talk like a poncing grad school cult stud liberal elitist?
Deppey’s rhetoric of evanescent childhood wonder and the necessity to put aside the search for it, to “move on,” might possess some substance if he or like-minded elitists could demonstrate that comics-fans were in some way unique in this regard, as against other patrons of modern entertainment-media.
Here, let me rewrite that for you in English rather than elitese, shall I?
Dirk Deppey insulted my friends by calling them little whining babymen. But everybody is a babyman, so it doesn’t matter. Our society and all its entertainment are great, so comics must be great too! And I can’t be a stupid snuffler of nostalgic babycrap, because…I use big words! And I don’t like elitists anyway, so there!
I may have more about this later…but it really frosts me when people pretend that cultural studies is somehow a movement for the people. Putting yourself above the fray on some lofty academic perch and presuming to speak for the people: that’s the very definition of elitist, my friend. Because you know what? Most everyday, regular people who haven’t undergone academic lobotomies — they think the stuff they like is good, and that the stuff other people like isn’t. And the only people who think that the people can do no wrong are ivory tower intellectuals cavorting about in proleface.
Update: I was so irritated I forgot the link; it’s been added now.
Update 2: Just trying to read through the whole series of posts…and, yeah, I have to agree with most commenters here that the game isn’t really worth the candle. He’s sufficiently confused that further argument seems pointless.
Update 3: Phillips responds here.
You're right about how it's written — the cultural-debate equivalent of someone trying to write an impressive letter of complaint to the bus company.
It seems like the quote is saying that maybe superhero fans aren't the only media consumers who fixate on material they've loved since they were kids. Is that what the post's whole argument comes down to? Doesn't seem like much.
He's got various points (I added a link, in the first line.) I'll probably talk about it in more detail for Monday maybe….
Aren't you making the same point this guy is (whoever it is, didn't catch the name). He accuses Deppey of telling others what to like…and you accuse him of speaking for others likes and dislikes. If there's a distinction, it's thin one. You agree with Deppey (disliking most modern superhero comics), and disagree with this guy… But he doesn't argue against Deppey disliking them. He just argues against Deppey analyzing why he (and others) dislike them.
I tend to agree with Deppey–but I don't see how your position is much different from the dude you're so irritated with.
should say "why he and others like them"
His name is Gene Phillips.
And yes, I'm charging him with elitism — because I think it would annoy him, not because I actually think elites are evil or that anti-elitists are virtuous. (Anti-elitism has at least as unpleasant a pedigree as elitism. One of the few things Nazis and Stalinists can agree on, after all, is anti-elitism.)
I also think it's fine to tell other people what to like. That's what criticism is all about, after all — and it's hardly totalitarian or even mildly oppressive to say, "Hey! This thing you're reading? It sucks!"
It just seems really bizarre to target a single blog post within a daily link blog responding to a very specific comments thread (and illustrated with that very specific Supergirl image) with a multiple post series leveraging all the tortured English the writer has at his fingertips. Arguing Deppey's logic without bringing centering your argument around the very specific artwork Deppey's discussing seems incredibly odd as well…
"I also think it's fine to tell other people what to like. That's what criticism is all about, after all — and it's hardly totalitarian or even mildly oppressive to say, "Hey! This thing you're reading? It sucks!"
If Gene Phillips beleived that telling other people what to like is bad, his reponse should be "Nobody should tell someone what to like," which is a pretty simple response, and isn't going to make for very long blog posts.
But of course, he can't resist trying to engage the critic on his own level, writing:
"Deppey's rhetoric of evanescent childhood wonder and the necessity to put aside the search for it, to "move on," might possess some substance if he or like-minded elitists could demonstrate that comics-fans were in some way unique in this regard, as against other patrons of modern entertainment-media."
So why does he doth protest so much? Is the critic worth responding to, or is his opinion inherently invalid?
I think Gene's response is undercut not only by the language he uses, but by how angry and uptight it seems (I imagine him as a Peter Bagge cartoon character, furiously typing away with clenched teeth).
That said, criticism-as-psychoanalyzing-the-audience is pretty weak (at least if the critic is exempting his/her own likes/dislikes from the same kind of scrutiny) and it does have a history of being used in some icky ways to denigrate art that's consumed/appreciated/created by lower/under/outsider classes/groups.
But that said, Dirk's statement (and coinage of the phrase "superhero decadence") is part of a larger conversation that centers around the (ill) health of the direct market and to pull it out of that context, as if it's from an essay in the NY Review of Books, is a dodgy move.
I just read through all the posts. IMHO, Deppey's biggest sin was accusing the readers of super hero decadence when he is actually talking about the writers and publishers of super hero comics. It's a mistake to make generalizations about the audience when most of us only have anecdotal evidence of the reader's motivations for buying the books. On the other hand, the comics can tell us a whole lot about the people producing them.
I can understand why Gene Phillips took offense and is now trying to offer another view, but I think he's reading way more into Deppey than is actually there. I seems to me Deppey is saying super hero comics have a foot in two different worlds (adult and children's literature) and doing neither very well, while Phillips is arguing that it's OK for adults to like fantastic things. I don't see how we got from A to B.
