him. "
I realize that's just shorthand for talking about his work, but If I ever gave an impression that I dislike him, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Roy Thomas is a fine fellow. Even if I'd ever felt otherwise, which I javen't, any ill feelings have certainly been dispelled by his recent practice of sending me books, sometimes fairly expensive ones, when they contain images taken from this site.
I'll add that Roy has blanket permission to use that artwork. I don't own the copyright to the visuals here, but sometimes a fair amount of work goes into getting them in shape to put on the Web, and I do appreciate being asked. Hooray for Roy Thomas!
(By the way, his year of teaching high school was spent at the school my wife attended at the time. So I've got this obscure, tenuous, ancient connection with him.)
Quack, Don
You mentioned "the reason for your seeming dislike of him. "
I realize that's just shorthand for talking about his work, but If I ever gave an impression that I dislike him, that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Roy Thomas is a fine fellow. Even if I'd ever felt otherwise, which I javen't, any ill feelings have certainly been dispelled by his recent practice of sending me books, sometimes fairly expensive ones, when they contain images taken from this site.
I'll add that Roy has blanket permission to use that artwork. I don't own the copyright to the visuals here, but sometimes a fair amount of work goes into getting them in shape to put on the Web, and I do appreciate being asked. Hooray for Roy Thomas!
(By the way, his year of teaching high school was spent at the school my wife attended at the time. So I've got this obscure, tenuous, ancient connection with him.)
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: Chuck Taine
Posted on: 2008-07-08 at 06:18:21 AM
|
Don:
You're right. I was discussing your seeming dislike of Roy Thomas' work, not him personally. I didn't even think that you might now him personally, on what ever level.
I don't know you personally, but from what I can tell from your writings,
you will criticize a person's work, but not the person.
You're right. I was discussing your seeming dislike of Roy Thomas' work, not him personally. I didn't even think that you might now him personally, on what ever level.
I don't know you personally, but from what I can tell from your writings,
you will criticize a person's work, but not the person.
|
|
Posted by: *don*
Posted on: 2008-07-09 at 05:15:32 AM
|
No, I'm pretty careful about keeping criticism non-personal. But I realize most people aren't -- not knowing the guy personally, they just don't think in terms of anything they say being personal, and use not liking him as shorthand for not liking his work. Don't mean a thing. I was just covering bases.
It's not like Roy and I are bosom buddies or anything. But we've run into each other now and then. That happens when you both work in the same industry for 40 years, even when one is a big star and the other is an obscure toiler in the vineyards.
Quack, Don
It's not like Roy and I are bosom buddies or anything. But we've run into each other now and then. That happens when you both work in the same industry for 40 years, even when one is a big star and the other is an obscure toiler in the vineyards.
Quack, Don
