Question regarding comic books and schticks expressed therein

[Samson Corwell]

I am new to comic books (mainly Marvel), and I have seen plenty of alright to pretty good things in them (AvX). I have seen postmodernism get criticized by some Objectivists for being something along the lines of relativistic, nihilistic, or irrational. There are some things in comic bookdom that have postmodernist threads in them. So, I wish to ask for opinions on these things in them:

• I've seen Alan Moore get derided for what I think is his use of the anti-hero, particularly Watchmen. I think he is a part of the "British invasion" of the American comic book industry and this leads me to another British comic book writer: Grant Morrison. He makes use of metafiction heavily in some of his things. Look up Final Crisis: Superman Beyond. This miniseries is riddled with metafiction, but from I read about what is uses metafiction to do makes it perhaps the ultimate story.
• Postmodernism is characterized by heavy use of the absurd, and I think metafiction is associated with it. Breaking the fourth wall is a classified as a metafictional technique. Look up Deadpool.

[dldelancey]

I'm not into comic books(*), so I can't speak directly to that element of your discussion. Metafiction, however, is not limited to comics, so I'll go there, and I'm speaking in general since the term "metafiction" includes many different flavors. Just like any other literary device, metafiction serves a specific purpose and when it is done well, it can certainly enhance a work of fiction, be it a novel, a comic book, a movie, a play, or what have you. Likewise, when it is done poorly, it's just sad and pathetic and often confusing. "Breaking the fourth wall", as you mentioned, is a metafictional technique and probably the most overused (i.e. ill-used) and easily recognizable one. There's nothing worse than being engrossed in a movie and suddenly being dragged out of it by a character turning to the camera unexpectedly and inappropriately and saying something directly to you. Or worse, winking at you. On the other hand, I have heard that Ryan Reynolds is supposedly reprising his role as Deadpool in a spinoff of X-Men Origins, and I can totally see him pulling this off. I suspect the ladies, er, the audience will love it.

(*)I'm not into comics with the exception of one Neil Gaiman graphic novel and the Diary of a Wimpy Kid series (which is only a comic in that it has illustrations, many of which are comic-like). Sadly, my one Neil Gaiman doesn't include any of the Sandman series which I am told is superb and also metafictional. As for Diary of a Wimpy Kid, I think the metafictional element is largely what make these stories so appealing to kids, and especially to boys. Greg is a skinny geeky unpopular middle child breaking that fourth wall on every single page having one continuous conversation with my son. He eats it up.

So, I don't know if I furthered your discussion much at all, and I certainly didn't address in any way how Ayn Rand would have felt about metafiction or comic books. (I don't know, and I honestly don't care as I can enjoy them both without her permission.) Probably I only accomplished exposing myself as a huge nerd, and that's okay, but don't get me started on World of Warcraft because then I might just embarrass myself.

[Jonathan]

...I certainly didn't address in any way how Ayn Rand would have felt about metafiction or comic books...

I think I remember hearing her express disdain for narration in films and plays; it was okay to speak to the reader in literature, but not in other art forms since doing so burst the illusion. So she probably would have been enraged about metafiction/fourth-wall-breaking, at least until someone pointed out that elements of her own art intentionally or unintentionally contain similarities to it (such as creating a jury from audience members for performances of her play Night of January 16th and allowing them to determine the play's outcome).

J

[Selene]

...I certainly didn't address in any way how Ayn Rand would have felt about metafiction or comic books...

I think I remember hearing her express disdain for narration in films and plays; it was okay to speak to the reader in literature, but not in other art forms since doing so burst the illusion. So she probably would have been enraged about metafiction/fourth-wall-breaking, at least until someone pointed out that elements of her own art intentionally or unintentionally contain similarities to it (such as creating a jury from audience members for performances of her play Night of January 16th and allowing them to determine the play's outcome).

J

J...

and that was an excellent device...my ex was picked for the jury when we saw the play and the performer in her made the evening phenomenal.

A...

[dldelancey]

...I certainly didn't address in any way how Ayn Rand would have felt about metafiction or comic books...

