top ten silver

[skypinkblu]

Actually, Rocky...although Lois was not my favorite character, she held a job and she was passionate about that job. She never wanted to give it up. That's exactly how she was a good role model. At the time, most women were not working. So, she was in love with Superman...they didn't live in sin so much at that time;) She wanted to marry him because that was the way it was done pretty much then.

 

So, she got upset when she got blown up 75 sizes...so do the rest of us;)

[Sal]

...i thought the comparison of Catcher In The Rye to ASM 18 was a nice touch, myself.

 

 

 

[shadroch]

Having been born in 1958, I witnessed much of the SA first hand. Prior to 1963, I don't recall anyone of my friends reading/buying/ looking at Marvel Comics. In my group, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Atom and the Legion ruled. Superman, Batman and Wonder woman were the comics our parents would buy us, and we would trade for 'good stuff". before I could read, I had a stack of DC comics.

In 1965, I moved and the kids in my neighborhood were all into Marvels and I was a duck out of water with my Legion loyalty. I remember playing Super Hero and I was Green Lantern, until one of the kids started making fun of me, warning the others to watch out for my giant boxing glove.

[RockMyAmadeus]

You went through my post and redefined everything I said to suit your arguments. I don't see what the point is in doing that, and at any rate it's a disingenuous way of debating.

 

He's a nice guy and I like him, but he does this constantly, repeatedly, over-and-over, broken-record too often. I refuse to debate someone whose ego is in control of their logic and prioritizes being right over the pursuit of truth...it's the same reason I won't debate joe_collector, although JC's ego is on another level above the rest of EVERYONE else here...yet JC too is a nice guy and I'm glad he's here. RMA is right a lot, but when he's wrong, he'll still argue endlessly and often fallaciously by selectively ignoring what he's responding to as he did with you...it's the stereotypical male weakness, the inability to entertain to yourself the idea that you could be wrong.

 

This, of course, is ridiculous and beyond petty. I find it fascinating that, when certain people don't like what someone has to say around here, it unerringly becomes a personal issue for those people. "Oh, I don't think this guy is right about something, so instead of trying to reason with him, I'm going to attack him personally, in an attempt to get others to discredit what he has to say. I won't argue the MERIT of what he has to say, I'll just point out that he argues a lot, and he can't admit when he's wrong. Let's try to tear him down personally so people will dismiss what he's saying, rather than recognize that it always, always, always, always takes TWO to argue. I'll conveniently leave out that part, because it damages my personal attack on him."

 

I'f I'm wrong, PROVE me wrong, using reason, logic, and indisputable facts. Don't just sit there and childishly spew out the tired old cliche that "oh, he just can't admit when he's wrong" as if you have proven your case before God and the world.

 

Fact: I put a great deal of thought, effort, and even research into every one one of my "discussional" posts. I take the time to consider what the other person/people have to say. I never "post from the hip." I CERTAINLY don't let my "ego" be in control of my logic.

 

Fact: I did not "selectively ignore" ANYTHING that "JohnT" had to say, as is obvious to anyone who can read. I answered all of his points, IN GOOD FAITH, and to the best of my ability.

 

Fact: I don't "need" to be right. My ego is not nearly as big as some have given me credit for. I have been wrong on occasion and freely admitted it, but you know why people like you don't remember those times? Because no one makes a big deal about it when it happens. It's easy to ignore when I've been corrected, or corrected myself, and choose only to focus on those times when you don't happen to agree, because it's really not as big a deal as you are trying to make it.

 

Fact: I like to debate. A LOT. Big shock there. This is...after all... a MESSAGE BOARD. I will engage anyone who wants to engage with me. But that's the key word, there: ENGAGE. No one can engage alone. If someone cannot handle a debate with someone who will engage without getting angry and frustrated, guess what? They don't have to!

 

Imagine that!

 

It's poor form, and it's rampant around here. Enough is enough already.

 

 

[Zonker]

Go thru your collection and try and find a few Marvels and DCs that were published the same month. Then compare and contrast a FF story with a JLA story from the same month. Next compare a Spiderman with a Superman from the same month. Try a Daredevil/Hawkman comparison or a Iron Man/ Batman.