I think too much can be made of the "you don't know what the readers are thinking" thing. It seems to me that it's legitimate to say, this seems to me to be what this work is offering as entertainment. That kind of inevitably bleeds over into suggesting that the people reading that work like that kind of entertainment. (For instance: Twilight is obsessed with sex and safety. I think its readers (those who like it, anyway (including me, to some extent)) have an investment in those issues as well.)
I think you're right about the argument; Phillips doesn't understand what Dirk is saying. He thinks Dirk is making fun of children's comics. But Dirk is in fact arguing that children's comics are good. Thus we have a disconnect.
That's nothing compared to Phillips posts on torture, though. Oi.
It's legitimate to say people buy things because they like or identify with what's being offered, but I think its an over generalization in the case of super hero comic books. I've observed a strong element in comics fandom that makes purchasing decisions completely independent of any reaction generated by actually reading the work. They're collectors of comic books, not consumers of the content.
To put in recent terms, how people are now buying Supergirl because they like the content and how many people are buying Supergirl because it starting using the little triangle numbering system that links in it with all the Superman comics?
Before the new numbering, sales were at 27,000. The first issue with the triangle number, sales were at 45,000. Six months later, the sales were back down to 33,000
So Supergirl gained about 18,000 new readers, and then shed 12,000. I would guess that many of the 12,000 read the book and rejected it because of the content. But that still leaves 6,000 people who either like the book or are buying it because it is linked to Superman. If I had to guess, I would say most of them are buying it because the new numbering. Otherwise, they would have already been reading it. It's not like Supergirl hasn't been sitting right next to Superman in most comic book stores for the past three years.
I think the same reasoning can be applied to the mega crossovers. The cross overs sell well because many people are compelled to collect the whole story, not because they get off on continuity porn.
Regardless, catering to either group is not going to result in better super hero comic books.
"The cross overs sell well because many people are compelled to collect the whole story, not because they get off on continuity porn."
But…what's the difference there exactly? If "compelled to collect the whole story" doesn't mean "get off on continuity porn," then what does it mean?
Continuity porn is being able to explain the convoluted history of Hawkman and then reveling when Geoff John cleverly ties it all together in one neat narrative.
Getting the whole story means that you have all 8 issues of Secret Invasion including the 12 variant covers, which you then bag and board and place under lock and key in your basement.
One requires reading, the other does not.
Sure…but they just don't seem that far apart to me, is all I'm saying. You're obsessed with continuity…or you're obsessed with continuity. Either way, it seems like a very self-conscious and decadent enjoyment/obsession. That is, it's about celebrating, participating in the rituals of a mannered in-group, rather than about a less recursive appreciation of storytelling or artwork or whatever.
I do think that a much larger percentage of comics buyers bitch, moan and complain about how crappy (mainstream superhero) comics are than your average consumer. If I'm a fan of rock band X (let's say U2), I buy their CD's because I like them. I might be disappointed by an album or two…but for most music buyers, they'll stop buying if the group in question falls off the proverbial table (after, say, "Achtung Baby"). Comics buyers will keep buying/reading Superman or X-Men whether they like the stories or not. They hope that a Superman story they like will come along…a creator they like, art they like, or whatever, but they don't necessarily buy for that reason (some do, but many don't). Why do they buy? Well, they like the character (or liked him)–they enjoyed some stories with that character at some point…and they're hoping something good will come along. In the meantime they're content to buy, bag, and bitch. Part of the experience is, in fact, the communal bitching about disappointing (or simply bad) "runs" on a book. So…Deppey may be partially right (if this is what he's saying) that some of the attraction is nostalgia for "childish things"….but it does go beyond that too–identifying with a social group (real people) who do the same things you do, and with characters (fictional people) and with "hope." The hope for better stories…the hope that the collection itself (complete?) may someday be worth something, etc. etc. It's not "getting off" on continuity porn. Plenty of bitching about these continuity clusterfucks, too, of course. But…if one doesn't get those continuity clusterfucks, one might not "understand" what's going on in one's "favorite" titles (the ones you collect no matter what, good, bad or indifferent) and so, as long as the clusterfucks include the most popular characters–they can sell…drawing in "fans" from the Bat titles and the Super titles,etc. (or the X-titles on the other side). I agree with Bryan that it's not necessarily about buying/consuming what you like. It's a rite of sorts. You go to the store on Wednesdays, you participate in the community, and you hope…
There's a good book about all this by Matthew Pustz. I think it gets things mostly right….
Collecting in general, for instance, is less about collecting things you like (although it may start there)–it's the quest for the "complete set"….a kind of compulsion that has little to do with looking for enjoyable things (which one may find all over the place)–but in getting ALL of one specific thing. Why people want that is a bit more tricky (explanations for the "need" for order and having things under control seem a bit too easy to me…although it does make some sense. The world is weird, dangerous and difficult to control–lining up, bagging, and boarding comics is easy to control–and safe)–but people definitely do want it.
"I do think that a much larger percentage of comics buyers bitch, moan and complain about how crappy (mainstream superhero) comics are than your average consumer."
They remind me of pro sports fans. They get fed up, but never fed up enough to drop their old loyalties.
Eric, I'm sure some folks collect to collect…but at some point it seems like you're ending up in the same place Brigid did when she said some tween girls read the Twilight books and criticize them. I"m sure it's true in part, but Twilight isn't popular because tween girls think it's stupid, and Marvel Zombies/Blackest Night/Identity Crisis etc. etc. don't end up as successful series simply because comics fans will read anything. Marvel Zombies isn't even in continuity. The fact is, the majority of the audience for any aesthetic product is going to be people who like that product. Tween girls who buy Twilight do so because they like Twilight; comics fans who buy decadent super-hero comics do so because they like decadent super-hero comics. I don't really feel like I'm going out on a limb here.
Not a limb…but the dynamic is a bit more complicated for superhero comics consumers than the simple…we like it therefore we buy it.
They may like the idea of superheroes and comics…but the individual stories you, for instance, name and dislike…are quite often bought and disliked by the "fans" themselves for a variety of reasons.
Obviously, someone likes Geoff Johns' version of Green Lantern (since sales went up when he joined the title)–but I don't think it's the 1:1 correlation that it may be in some other areas of consumer culture.
Like food…I'm not going to buy food I don't like. People definitely do buy comics they don't particularly like.
And Tom's note about sports fan-ism is similar… I may hate a particular group of Mets players, but I'm still a Mets fan. I can't get out of that mindset. And yes…I'll even buy tickets from time to time (once a year!).
The Knicks, though…Well, they've gotten so horrible to watch and read about that I've all but given up (and don't really pay much attention). That's like dropping your favorite title. You hate to do it (even feel guilty about it!), but sometimes, you just gotta.
"Obviously, someone likes Geoff Johns' version of Green Lantern (since sales went up when he joined the title)–but I don't think it's the 1:1 correlation that it may be in some other areas of consumer culture."
Geoff Jones is quite popular, as far as I can tell.
Super-heroes are definitely more like fan-fiction than not, in that people are obsessed with particular characters and want to read about them. But what they want to read about those characters doing has changed as the demographic has skewed older. If it hadn't, you wouldn't have stories like that. I just don't believe that comics companies have figured out how to repeal the law of supply and demand.
Of course, supply and demand still applies… but it's not as simple as it looks. Marvel and DC have a corner on all the old characters people are attached to…they supply them. Other games (diff. superheroes from diff. companies) occasionally can succeed, but they need to have stories and art people demand to stay in business. Marvel and DC can just have the characters (and the culture) and they'll be all right.
I think that Shaennon Garrity quote should come in handy somewhere in here. I mean the one about how a fan of a given superhero sees the artists and writers (and the company, I would add) as just getting in between him and his hero.
Some anecdotal evidence of something(?): I read Green Lantern because I like it. Also, most of the people I know who are reading Green Lantern seem to me to be reading it because they like it. The only place I encounter people who keep reading it and don't seem to like is the internet.
Strange concept there—somebody like Green Lantern.
Responded to on my blog.
I already put the link in an update, Gene!
Nazis agreeing on anti-elitism? Really? With all that Aryan crap?
"Deppey's rhetoric of evanescent childhood wonder and the necessity to put aside the search for it, to "move on," might possess some substance if he or like-minded elitists could demonstrate that comics-fans were in some way unique in this regard, as against other patrons of modern entertainment-media."
It's not really even very good elitist-talk. "as against" really should be "when placed against" or "in comparison to". Yes, I'm an English Major. I'm picky about that kind of stuff.
Isn't it possible he was writing this tongue-in-cheek? (Though the only phrase that really smacks of that is "rhetoric of evanescent childhood wonder", which could just be bad writing.) Or that maybe he had just written a 2,000-word essay and the rhetoric was still with him? It sounds like a literary criticism more than a personal rebuttal.
Or maybe he was trying not to sound bitter and immature, which using words like "babyman" definitely smacks of.
I agree with your overall point, but not with your illustration of it.
"Nazis agreeing on anti-elitism? Really? With all that Aryan crap?"
Racism is very different from elitism. Elitism is about intellectual and cultural capital; racism is about inherent worth. The Nazi criticism of Jews is basically that Jews are evil intellectual and cultural elites, when true virtue rests in simple Aryan volk.
It isn't necessarily especially logically consistent or anything, but the Nazis are definitively anti-elitist…as are Communists, who the Nazis hate. I don't make the rules, I'm just reporting.
"Isn't it possible he was writing this tongue-in-cheek?"
Gene's not an especially tongue-in-cheek kind of writer.
"Or maybe he was trying not to sound bitter and immature, which using words like "babyman" definitely smacks of."
Bitter is good; nothing wrong with bitter. And if it's wrong to use "babymen," I don't want to be right.