I think I remember hearing her express disdain for narration in films and plays; it was okay to speak to the reader in literature, but not in other art forms since doing so burst the illusion. So she probably would have been enraged about metafiction/fourth-wall-breaking, at least until someone pointed out that elements of her own art intentionally or unintentionally contain similarities to it (such as creating a jury from audience members for performances of her play Night of January 16th and allowing them to determine the play's outcome).

J

J...

and that was an excellent device...my ex was picked for the jury when we saw the play and the performer in her made the evening phenomenal.

A...

And that's the point, right? If the author/artist employs the device well, it makes the work something bigger, something more.

[Brant Gaede]

I believe The Fountainhead was done as a comic book and that Rand wasn't against them as such being reflective of popular culture. It would be a matter of how well done, not the appropriateness of the venue. This is a complicated way of saying she'd have been delighted to see a good representation.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

I read comics on occasion and have a stack of them here. Justice Society of America, Green Hornet Aftermath, Averngers: World Trust. I also get them from the city library. My favorite comic book store had a lending rack I signed up for. There, I tries several of the new series, but the only memorable one was an X-Men written by Joss Whedon. Courtesy of the city library, I was able to read about the Golden Age and Silver Age, follow Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko, and on and on. I even got a Stan Lee book on how to draw comics, not that I would, but to understand his technique. But for all of that, it is not my favorite medium.

I had to look up "breaking the fourth wall." I guess my favorite example for all time was from Annie Hall. But for it done well, you have to refer to The Twilight Zone. Ambiguity was an important element, blurring the distinction between reality and fantasy, viewer and presentation.

In this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_of_His_Own - even Rod Serling is drawn in.

This is more typical, a salesman who discovers that he is an actor returns to the set forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_of_Difference

I could not find another show, perhaps not a Twilight Zone, where the characters who meet in a bar over and over keep hearing tap-tap-tap... and finally we see the author tear a sheet from the typewriter, throw it in the wastebasket and start again...

All in all, this is not necessarily "post modernist."

Over on Rebirth of Reason, I went back and forth on The Watchmen. I have seen it through probably four times now and I read the compilation comic before I saw the movie.

[syrakusos]

"I have seen postmodernism get criticized by some Objectivists for being something along the lines of relativistic, nihilistic, or irrational. ...

I've seen Alan Moore get derided for what I think is his use of the anti-hero, particularly Watchmen. ... "

Post modernism is all of those things. If you take an integrated view of philosophy, you will find that post modernism denies the validty of the senses and also denies the validity of logic. It is more than art,though art of necessity is its highest expression. Post modernist politics are perhaps identical with political correctness. Anyone who does not grasp the complete integration of post modernist metaphysics with collectivist poilitics and nihilist aesthetics should begin with a search on Paul Feyerabend who taught that what we call "science" is only a scientistic enterprise that denies voice to women and minorities.

That said, not everything created recently is "post modernist." By analogy it is possible - but fruitless - to criticize Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson for being a collectivist.

The Watchmen has been embraced by some Objectivists who found Rorschach to be one of their own.

Alan Moore's work stands on its own, as does all art, and that opens a broad and deep discussion on aesthetics. Read Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto, if you want to understand the context. Does the viewer bring their own values to the work of the creator? The artist can say, "Life is a garbage heap, therefore I paint a garbage heap," but if the style is clear, crisp, concise, with nice neat industrial artifacts, what, then, do you see? On that basis I have snapped pictures of industrial scrapyards.

So, too, with the works of Alan Moore, do many Objectivists find in reflection values which he himself may not have intended.

As for the anti-hero as an aesthetic element, I think that it is a creature of the 1960s. I think of Michael Caine in What's It All About Alfie and Paul Newman in The Thonas Crowne Affair. The recent remake of Thomas Crowne with Pierce Brosnan and Renee Rouseau is totally the opposite of that: heroic and therefore fun in the deepest sense. (My review on Rebirth of Reason here.) None of the heroes in The Watchmen is an anti-hero.

[anthony]

I think post-modernism at heart proclaims: Don't take me seriously!