Just for kicks, compare and contrast any three months of Avengers stories with those of the Legion.

 

Most of your comparisons I think would tilt in Marvel's favor, but I think you could find several 3-issue runs of the Jim Shooter / Curt Swan / George Klein Legion that would blow out of the water concurrent Avengers issues.

 

Before say 1967 DCs were truly aiming at a younger audience. As well, the marketing plan seemed to be: find an outrageous cover image that will entice the kids to buy the issue, then create whatever outlandish scenario is required to resolve that hook inside the comic. Logic was optional, character development was irrelevent. And-- as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread-- that marketing plan led to apparent commercial success for many many years, if sales figures can be believed.

 

Still there were a few creative high points in that period that worked within the formula, such as the Fox/Infantino/Anderson Adam Strange, or the early sci-fi pulp influenced John Broome/Gil Kane Green Lanterns. There also were some nice Silver/Golden Age crossovers designed to appeal not only to the kids but to the now-grown-up fans of the Golden Age like Jerry Bails-- I'm thinking of Flash 123, JLA 21-22 and their successors; as well as the Murphy Anderson Dr. Fate - Hourman pairings in Showcase, etc.

 

But honestly most of what I like best about DC Silver Age was its later reaction to Marvel breathing down its neck. Arnold Drake has been quoted as saying his Doom Patrol (actually launched in the early 1960s) was a conscious attempt at responding to the Marvel style. Then Weisinger hiring 13-year old Jim Shooter to write Legion was a move towards getting in touch with what teenagers really liked. By 1968 you start to see a more adult sensibility emerge side by side with the continuing silliness of the Jimmy, Lois, etc titles, with things like Deadman and the other Neal Adams projects, the various Dick Giordano edited titles, staffed by imports from Charlton, etc.

[RockMyAmadeus]

So a lot of it has to do with when one was exposed to it. Marvels were written for literate 10-12 year olds...DCs weren't even written for idiotic 5 year olds.

 

 

Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, DCs were written for 10-12, with some higher level books for the tweeners.

 

The comment about idiotic 5 years olds has no credibilty considering millions of non-idiotic kids over the age of 5 chose to spend their precious allowances on DC comics for years. They were by definition written for the people who chose to pay for them, and whether you find them appealing is irrelevant.

 

Complaining about the literary value of DC comics is like complaining that the Coca Cola company doesn't make good wine. It's pointless. DC wasn't trying to produce literary stories. They were trying to write fanciful stories for kids.

 

 

That analogy, of course, is fallacious.

 

Coca Cola doesn't make wine AT ALL, much less "good" wine. DC Comics, however, DID produce works that contained words that were meant to be read. That makes them literature. Just because it's not "capital L Literature" doesn't mean they're not still "creations using the written word." You're misusing the words "literature" and "literate."

 

"Literate 10-12 year olds" means 10-12 year olds who had an above average understanding. It doesn't mean they could read War and Peace and have a good grasp on it. It simply means they have a better than average understanding of the world around them.

 

If you truly believe Silver Age Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, I really don't know what to say. That's just beyond absurd. Because if it were true, those books should appeal to 16-25 year olds today. After all, Catcher in the Rye appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written nearly 60 years ago. Of Mice & Men appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written over 70 years ago.

 

So how's that Spidey #18 holding up today.....? I'm betting intelligent 10-12 year olds would still get a kick out of it...

 

There's a vast, vast difference between "fanciful"...and "insulting to the intelligence." Where The Wild Things Are is fanciful. Superboy #108 is downright insulting.

 

And let's all stop being so literal with my 5 year olds comment. I was quite obviously using hyperbole to make my point.

 

You went through my post and redefined everything I said to suit your arguments. I don't see what the point is in doing that, and at any rate it's a disingenuous way of debating.

 

Ok...such as? Don't just accuse me, show how I did what you say I did.

 

For me, every debate is a good faith one. What I say is what I mean, and I never deliberately twist or change what someone is saying just to "score" debate "points.". I don't see how I "redefined" anything you said at all, but I'm certainly willing to consider your evidence.

