Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2826-2830 (03 - 07 November 2014) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
NemoX:
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---The thing is, if you're going to approach a text that way -- interpretation and exegesis versus plain 'ol consumption -- each person's going to bring different things to the table. There are different critical methodologies that come into play even when you're not entirely conscious you're using them; there's the body of work you've engaged prior to that, whether it's web comics, music, SF, fairy tales or political theory; and there's the personal experience that changes not only your perception of the world, but also on things that either portray or comment on that world. That's not a matter of belief (or not) in reality... instead, it speaks to the ways in which each of us perceive and experience it. That's neither closed-minded nor hurtful; on the contrary, it involves being open-minded enough to consider that there are other ways of looking at something, and to consider what those things mean in the bigger picture.
--- End quote ---
like you said, if that is the case, it's not a conscious thought. It paints how we see the world and our opinions, we are after all a collection of our experiences (which as an aside I've always felt has stronger sway in the whole nature vs nurture argument, but I digress), and it's fine if people want to interpret a work or piece of art and expression around what they perceive as individuals. My issue is when the artists are accused of knowingly, and with malicious intent, to say something different with their work, specially like I said when said work is not a single source thing, multiple people come together to make it what it is.
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---Except you don't seem to respect it; "find[ing] it appaling that such a way of thinking is still a thing" -- dismissing critical thinking as an aberration -- isn't an expression of respect by any rational measure.
--- End quote ---
I don't have a problem with her as a person thinking or believing what she does. But that attitude of hers, claiming she respects people enough to allow them to have different sexual preferences, and says they should be allowed to have them, but that its "morally wrong" and they should essentially hide who they are and abandon so, and that they are hence condemned to not have happiness in the afterlife or whatever is NOT critical thinking. I respect that she has a different opinion, but I do not respect the essence of people acting against what to them is their nature because other people are not the same. That is not acceptance, no matter how much she claims it is. That is what I find appalling. If she would have said she doesn't like it or approve of it, but didn't make that particular claim that it's morally wrong to acknowledge in public their differences and that they have to keep it to themselves, it would have had a completely different tone and I would not have so many issues with it.
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---I'm not sure of April's precise background, but speaking as someone who majored in Lit and got in the habit very early on of citing sources that backed my opinions, I don't see these as statements of fact necessarily as the habit of someone who's used to sourcing her work to back her opinions. That's not "forc[ing] people to see things [her] way," that's just what you do when you're trying to make a point. It ought not to be necessary to place a disclaimer or special "opinion" tag on things just to avoid hurting the feelings of those who prefer not to hear someone else's opinions.
--- End quote ---
Maybe I worded it wrong, but that is what I was getting at. Citing sources is a good thing, yes she is using them to back her opinion, but if she didn't have an opinion then the whole "have you considered this point of view" wouldn't happen. What I mean is that she presents an argument based on some things that are concrete examples and they make sense. The article however, seemed (to me at least) the other way around. She wrote the "therefore" line before anything else and THEN felt like she had to stretch what she decided to use as examples to validate her argument, rather than using examples to lead to a conclusion...I don't think I'm making sense, I apologize for that, but I'll leave it at saying that in both cases the examples are being used in a very different manner to justify vs rationalize an already decided bottom line. One sparks a conversation, the other a controversy.
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---In terms of not knowing the writer's motives... well, that's exactly the point of interpretation. We don't always know. Some writers tell their stories in one dimension -- everything they intended to say is right there on the page. That kind of writer, and that kind of writing, is exceedingly rare (and exceedingly boring). From our classical literature all the way up to "Rambo" (yes, even "Rambo"), the story on the page or the screen is only part of the story; there's nuance, subtext, and sometimes entire other plots, some hidden in plain sight and others revealing themselves only after time and careful thought. Some of us enjoying the rest of the story certainly doesn't preclude you from ignoring it, thereby "seeing what you want to see." See how that works?
--- End quote ---
yeah, I think I already addressed this point in the first part of these reply :)
--- Quote from: Aziraphale on 07 Nov 2014, 08:55 ---But at least we can agree on this much. She didn't. ;)
--- End quote ---
Hey, so long as the conversations derived from any of this are civil, I'm happy. I always enjoy a good conversation, specially one where I can most likely learn something new or at the very least makes me consider new points of view. Whether it changes my own or not is not even a concern, if it happens it happens, but just being exposed to different opinions and ideas is never a bad thing, helps us grow as people :)
edit: fixed some quotes bb code
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 07 Nov 2014, 01:33 ---Faye on her own in a bar of some kind and the last panel her looking up with a surprised expression at a new male character who has stepped up and is trying to start a conversation with her.
The message? Life goes on.
--- End quote ---
Riker's beard! I hope not. If Claire exists to be Marten's girl, Jeph did a good job of establishing her as her own person first. I would hope he would do the same with anyone meant for Faye. Otherwise, it just seems like another pit stop on the road back to Sven.
I have had issue with Angus as a character, but I liked him as Faye's other half. I wanted to see them try, if only because I see breaking up as the easiest form of story conflict. Since all signs point to this being the end, I'd rather get directly to the conflict between Sven, Faye, and Dora.
I can see all kinds of different ways Sven could redeem his selfish behavior by just being there for Faye. That sets up a nice internal conflict for Sven (doing what needs doing vs getting what he wants for Christmas) and sets up the core conflict of Dora's Svenectomy, with a number of different reaction options for Faye (can a supportive Sven be taken at face value? Why is Dora being weird? What hasn't she told me? Wait? Marten knows and I don't?)
ReindeerFlotilla:
On the topic of analysis, I have to ask: how many of you saw Pacific Rim?
Wait? What?
Okay, Pacific Rim is not the deepest screen play ever written. But that is what makes it so useful for this point. Of those who saw the movie, how many of you noticed that the Russian pilot saw the main character as a sexual/romantic rival?
Some might argue that that isn't in the movie. Nothing is said about it and there's no obvious consequences from it. I would argue it is. It's especially apparent in the mess a hall scene, when the Russian takes a protective/possessive position around the other Russian pilot as the MC passes by, shooting the MC a look that screams "stay away from my man."
You thought I was talking about the husband of the husband and wife team?
Here's my point. That happened. Unlike a lot of things under discussion here, it probably happened as part of a plan. But whose plan? Del Toro? Heather Doerksen, the actor who played Lt. Kaidanovsky? The cinematographer? Does it mean what I think it means? It's all body language and significant looks.
Analysis relies on interpretation. Interpretation is prone to following paths dictated by the tools one tends to favor. When you prefer hammers, everything looks like nails. On the flipside, it's a poorly kept secret that the Animation house at Disney loves tossing in "subversive" subtexts. Possibly for the same reason that the old Looney Tunes guys liked putting in jokes that would fly over a child's head. They want their work to capture the attention of adults, too.
Are all of these films political statements? Is Lt. Kaidanovsky really concerned that Beckett has designs on her husband? I don't know. But it doesn't hurt anyone to listen to the hypothesis and consider the implications. I wouldn't say anything if the discussion was merely disagreement about the analysis, itself. But the discussion is edging closely to, if not trampling totally on, criticism of the analyst's motives.
Edit: sorry for double post. I didn't think I would finish that before someone else chimed in.
davedig:
I love Pacific Rim! It's a personal favorite of mine.
MooskiNet:
Well said, RF.
"I disagree with this bit and that bit and this other thing because...." is perfectly fine. "This puts me in mind of a hateful diatribe I read once," not as much.
("RF?" Maybe I shoulda said ReindeerFlotilla instead, 'cause now I've got Randall Flagg on the brain)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version