I am ridiculous for writing and producing this - my plot is ridiculous - so are my characters -

and mostly, so are you for paying for it.

Cognitively, it is fallacy of the Stolen Concept, in seeking to find value through non-value.

Psychologically, it's self-flagellation in the Public Square. Look at me, look at me, I'm bad

but please don't judge me.

(having said - I like a bit of irony, and will go to see a Q.Tarantino film. The James Bond films went

through interesting stages, after a Romanticist start, through a period of p.m.self-irony, now into gritty and serious naturalism.)

[Jonathan]

I think post-modernism at heart proclaims: Don't take me seriously!

I think that it proclaims: Don't take everything so seriously! I think it reminds people that they are capable of error, and I think that a lot of people need that reminding.

Don't you think that Rand could have benefitted from an occasional dose of don't-take-yourself-so-seriously?

J

[Jonathan]

The artist can say, "Life is a garbage heap, therefore I paint a garbage heap," but if the style is clear, crisp, concise, with nice neat industrial artifacts, what, then, do you see? On that basis I have snapped pictures of industrial scrapyards.

Michael, what do you see in the pictures that you've taken of industrial scrapyards? What do they mean to you? What values do youfind in them?

J

[anthony]

I think post-modernism at heart proclaims: Don't take me seriously!

I think that it proclaims: Don't take everything so seriously! I think it reminds people that they are capable of error, and I think that a lot of people need that reminding.

J

Yeah, but things don't hold still, do they? The 'movement' began for some possibly valid reasons,

and devolves into ugly derision.

But I do partly agree with your "Dont take everything so seriously!".

For all my criticism, it fascinates me that post=modernism possibly started with one rational cause (I think).

The unreality of an escapist era brought us cardboard cut-out heroes like John Wayne - whom even as a kid, I couldn't believe - and in trying to right the balance, artists, critics, media and commentators - went to the so-called opposite extreme, so - the "anti-hero".

Spot the false alternative.

It is ironic that it was man's desire for reality that initiated it.

Briefly, now we've been in a self-mocking, nothing is serious, anything goes, stage for a long

while. People are becoming tired of being reminded "they are capable of error".

Hell, they know it already. Let somebody show they are capable of greatness, now.

Time for the serious hero, who's real, principled and thoughtful, to emerge.

(I mean, reassure me there's life beyond Beyonce!)

Time for genuine values, and I believe it will come..

Of course, I've been simplistic about post-modernism; it's far more complex, and we could spend all day discussing its roots, its variants and offshoots. (How much did it mirror or drive the rise

of liberal-progressivism, for example.)

[syrakusos]

Jonathan - When I am caught by machinery left abandoned, first, is the geometiric purity of the lines and shapes. Second, the material artifacts will indeed have another use. Nothing is ever destroyed. At worst, they might be melted down, but most likely, they will be refurbished and reused.

whYNOT - You suggested: "I think post-modernism at heart proclaims: Don't take me seriously!" What I see un post-modernism is "Do not take anything seriously ... except what we tell you to." Your thesis is a case in point. You could not relate to John Wayne ( and other "cardboard cutouts") whereas I could. I grew up in the 1950s on television cowboys such as Roy Rogers, The Range Rider, and Gene Autrey. To me, that was normal. Later, of course, in line with all fiction, came what I later learned was "a willing suspension of disbelief." It does not matter that carpets do not fly, what counts is Aladdin facing the evil vizier.... or Kirk Douglas as Ulysses, or Victure Mature as Samson or James Mason as Captain Nemo with Kirk Douglas as Ned Land.... and many, many others.

whYNOT, remember that post-modernism is not an accidental artistic movement like Dada. They have a political agenda. "Do not take anything seriously ... except what we tell you to." That political agenda includes denial of the scientific method, which is to say, denial of the rational-empirical (objective) method, i.,e., of the Enlightenment. And if you read any of their polical or social tract, you can easily find denigrations of what they call "the Enlightmentment trajectory." They want to remove standards of evidence and proof in order to control you.