 

Back to the main point: DC was for younger kids, and they were amazingly successful at appealing to them and getting them to spend their dimes on their books. Marvel discovered a different market in older kids and young adults, and they were (eventually) phenomenally successful at appealing to them.

 

Comparing the two using the same standards or expectations is pointless. They're apples and oranges, soda and wine.

 

Sorry, but I don't agree. Consider film. Disney studios and Warner Brothers both produce a wide array of films aimed at all sorts of audiences. Now, there are obviously films aimed at children, and obviously films aimed at adults. There are films aimed at women, and films aimed at men. Etc, etc, etc. But there are universal properties of film...lots and lots and lots of them...by which all film can be, and IS, judged.

 

As well, those films...and novels, and TV shows, and comics books..that ARE aimed at children, when they are well done, with sound underlying reason and logic, often with multiple layers of meaning, quite often appeal to adults, too.

 

Harry Potter is a worldwide phenomenon because the characters' motivations, reasoning, and logic is SOUND. Though (especially Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone) they are written about and for 11-15 year olds, people of every age enjoy them because they, at their foundation, and amidst the heights of fantastic escapism, MAKE SENSE.

 

I do not dispute (in fact, it's my point) that DC comics were aimed at young(er) kids. My point is that DC comics, with exclusions (the war line, for example) were not just "simple"...they were frequently illogical, irrational, and insulting to the intelligence. They tended to "dumb down", rather than educate, those reading them. To say they were "absurdist flights of fancy, aimed at escapism", which thus excuses the writers is itself disingenuous for two reasons:

 

1. Children who have the luxury of buying comics don't need, nor do they generally understand "escapism", because that is what defines their entire existence. Children are escapism personified.

 

2. Anybody can write gobbledygook nonsense. Slow, below average people can tell stories which don't make any sense...and they frequently do. To suggest that the writers at DC had a "higher aim" is to give them far more credit than they, themselves, claimed.

 

No, sorry, but Silver Age DC writers (again, with exceptions) were hardly "fantasy geniuses" who were writing at the top of their game, telling stories that were whimsical and fantastic, but which were foundationally sound.

 

However, when compiling a "top ten" list you have to have some way to compare, and this thread has shown that because the two companies were so different the lists that people come up with differ greatly depending on personal tastes and area of collecting interest.

 

I freely and happily admit to being absolutely powerless to personal taste. There is absolutely NO argument against personal preference. None.

 

But...

 

If any such discussion is going to be meaningful in any way, the participants MUST agree to some sort of criteria by which the list is compiled, or it becomes nothing but a recitation of personal favorites.

 

You state that Silver Age Marvels and DCs cannot be compared. I state that they're not only fully comparable, it's vital to understand subsequent history, and to find out why those companies are where they are, even today.

 

Every professional Top 10 (or, consider, AFI's Top 100 greatest films of all time) is compiled using criteria that is generally accepted by the people in those industries...UNIVERSAL criteria, by which each example may be judged. If such criteria is abandoned, resulting lists become boring recitations of personal favorites, which appeals to no one but the writer.

 

THAT is a pointless argument.

[fantastic_four]

it always, always, always, always takes TWO to argue. I'll conveniently leave out that part, because it damages my personal attack on him.

 

You are absolutely correct, which is why you and I may never be in an argument...I refuse to participate. I reserve reason, logic, and undisputable facts in debate for people who I suspect won't ignore and/or gloss over it once presented.

 

We're dangerously close to an argument right now, so post your 6-paragraph tirade in rebuttal, and that'll be the end of it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Actually, Rocky...although Lois was not my favorite character, she held a job and she was passionate about that job. She never wanted to give it up. That's exactly how she was a good role model. At the time, most women were not working. So, she was in love with Superman...they didn't live in sin so much at that time;) She wanted to marry him because that was the way it was done pretty much then.

 

So, she got upset when she got blown up 75 sizes...so do the rest of us;)

 

Well...I've known you far too long, and you are far too sweet, to argue with.

 

So I concede.

[RockMyAmadeus]

it always, always, always, always takes TWO to argue. I'll conveniently leave out that part, because it damages my personal attack on him.

