| Author |
|
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 8:04pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Ah, Alan, you can try to justify it all you want with pseudo-intellectual
psychobabble about "Victorian sexuality," but it still came across like you
being a sniggering 12 year old jerking it to the idea of the Invisible Man
raping Pollyanna and Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.
Once upon a time I loved his work. He's long since lost me as a fan.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 8:24pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
John Mietus: Aren't we supposed to avoid mind-reading on this (or any other) forum? You dislike the story Alan Moore wrote, and that's fine. But to dismiss his own explanation and substitute your own is blatant mind-reading as to the intent of Alan Moore in writing the scene.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 8:29pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
No mind reading, Matt -- if you read carefully, I said, "it still came across
like." Stating a reaction to the printed work and responding to his
comments, not trying to extrapolate what his real motivations behind it
were.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 8:30pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I think the reason this guy singles out JB is that, unlike Alan Moore and his followers, JB has, for the most part, created stories that are strictly aimed at the "all-age" demographic--it's not to be expected. I assume that most people wouldn't think of this sort of thing when they ponder John Byrne comics, so the insinuation seems even more "sinister" and is meant to, ostensibly, take on an aura of "profoundness."
Many people get a kick out of finding insidious meanings behind the most straightforward of material. Ever hear all those urban myths involving Disney?
Edited by Robert White on 25 May 2006 at 8:30pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 8:44pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
John Mietus: I was talking about the combination of that and the remark about pseudo-intellectual pychobabble being used to "justify" the scene. I read his remarks as an explanation of the motivations and tone of the scene, which you then dismiss out of hand. Not mind-reading (my mistake there), but perhaps not fair, in my opinion. I'm not trying to justify the scene (or any of the others mentioned), just saying that if he offers that as his rationale for it, you can debate the merits of the rationale, but not just say, essentially, "No, that's bullshit. Here's how it came across to me". It's just a bit too similar to the tone of many of the anti-Byrne rants I've seen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
But it is bullshit. He's justifying a graphic rape scene played for laughs
by saying that Victorian literature was filled with repressed sexuality and the
notion that being raped was "a fate worse than death," completely side-
stepping the fact that in Victorian literature, sexuality was always dealt with
through analogy (such as in Dracula) or with clever subtlety (as in the works
of Oscar Wilde). It's a shaky argument to justify what, as I've said, still comes
across as adolescent sniggering at the expense of classic characters from
literature. And because it's His Comics Holiness Alan Moore, everyone
seems to be willing to roll over, accept it, and defend it.
As I said, I used to love his stuff. Then I opened my eyes.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Linton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 13 December 2005
Posts: 2022
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 9:12pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
"He's justifying a graphic rape scene played for laughs by saying that Victorian literature was filled with repressed sexuality and the notion that being raped was "a fate worse than death," completely sidestepping the fact that in Victorian literature, sexuality was always dealt with through analogy (such as in Dracula) or with clever subtlety (as in the works of Oscar Wilde)."
This is what I meant, though. This is a reasoned arguement for why you don't feel his explanation holds up. I disagree with it (for one thing, I think part of the point of it being shown in a graphic nature is to satirize the use of analogy and subtlety by showing just what it was that the Victorian's were being so coy about), but I can understand it. Honestly, I don't mean to sound as condescending as I'm sure I do right now. I did take your original post for mind-reading, and later for being overly harsh and dismissive. But I can see your reasoning now.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 25 May 2006 at 9:16pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
No, I don't think you're being condescending at all -- we're having a
reasonable debate. No worries here. And I think we've stated our views
enough to recognize where each other is and how we disagree.
'S all good.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133279
|
| Posted: 26 May 2006 at 3:55am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Many people get a kick out of finding insidious meanings behind the most straightforward of material. Ever hear all those urban myths involving Disney? **** One of the most oft recurring phrases I see on the internet -- I've even used it myself -- is some variant on "So what you're saying is..." Where my usage differs from the more common form, however, is that I then follow with a paraphrasing of what has been stated, in order to clarify in my own mind. Some others are more often inclined to completely flip the point of the initial comment. Thus: Person A: I really like the work of Roger Stern. Person B: So what you're saying is, if Stern didn't write it, it sucks? This "essay" is an example of this kind of thinking writ large. Superhero comics are about action, and action often means violence. The fact that our central characters have super powers and are constantly charging in to battle equally (or even greater) powered badguys, means our heroes will take their lumps -- at least in part one. As female characters have been brought more and more to the forefront, fighting as equals with the guys, instead of staying home as The Annoying Girlfriend or The Devoted Wife, or being grabbed by said badguy in order to get the story going, these female characters have been seen to take their lumps along with the boys. Generally speaking, this has been applauded as a Good Thing. A positive move away from stifling clichés of days gone by. The mentality of those days gone by can still be called forth at will, of course. The action scenes involving female characters can be set in isolation, and viewed thru the lens of "the gentle sex", the whole wife-and-mother motif. She-Hulk (to pick but one) can juggle buses, but it is still "violence against women" when the badguy punches her thru a wall -- even if she then comes back and rips his arms off.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Clint Adams
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 507
|
| Posted: 26 May 2006 at 9:08am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Its fiction! Everything is done to further a plot somehow. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to read it. That is the part of this whole equasion that I don't understand.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133279
|
| Posted: 26 May 2006 at 9:31am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Remember the scene where I had Annihilus string up Alicia and Franklin from the ceiling of a large chamber in the Baxter Building? The author of this essay would probably crop that shot so as to exclude Franklin, but at the time I received a letter (which, as I recall, I published) from an irate parent who, in his own mind, "cropped" Alicia and focused on the "abuse" of Franklin. Did I get my jollies torturing a child, asked this writer?Well, of course the answer is "no". But I do "get my jollies" portraying villains as ..... villainous! And there are not too many ways to show Annihilus to be the scumbag that he is that are better than stringing up a blind girl and a small child! There's little doubt left that A is a bad guy, after a scene like that. Sort of like, oh, when the Green Goblin tossed Gwen Stacy off the Brooklyn Bridge, or the Joker murders Robin.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 26 May 2006 at 10:26am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I have no idea what some people want. Should innocents never be placed in danger in all-age fiction? Should the scene have faded to black, with the two's horrified expressions in a close up, later showing them tied up and obviously roughed up? Whatever the method used, violence still too place. The only difference is if it’s implied or shown directly. (And, let's be honest, that Alicia/Franklin scene was obviously toned down and mild given what could have been depicted.)
I’m sure the Frankie Ray/Wakanda FF issues plays into this theory. Yes, she was strung up over a slow fire, but why? She was the one that lashed out at the Roman and incurred his personal wrath. How did he treat Susan Richards, another woman? He put her in a nice cushy bed. The point is that the Frankie Ray scene had context and was not a random act of violence against women (she was the new, inexperienced, character; she was REALLY hot headed etc.). All the characters were not thrown in the dungeon with only the female characters being subjected to torture.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