[anthony]

Michael,

I'm sure I screamed and leaped about in the seat when I would see Rogers, Autrey &Co. doing their thing (On the big screen, TV came much later to Africa). Heroes, though, are for grown-ups as well as kids. If winning, getting the girl, saving the town are just presented as automatic "givens", without an underlying cause, internal struggle, and morality - I can't see how an adult could really take to it.

The hero is close to a floating abstraction one can't connect with.

Interesting, you take the top-down, political-driven view of post-modernism's beginnings.

Maybe, to some degree. I am more convinced it grew organically from cynicism about life and oneself - i.e. (philosophical) skepticism (my constant song). Now, THAT has certainly caused political agendas...

The premises of comfortable, conservative Christian societies were starting to hit their logical contradictions in reality, in Europe and the US, in the '60's.

John Wayne had been a major representative of those mores: increasing agnosticism in Europe,

and creeping doubts in patriotism and religion in the US, put paid to an era: Leaving millions, seemingly,

with no place to go, intellectually. IMHO.

"'Perfection' is impossible? I must discover morality individually, and put in my own hard thought.?

Well then to hell with it - then there is no 'good'. It's all a joke, me included.

"Cool" - and being in with other cool people - is my only way forward."

[Jonathan]

Yeah, but things don't hold still, do they? The 'movement' began for some possibly valid reasons, and devolves into ugly derision.

The same could probably be said of almost any philosophy or movement.

Of course, I've been simplistic about post-modernism; it's far more complex, and we could spend all day discussing its roots, its variants and offshoots. (How much did it mirror or drive the rise of liberal-progressivism, for example.)

My view postmodernism's value is in its questioning or challenging everything, and its focusing on itself. It's at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan - When I am caught by machinery left abandoned, first, is the geometiric purity of the lines and shapes. Second, the material artifacts will indeed have another use. Nothing is ever destroyed. At worst, they might be melted down, but most likely, they will be refurbished and reused.

Thanks, Michael. I figured that it was probably something like that. Something good.

J

[anthony]

Jonathan wrote:

"My view postmodernism's value is in its questioning or challenging everything, and its focusing on itself. It's at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical."

But one certainly doesn't have to be post-modernist to challenge all authority, or question one's

premises rigorously. (Or to be amused by one's own excesses or shortcomings, at times.)

However, there is a gap, perhaps a false dichotomy, between (what Branden calls) "self-acceptance" - and evasive self-apologism and self-derision. Rigidity and dogmatism (as I think

you are implying) aren't solved by post-modernism or any movement, but by appraising one's thoughts.

What I find fake about post-modernism is that it has pretensions to be individualistic and

rebelliously non-conformist, but demands collective recognition.

Like a pyramid scheme, offering no true worth, if it is not growing exponentially it will quickly

destroy itself...

[syrakusos]

Samson: I see that no one can discuss comics. You might try the same discussion over on Rebirth of Reason. One of the active posters there, Joe Maurone has this site:

http://objectivish.blogspot.com/ which will take you to his two (I believe) others,

He is comic artist himself.

Sign up there, get approved for posting, and see what interests you.

The Watchmen has been (have been?) beaten up pretty bad there and you will find ringing condemnations of post modernism from the religiously converted Objectivists there. But, if you mind your Ps and Qs, you should do all right with an honest discussion of how values are transmitted in art. More to the point, you might get recommendations on romantic realist producers. Joss Whedon is popular with libertarians. You can find a write-up from Ba'al Chutzpah (Bob Kolker) here on this board, also, about Firefly and Serenity.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan wrote:

"My view postmodernism's value is in its questioning or challenging everything, and its focusing on itself. It's at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical."

But one certainly doesn't have to be post-modernist to challenge all authority, or question one's

premises rigorously.

That's true. One doesn't have to be a postmodernist to do those things, but I think one would have a much higher likelihood of doing those things if one were a postmodernist versus an Objectivist. Objectivists rarely question their premises or focus their judgment on themselves and their own ideas. Their focus is almost always outward and toward criticizing others. They are downright resentful of their ideas being questioned and challenged. They and postmodernists are the opposite side of the same coin: Where postmodernism is at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical, Objectivism is at its best when it is other-critical and at its worst when it does everything in its power to avoid being self-critical.

J

[syrakusos]

Jonathan, you need to cite your sources. You are only interpreting post modernism. I cited Paul Feyerabend. Do you think that he did not take himself seriously, that he was ironic about irony?

Objectivists rarely question their premises or focus their judgment on themselves and their own ideas.

I do not understand how you could have participated here for any length of time and made that assertion.

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan wrote:

"My view postmodernism's value is in its questioning or challenging everything, and its focusing on itself. It's at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical."

But one certainly doesn't have to be post-modernist to challenge all authority, or question one's

premises rigorously.

That's true. One doesn't have to be a postmodernist to do those things, but I think one would have a much higher likelihood of doing those things if one were a postmodernist versus an Objectivist. Objectivists rarely question their premises or focus their judgment on themselves and their own ideas. Their focus is almost always outward and toward criticizing others. They are downright resentful of their ideas being questioned and challenged. They and postmodernists are the opposite side of the same coin: Where postmodernism is at its best when it is self-critical and at its worst when it is other-critical, Objectivism is at its best when it is other-critical and at its worst when it does everything in its power to avoid being self-critical.

One out of two ain't bad.

--Brant

no need to be self-critical when others do that for them

(division of labor)

the biggest wrong in the world is all that's not right

[anthony]

Hey, J!

I'd like to claim that post-modernism and Objectivism are polar opposites, but even that is untrue.

Nobody can even identify 'post-modernism' except by its ironic throw-away lines and ever-so-clever commentary and art-work.

Ephemeral, like mist over a swamp, how I 'see' it.

O'ism? Solid, crystal clear, like the ice hanging off your roof, right now, possibly.. ;) (.. is that probably? no matter.)

One can't compare nothing to something.

[Brant Gaede]

The software on OL has become atrocious. It's gone beyond changing things that don't need to be changed to things that are wrong, difficult and buggy. I suspect the next iteration will mean you can't even read it much less make a simple post.

--Brant

one necessary should have been unnecessary edit

Edited February 11, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you need to cite your sources. You are only interpreting post modernism. I cited Paul Feyerabend.

I've never heard of him. Is there some reason that I should take his views as representing all or most postmodernist philosophers and what they believe?

Do you think that he did not take himself seriously, that he was ironic about irony.

I know nothing about him, so I have no opinion on what he did or did not take seriously, or how authoritative he believed or didn't believe himself to be, or how critical he was of his own and others' theories.

Objectivists rarely question their premises or focus their judgment on themselves and their own ideas.

I do not understand how you could have participated here for any length of time and made that assertion.

Oh, here at OL, yes, Objectivists sometimes question their premises and focus on judging themselves and their own ideas. But OL is unique. The same is definitely not true elsewhere. Criticism of Objectivism is actively discouraged or prevented at all other online O-sites. The simple act of recognizing errors in Objectivism and wanting to discuss and resolve them is seen as an attack.

J

[Jonathan]

Hey, J!

I'd like to claim that post-modernism and Objectivism are polar opposites, but even that is untrue.

I don't disagree. I'm not defending postmodernism, or advocating it. I'm merely observing that it's at its best when it is self-critical, and at its worst when it is other-critical.

Nobody can even identify 'post-modernism' except by its ironic throw-away lines and ever-so-clever commentary and art-work.

Its ever-so-clever commentary on artworks created by others would be an example of its being at its worst when being other-critical, no? So apparently we're in agreement?

Ephemeral, like mist over a swamp, how I 'see' it.

O'ism? Solid, crystal clear, like the ice hanging off your roof, right now, possibly.. ;) (.. is that probably? no matter.)

One can't compare nothing to something.

Objectivism presents itself as solid and crystal clear, but usually gets angry and storms out of the room when others point out that it's not as solid and clear as it professes to be. It bans its critics from discussions and otherwise discourages and meddles with them rather than reflecting on the criticisms and answering them.

J