 

You are absolutely correct, which is why you and I may never be in an argument...I refuse to participate. I reserve reason, logic, and undisputable facts in debate for people who I suspect won't ignore and/or gloss over it once presented.

 

Oddly enough, I use reason, logic, and indisputable facts with everyone. I do not "withhold" these things simply because I think you may ignore and/or gloss over them. After all, I'm not responsible for your posts. You are.

 

And I defy you to point out an instance where I have deliberately ignored and/or glossed over anyone's reason, logic, or facts. It doesn't exist, because I debate in good faith. How many others can say the same?

 

We're dangerously close to an argument right now, so post your 6-paragraph tirade in rebuttal, and that'll be the end of it.

 

And you'll notice, I posted that rebuttal without taking a single swipe at you. Not a one.

 

Just to...you know...show that personal attacks don't need to be made to prove one's point.

 

Sadly, you cannot say the same, even now.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Go thru your collection and try and find a few Marvels and DCs that were published the same month. Then compare and contrast a FF story with a JLA story from the same month. Next compare a Spiderman with a Superman from the same month. Try a Daredevil/Hawkman comparison or a Iron Man/ Batman.

Just for kicks, compare and contrast any three months of Avengers stories with those of the Legion.

 

Most of your comparisons I think would tilt in Marvel's favor, but I think you could find several 3-issue runs of the Jim Shooter / Curt Swan / George Klein Legion that would blow out of the water concurrent Avengers issues.

 

Before say 1967 DCs were truly aiming at a younger audience. As well, the marketing plan seemed to be: find an outrageous cover image that will entice the kids to buy the issue, then create whatever outlandish scenario is required to resolve that hook inside the comic. Logic was optional, character development was irrelevent. And-- as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread-- that marketing plan led to apparent commercial success for many many years, if sales figures can be believed.

 

Still there were a few creative high points in that period that worked within the formula, such as the Fox/Infantino/Anderson Adam Strange, or the early sci-fi pulp influenced John Broome/Gil Kane Green Lanterns. There also were some nice Silver/Golden Age crossovers designed to appeal not only to the kids but to the now-grown-up fans of the Golden Age like Jerry Bails-- I'm thinking of Flash 123, JLA 21-22 and their successors; as well as the Murphy Anderson Dr. Fate - Hourman pairings in Showcase, etc.

 

But honestly most of what I like best about DC Silver Age was its later reaction to Marvel breathing down its neck. Arnold Drake has been quoted as saying his Doom Patrol (actually launched in the early 1960s) was a conscious attempt at responding to the Marvel style. Then Weisinger hiring 13-year old Jim Shooter to write Legion was a move towards getting in touch with what teenagers really liked. By 1968 you start to see a more adult sensibility emerge side by side with the continuing silliness of the Jimmy, Lois, etc titles, with things like Deadman and the other Neal Adams projects, the various Dick Giordano edited titles, staffed by imports from Charlton, etc.

 

100% agree.

[oakman29]

WOW! Are these not just funny books? Maybe the whole thing should'nt be decifered and broken down to categories,maybe....just maybe.....we should enjoy them for what they are. Fun to read

[tortoise]

why can't we all just get along..?

[oakman29]

why can't we all just get along..?

I did'nt realize how much you stirred that pot.......Whew!

[tortoise]

why can't we all just get along..?

I did'nt realize how much you stirred that pot.......Whew!

 

[JohnT]

So a lot of it has to do with when one was exposed to it. Marvels were written for literate 10-12 year olds...DCs weren't even written for idiotic 5 year olds.

 

 

Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, DCs were written for 10-12, with some higher level books for the tweeners.

 

The comment about idiotic 5 years olds has no credibilty considering millions of non-idiotic kids over the age of 5 chose to spend their precious allowances on DC comics for years. They were by definition written for the people who chose to pay for them, and whether you find them appealing is irrelevant.

 

Complaining about the literary value of DC comics is like complaining that the Coca Cola company doesn't make good wine. It's pointless. DC wasn't trying to produce literary stories. They were trying to write fanciful stories for kids.

 

 

That analogy, of course, is fallacious.

 

Coca Cola doesn't make wine AT ALL, much less "good" wine. DC Comics, however, DID produce works that contained words that were meant to be read. That makes them literature. Just because it's not "capital L Literature" doesn't mean they're not still "creations using the written word." You're misusing the words "literature" and "literate."

 

"Literate 10-12 year olds" means 10-12 year olds who had an above average understanding. It doesn't mean they could read War and Peace and have a good grasp on it. It simply means they have a better than average understanding of the world around them.

 

If you truly believe Silver Age Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, I really don't know what to say. That's just beyond absurd. Because if it were true, those books should appeal to 16-25 year olds today. After all, Catcher in the Rye appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written nearly 60 years ago. Of Mice & Men appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written over 70 years ago.

 

So how's that Spidey #18 holding up today.....? I'm betting intelligent 10-12 year olds would still get a kick out of it...

 

There's a vast, vast difference between "fanciful"...and "insulting to the intelligence." Where The Wild Things Are is fanciful. Superboy #108 is downright insulting.

 

And let's all stop being so literal with my 5 year olds comment. I was quite obviously using hyperbole to make my point.

 

You went through my post and redefined everything I said to suit your arguments. I don't see what the point is in doing that, and at any rate it's a disingenuous way of debating.

 

Ok...such as? Don't just accuse me, show how I did what you say I did.

 

 

Got some time to kill between meetings...

 

Your post with my new commments...

-----------------------------------------

That analogy, of course, is fallacious. What's the fallacy, specifically? And I'm wondering, do you think that using the phrase "of course" convinced me?

 

Coca Cola doesn't make wine AT ALL, much less "good" wine.

That was the point

DC Comics, however, DID produce works that contained words that were meant to be read. That makes them literature. Just because it's not "capital L Literature" doesn't mean they're not still "creations using the written word." You're misusing the words "literature" and "literate." I didn't say they didn't produce works that contained words. I'm pretty sure you knew what my point was, you're just pretending not to. Another word for that is sophistry.

 

"Literate 10-12 year olds" means 10-12 year olds who had an above average understanding. It doesn't mean they could read War and Peace and have a good grasp on it. It simply means they have a better than average understanding of the world around them. What is this diversion about? You're twisting things around to suggest that I said any of this, which I didn't.

 

If you truly believe Silver Age Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, I really don't know what to say. That's just beyond absurd. Because if it were true, those books should appeal to 16-25 year olds today.

Now THAT'S a fallacious argument! It assumes similar reading tastes in today's youth.

After all, Catcher in the Rye appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written nearly 60 years ago. Of Mice & Men appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written over 70 years ago. So?

 

So how's that Spidey #18 holding up today.....? I'm betting intelligent 10-12 year olds would still get a kick out of it... So?

 

There's a vast, vast difference between "fanciful"...and "insulting to the intelligence." Where The Wild Things Are is fanciful. Superboy #108 is downright insulting. Unsupported statement with no bearing on the "debate"

 

And let's all stop being so literal with my 5 year olds comment. I was quite obviously using hyperbole to make my point You're right, I shouldn't hold someone to a literal interpretation of what they say in a post, and parse it endlessly. That would be absurd.

 

Seriously, you're basically just throwing everything at us and hoping something sticks, but it's just sound and fury (see, I can reference Faulkner too

[Speedy-D]

Seriously, you're basically just throwing everything at us and hoping something sticks, but it's just sound and fury (see, I can reference Faulkner Shakespeare too

fixed

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Got some time to kill between meetings...

 

Your post with my new commments...

-----------------------------------------

That analogy, of course, is fallacious. What's the fallacy, specifically? And I'm wondering, do you think that using the phrase "of course" convinced me?

 

Coca Cola doesn't make wine AT ALL, much less "good" wine.

That was the point

 

The answer to your first question is found directly below it. Coke does not make wine at all. Trying to suggest that Silver Age Marvel and Silver Age DC are as different as wine and soda is a fallacious analogy. They both produced comic books. One didn't produce comic books, and the other romance novels.

 

DC Comics, however, DID produce works that contained words that were meant to be read. That makes them literature. Just because it's not "capital L Literature" doesn't mean they're not still "creations using the written word." You're misusing the words "literature" and "literate." I didn't say they didn't produce works that contained words. I'm pretty sure you knew what my point was, you're just pretending not to. Another word for that is sophistry.

 

Let's not use my words...let's use yours:

 

"Complaining about the literary value of DC comics is like complaining that the Coca Cola company doesn't make good wine. It's pointless."

 

So, then....how exactly are we supposed to judge a work of literature, if we don't consider its literary value.........? The simple fact is, anything written has some literary value, by simple virtue of the fact that it is written. THAT is how you were misusing the word "literary", by suggesting it only applies to certain written works of a certain quality.

 

"Literate 10-12 year olds" means 10-12 year olds who had an above average understanding. It doesn't mean they could read War and Peace and have a good grasp on it. It simply means they have a better than average understanding of the world around them. What is this diversion about? You're twisting things around to suggest that I said any of this, which I didn't.

 

Oh boy.

 

I was further defining what *I* meant by using the phrase "literate 10-12 year olds." I never said, suggested, nor implied that you said anything even remotely like this.

 

You've got a total comprehension fail going on, here.

 

If you truly believe Silver Age Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, I really don't know what to say. That's just beyond absurd. Because if it were true, those books should appeal to 16-25 year olds today.

Now THAT'S a fallacious argument! It assumes similar reading tastes in today's youth.

 

Pure baloney.

 

Art is art is art, and good art withstands the test of time. BAD art does not. It has very little to do with "personal reading tastes."

 

After all, Catcher in the Rye appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written nearly 60 years ago. Of Mice & Men appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written over 70 years ago. So?

 

 

These examples are to illustrate why the above argument by me is true. These are works created which transcend pop culture and personal taste, and made a lasting impression on generations of people. They still appeal to the age groups they were created for because they communicated their universal themes in a highly effective way. This is why children (and even adults) still love Snow White, though it is over 70 years old. It transcended the boundaries of the world in which it was created.

 

NEITHER DC NOR Marvel produced much of anything in the 1960's which transcended their cultural moorings, and thus were not "good art." Marvel made a better attempt of it, though, and Lee/Ditko/Kirby's crowning achievement to the art world is the concept (rather than the stories) of Spiderman. That concept transcends pop culture and will live long after anyone remembers the plot to Avengers #23.

 

So how's that Spidey #18 holding up today.....? I'm betting intelligent 10-12 year olds would still get a kick out of it... So?

 

Yeah, so?

 

There's a vast, vast difference between "fanciful"...and "insulting to the intelligence." Where The Wild Things Are is fanciful. Superboy #108 is downright insulting. Unsupported statement with no bearing on the "debate"

 

Unsupported? No bearing?

 

Are you reading the same thread I am....?

 

And let's all stop being so literal with my 5 year olds comment. I was quite obviously using hyperbole to make my point You're right, I shouldn't hold someone to a literal interpretation of what they say in a post, and parse it endlessly. That would be absurd.

 

Seriously, you're basically just throwing everything at us and hoping something sticks, but it's just sound and fury (see, I can reference Faulkner too

 

Yeah, never mind. You've got a total comprehension fail going on here. We're not even on the same planet in terms of understanding, so there's truly no point in continuing to discuss this with you. For whatever reason, I'm clearly not capable of communicating in a manner that you can understand, and you're not even trying.

 

Thanks anyways.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Seriously, you're basically just throwing everything at us and hoping something sticks, but it's just sound and fury (see, I can reference Faulkner Shakespeare too

fixed

 

Nice.

 

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

 

Macbeth Act v, Scene 5

 

One of my favorite soliloquies. I used it as an audition piece.

[trmoore54]

I'm not so hip to Shakespeare's Macbeth as I am to Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury...but I did a whole class and ultimately broke down the book and wrote several papers on the Faulkner and that book is a mind-f*@&! Just loved that book after I re-read it about 3 or 4 times...

 

[JohnT]

 

Got some time to kill between meetings...

 

Your post with my new commments...

-----------------------------------------

That analogy, of course, is fallacious. What's the fallacy, specifically? And I'm wondering, do you think that using the phrase "of course" convinced me?

 

Coca Cola doesn't make wine AT ALL, much less "good" wine.

That was the point

 

The answer to your first question is found directly below it. Coke does not make wine at all. Trying to suggest that Silver Age Marvel and Silver Age DC are as different as wine and soda is a fallacious analogy. They both produced comic books. One didn't produce comic books, and the other romance novels.

 

DC Comics, however, DID produce works that contained words that were meant to be read. That makes them literature. Just because it's not "capital L Literature" doesn't mean they're not still "creations using the written word." You're misusing the words "literature" and "literate." I didn't say they didn't produce works that contained words. I'm pretty sure you knew what my point was, you're just pretending not to. Another word for that is sophistry.

 

Let's not use my words...let's use yours:

 

"Complaining about the literary value of DC comics is like complaining that the Coca Cola company doesn't make good wine. It's pointless."

 

So, then....how exactly are we supposed to judge a work of literature, if we don't consider its literary value.........? The simple fact is, anything written has some literary value, by simple virtue of the fact that it is written. THAT is how you were misusing the word "literary", by suggesting it only applies to certain written works of a certain quality.

 

"Literate 10-12 year olds" means 10-12 year olds who had an above average understanding. It doesn't mean they could read War and Peace and have a good grasp on it. It simply means they have a better than average understanding of the world around them. What is this diversion about? You're twisting things around to suggest that I said any of this, which I didn't.

 

Oh boy.

 

I was further defining what *I* meant by using the phrase "literate 10-12 year olds." I never said, suggested, nor implied that you said anything even remotely like this.

 

You've got a total comprehension fail going on, here.

 

If you truly believe Silver Age Marvels were written for 16-25 year olds, I really don't know what to say. That's just beyond absurd. Because if it were true, those books should appeal to 16-25 year olds today.

Now THAT'S a fallacious argument! It assumes similar reading tastes in today's youth.

 

Pure baloney.

 

Art is art is art, and good art withstands the test of time. BAD art does not. It has very little to do with "personal reading tastes."

 

After all, Catcher in the Rye appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written nearly 60 years ago. Of Mice & Men appeals to 16-25 year olds, and it was written over 70 years ago. So?

 

 

These examples are to illustrate why the above argument by me is true. These are works created which transcend pop culture and personal taste, and made a lasting impression on generations of people. They still appeal to the age groups they were created for because they communicated their universal themes in a highly effective way. This is why children (and even adults) still love Snow White, though it is over 70 years old. It transcended the boundaries of the world in which it was created.

 

NEITHER DC NOR Marvel produced much of anything in the 1960's which transcended their cultural moorings, and thus were not "good art." Marvel made a better attempt of it, though, and Lee/Ditko/Kirby's crowning achievement to the art world is the concept (rather than the stories) of Spiderman. That concept transcends pop culture and will live long after anyone remembers the plot to Avengers #23.

 

So how's that Spidey #18 holding up today.....? I'm betting intelligent 10-12 year olds would still get a kick out of it... So?

 

Yeah, so?

 

There's a vast, vast difference between "fanciful"...and "insulting to the intelligence." Where The Wild Things Are is fanciful. Superboy #108 is downright insulting. Unsupported statement with no bearing on the "debate"

 

Unsupported? No bearing?

 

Are you reading the same thread I am....?

 

And let's all stop being so literal with my 5 year olds comment. I was quite obviously using hyperbole to make my point You're right, I shouldn't hold someone to a literal interpretation of what they say in a post, and parse it endlessly. That would be absurd.

 

Seriously, you're basically just throwing everything at us and hoping something sticks, but it's just sound and fury (see, I can reference Faulkner too

 

Yeah, never mind. You've got a total comprehension fail going on here. We're not even on the same planet in terms of understanding, so there's truly no point in continuing to discuss this with you. For whatever reason, I'm clearly not capable of communicating in a manner that you can understand, and you're not even trying.

 

Thanks anyways.

 

Don't have some time to kill between meetings.