Why do I have to read this rubbish?
Oct. 29th, 2011 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI'm trying to read something set for homework for Contemporary Narrative, a big long essay on Jimmy Corrigan. So far it is utter and complete rubbish. It is the kind of review of a graphic novel that obviously hasn't read any other graphic novels, at least in the last thirty years. It talks about the dominance of the superhero comic, except it adds 'perceived', so whenever you point out it's talking utter rubbish it can argue it's talking about how people 'perceive' superhero comics, and since this one person doing the writing perceives them that way, it is clearly talking accurately about perception. Drives me nuts. It's arguing based on rubbish. Its quote about comics is from Umberto Eco in 1979. Now if Corrigan was written around that time, that would work. But no. It's from (1995 to) 2000. And comics have changed just a teensy bit since 1979. Its talking about 'the frozen temporality of many superhero narratives' a 'timeless state' where 'what has happened before and what has happened after appear extremely hazy'. Do you recognise that as comics since Crisis? It's not comics the way I read them. 'characters like Superman and Batman never age and always eventually return to a kind of fundamental narrative stasis no matter what happens in a given story'. Well, no, Batman and Superman rarely change, but everyone around them does. Actually even Batman changes, in ways you can chart vs costume colors and ear length. Lone! Dark! Vengeance! ... or having fun with Robins. Whatever. 'Histories of change, development, and evolution are thereby suppressed, contributing to the image of the superhero genre - and its readers - as trapped in perpetual adolescence.' How much is wrong with that? And you see again 'image', which allows them to talk bollocks and not back it up, because if somebody somewhere sees it that way, tada, the statement is true. *grrr* Okay, so, there's a cycle of depower/repower/re-establish/waver/depower. That's a true thing. Lots of characters do that. But that doesn't mean they stay still. Batman? Look at the Robins. If the man is in stasis, how does he have a, what, ten year old biological son conceived after he became the Batman? He's at least ten years older than when he started. Characters around him are on sliding ageing scales but they do age. Robins grow up to be Nightwing, Red Hood, Red Robin, Batgirl. Batgirl grows up to be Oracle. Everybody grows and changes. Batman the least, but, comics change.
... if it had stuck with Superman it would have been more relevant to its point (since there's a Superman reference in Corrigan) and I would have been less able to poke big holes in it, because I don't read Superman. Does he change? Is he changeless?
am I just annoyed because of the reader perpetual adolescence bit? no, I own that. I'm still in college, surrounded by teenagers, and left to myself I watch U rated kids television. I'm not a model of maturity, here.
It's just this stupid thing we're meant to be reading is talking rubbish like it never reads the things it's crit about, and really, what's the point?
And then it goes on to talk about 'primal scene' and 'mirror stage' and name check Lacan, and honestly, my expectations of the thing could not get lower. I'm double checking all the quotes to see if it's accurate, that's how much I'm expecting from it. (It's adding words in [brackets] that are from different pages when other characters speak. Is that accurate? *sigh*)
So we're reading this stupid rubbish graphic novel and then reading these essays that are all about how it's real serious bizness yo, proper big thinking!!! and not like them other graphic novels what are really kid stuff.
Could we not study Batman? Surely something that has remained popular, a cultural icon, for this length of time, could reward a little study? Or if you want to go classier, try Sandman, everyone likes Sandman. And it's of finite length, which is less intimidating than trying to get an overview or context for any Batman reading. But noooo, we have to read stuff nobody outside of lit lessons ever bothers with. I am so tired of that. It's like saying nothing's smart unless it's calling everyone else stupid. :-p to that. :-p to the lot of it.
... damn, I've still got 6 A4 pages of this one and a whole other one to read.
I could try just failing instead. But there's the outside chance I could get a first in this degree, right now, which would be a nice reward for ten years of study, so I should probably actually try doing quite well.
*uses Delirium icon*
:-)
... if it had stuck with Superman it would have been more relevant to its point (since there's a Superman reference in Corrigan) and I would have been less able to poke big holes in it, because I don't read Superman. Does he change? Is he changeless?
am I just annoyed because of the reader perpetual adolescence bit? no, I own that. I'm still in college, surrounded by teenagers, and left to myself I watch U rated kids television. I'm not a model of maturity, here.
It's just this stupid thing we're meant to be reading is talking rubbish like it never reads the things it's crit about, and really, what's the point?
And then it goes on to talk about 'primal scene' and 'mirror stage' and name check Lacan, and honestly, my expectations of the thing could not get lower. I'm double checking all the quotes to see if it's accurate, that's how much I'm expecting from it. (It's adding words in [brackets] that are from different pages when other characters speak. Is that accurate? *sigh*)
So we're reading this stupid rubbish graphic novel and then reading these essays that are all about how it's real serious bizness yo, proper big thinking!!! and not like them other graphic novels what are really kid stuff.
Could we not study Batman? Surely something that has remained popular, a cultural icon, for this length of time, could reward a little study? Or if you want to go classier, try Sandman, everyone likes Sandman. And it's of finite length, which is less intimidating than trying to get an overview or context for any Batman reading. But noooo, we have to read stuff nobody outside of lit lessons ever bothers with. I am so tired of that. It's like saying nothing's smart unless it's calling everyone else stupid. :-p to that. :-p to the lot of it.
... damn, I've still got 6 A4 pages of this one and a whole other one to read.
I could try just failing instead. But there's the outside chance I could get a first in this degree, right now, which would be a nice reward for ten years of study, so I should probably actually try doing quite well.
*uses Delirium icon*
:-)