The critical impulse, demonstrated by the tone of many of your own questions, is to suspect, doubt, tear at, and to take something apart to see how it works. Which of course is completely the wrong thing to do to art... What is it about art that can make us so angry?
Just as no one wants to grow up to be an IRS agent, no one should want to grow up to maliciously dissect books.
This reminds me of people who are still angry at George Lucas over the prequels. Sure, they sucked, but just move the fuck on and find something you do like. Unless that's just not possible,
This is a common critique of, well, criticism. And it's a critique that I absolutely reject. Does Roger Ebert need to make a movie before he can criticize other movies?
There are two main problems with this. One: Garfield without Garfield, Nietzsche family circus, Explaining Marmaduke - all that stuff is picking on fair targets. Over the hill cash cows. Stuff thats been aimed at the lowest common denominator. That sort of stuff is legitamately insulting to intelligence, and there's no chance in hell that one snarky blog is going to do any real damage to their marketing juggernauts. XKCD on the other hand is just one dude doing his own singular thing.
No, the worst part's the fans, because some of them do love it, thankfully the vast sane majority doesn't, but some of them do and I hate them for it.
What are you afraid of?
So am I
Has been implies failure
Has been is history
Has been was
Has been might again
« Older Can Oscar protect dolphins? | You want fries with dat? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments