Author |
|
David Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 3093
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I just re-read "For the Man who has Everything." We're told about the plant's properties by Mongul, who turns out to be mistaken about lot of things in the course of the story (a fact observed by Robin as the Boy Wonder saves the day). The story shows that things have gone wrong in Superman's fantasy before the fantasy is explained as a by-product of the plant. The set-up of the story is that Superman is trapped in a flawed version of his greatest desire, and when the story later presents Mongul's explanation, it's obvious to the reader that Mongul doesn't know everything about this flower (Mongul: warlord, conquerer, botanist). I don't think it's a plot hole.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133334
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 1:27pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
It's a plot hole if the reader has no information other than what is (perhaps falsely) presented by the villain. To tell a story, a writer must provide the reader(s) with all the information necessary to inhabit the reality of that story. This is not a situation such as, for instance, Doctor Doom turning up and asking the FF for help, assuring them that there is no deception involved. There, the history of the character will provide the reader with sufficient information that s/he will know something is likely to be less than kosher no matter what Doom says. And if the writer handles the telling skillfully enough, even a new reader should be able to pick up enough clues to know that this is Doom acting out of character.In this story, it is not "obvious to the reader" that Mongul doesn't know everything about this flower. Mongul is our only source of information. If the story hinges on him being wrong, that is an unfair deception of the reader. And a plot hole. (As previously noted, especially if Mongul then becomes himself a victim of the flower, and the heroes are content with this "solution". You really can't have it both ways.)
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Aaron Smith Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 10461
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 2:06pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
This is not a situation such as, for instance, Doctor Doom turning up and asking the FF for help, assuring them that there is no deception involved. There, the history of the character will provide the reader with sufficient information that s/he will know something is likely to be less than kosher no matter what Doom says. And if the writer handles the telling skillfully enough, even a new reader should be able to pick up enough clues to know that this is Doom acting out of character.
***
I wrote a story like that, and as logic dictates, simply had the FF greet Doom with extreme distrust when he makes his initial appearance.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
David Miller Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004 Posts: 3093
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 3:10pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
JB, thanks for responding. I agree with you on the principals involved, but I still don't agree they should be held against Moore's story. No information has been hidden from the reader. In fact,the reader has an unimpeachable source for the real effects of the flower: the story itself. The effects of the flower are demonstrated objectively in the story by dramatizing Superman's fantasy before Mongol appears and explains things. Fully half of the story before Mongol's appearance is dedicated to showing the fantasy Superman is trapped in. Mongol's description of the effects is accurate, that the flower "feeds them a logical simulation of the happy ending they desire," but wrong on the specifics (he thinks Superman is reliving his happy childhood). I think the reader can take for granted that the scenes dramatizing Superman's fantasy can be trusted as the word of God, or at least of an objective, omniscient narrator.
Let's say in "Terror in a Tiny Town", you followed the opening sequence with the FF in their fantasy with a scene of Doom sneering that everyone is held unconscious in a dreamless sleep (and I apologize for mangling your fine story to make a point -- I'm going to re-read that next). We don't need to be familiar with the character to know he's wrong -- the story up until that point confirms it.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
|
Victor Rodgers Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 December 2004 Posts: 3508
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 5:35pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Done right, Superman's relationship with Krypton doesn't have to make him "alien" any more than growing up in Kansas makes him "naive". But the "caretaker" of Kryptonian history only works if Superman is the LAST Kryptonian. That's my only issue with stories of that nature; if he's not the LAST, then Superman's interest in Krypton is self-conscious escapism. Clark Kent wouldn't indulge in any thoughts of escaping his responsibilities. Not consciously, anyway.
*****
BUt who are the other kryptonians? Supergirl is a kid, and could not be trusted to take care of kryptons legacy. The Phantom Zone criminals do not care. So SUperman is the only responcible adult to take care of krpytons dead culture.
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|
Troy Nunis Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004 Location: United States Posts: 4598
|
Posted: 22 September 2007 at 6:51pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
>>BUt who are the other kryptonians? Supergirl is a kid, and could not be trusted to take care of kryptons legacy. The Phantom Zone criminals do not care. So SUperman is the only responcible adult to take care of krpytons dead culture. <<
Bottle City of Kandor surely have a few responcible adults, perhaps even a historian or three?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005 Posts: 133334
|
Posted: 23 September 2007 at 5:04am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
…Supergirl is a kid…
•••
When this story was published?
|
Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
|