I have neither the time nor the inclination to let this drag on any longer. Your most recent comments have been marked as spam, and any further comments from you will be dealt with the same way, unread.

You’re behaving like a drunk bore in a bar, who interrupts a group of people having a conversation and says “You’re talking shit, mate”, and even though we’ve been polite to you and actively encouraged you (up until relatively recently) to join in the discussion, your arguments have never gone beyond “No, but you’re talking shit”.

You’re adding noise to the discussion, and nothing else. Please just go away and leave me alone.

“The only reason I ever brought up the failing of Final Crisis as an event comic was on account of the direction of analyzing the comic’s purpose (something that I have not seen addressed other than ‘it’s doing something worth doing’)”

And that is SUCH BULLSHIT, because I JUST GODDAMN WELL FINISHED WRITING HIM A BIG LONG REPLY ABOUT THAT! Hell, it wasn’t even my first run at it.

I’m not a towel for you to wipe your hands on, friend; and you do not get to call that a graceful exit. I find the summary “I have spoken clearly, only to have my words twisted, asked questions only to be greeted with silence” tactic very off-putting; actually, the words are all still up there on the screen, and I can read them for myself, thank you. Surprisingly, they do not show you being very clear and direct and plain while the rest of us shamble around not getting it, they show you stubbornly repeating that no one is listening to you EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE, nor addressing your points EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE. This is actually fairly insulting; why am I wasting my time composing all these replies if you’re just going to ignore them and then accuse me of not replying? It’s the sort of bad-faith argument you see on the message-boards. EXPLAINING your view over and over is something you have not done; you’ve only been INSISTING on it. Not fair play, to say now that it’s WE who’ve been guilty of that. Because we haven’t.

The words are all up there for anyone to read.

You then ignored all of my criticisms and the fact that you even addressed each them in the same post by saying that I have not criticized the comic itself. It’s all right there! If there’s any frustration in my posts, I hope you can understand the reason for that now.

I wish I had ignored your follow-up post after I had initially said I was done entirely.

This is just going around in circles so I’m closing the book on it on my end.

As you were…

I cannot understand how you are missing this, but I appear to have upset you again and for that I apologize.

The only reason I ever brought up the failing of Final Crisis as an event comic was on account of the direction of analyzing the comic’s purpose (something that I have not seen addressed other tan ‘it’s doing something worth doing’). How Final Crisis is both the quintessential superhero crossover while also being above the trappings of what that means makes no sense to me.

Nearly all of the flaws that I see in the comic in the form of the creator’s craft were addressed as being unimportant. Zom, Pillock and yourself stated that you accepted some of them yet chose to look past them all. I don’t have any problem with this, but it effectively shuts down anything I can say because it will be met with statements that it doesn’t matter. Final Crisis is something more. How is this series so special?

“On the other hand, you seem perfectly happy to dismiss the opinions of those who do see something that you don’t in a work by saying “Nah, it’s a terrible comic.””

A statement I apologized for saying after you chided me. And you have yet to define what Final Crisis is doing that is so new.

Holly, I’m completely confused as to what to say at this point as you’ve stated you don’t enjoy comics and also have no interest in criticism.

And now I’m also unclear on what “You’re entitled to think that way of course, but it’s no reason to hate people who like Metropolis or Nosferatu even though those movies, admittedly, feature very few jokes or people falling down” meant. If it’s not a parallel to my hating people who like other things, what is it? This is where my perceived hostility came from and if I misunderstood that I apologize but if you could explain the point of the statement I’d appreciate it.

“Even if you buy it (because it’s an event comic) and hate it (because you don’t think it’s worthy of the name), they still have your pennies in their pocket so who cares?”

I do not dislike Final Crisis simply because it fails as what it was sold to be. That short-coming is simply the tip of the iceberg for me.

For a start, ‘dailypop’, you’re the *only* one in this thread who has used the term ‘fanboy’ or who has dismissed other people’s views. I also don’t see a single ‘hostile’ statement in Holly’s comments.

“Unless I’m not understanding their points, Andrew, Zom and Pillock have stated that they enjoy Final Crisis by both ignoring the flaws”

As everyone enjoys *every single piece of art created by any human being ever* while ignoring the flaws. No-one is there to hear Kane’s last words in Citizen Kane. John Lennon misses a note in Hey Jude and mutters ‘fucking hell’ into the microphone. The rat in Talons of Weng-Chiang looks rubbish. Robinson Crusoe strips naked, swims to a shipwreck and fills his pockets.

The fact is that the only flaw in the comic *as a comic* (as opposed to ‘flaws’ that have to do with your own preconceptions about what it should do, or ‘flaws’ that are not flaws at all) that you have mentioned is a colouring mistake in a handful of panels. If that’s the kind of ‘flaw’ that stops you from being able to enjoy something, then I can’t imagine what art you *do* enjoy…

“and the fact that Final Crisis does not succeed as either a marketing event”
I, and I strongly suspect Holly, Zom and pillock, give about as much of a shit about ‘marketing events’ as I do about… no, in fact, I can’t think of a single thing in the entire universe that I am *less* interested in than corporate marketing strategies. I certainly don’t judge creative works by the extent to which they aid a multinational company’s marketing…

“or as a major event comic (despite the blog post by Andrew stating that FC is the quintessential event comic…”
*Sigh* Despite me explaining this over and over and over again you seem singulatly unable to grasp a remarkably simple point. I am judging this comic *as a comic in itself*. Not in terms of what ‘impact’ it has on other comics. You are the one who has failed to make a case for why said ‘impact’ should matter in the slightest.

When I referred to it as ‘the quintessential superhero crossover’ (not ‘event comic’, a term which you brought to the discussion and then applied to me, in much the same way that you brought up ‘fanboys’ and then claimed Holly used it) I very specifically said it was in the same way in which All-Star Superman is the quintessential Superman story. *NOT* in that it is entirely typical of the genre – neither a typical Superman story nor a typical superhero crossover would be worth reading – but in that it takes a lot of the cliched, worn-out elements and reuses them in ways that restore the original power of the ideas. I stated this, very, *very* clearly.

“I’m not sure what you thought to accomplish in implying that disliking a comic you enjoy is a failure ”
Not one person here has said that. *YOU* are the only one who has *EVER* implied in this thread that those who don’t agree with your judgement are in some way deserving of contempt, and while you apologised for your wording, you don’t get to pretend that other people have done something wrong that only you have done…
Plenty of people whose views I respect (Jog, Chris Bird, Dick Hyacinth, for example) have said they don’t think this series (or one or more issues of it) is very good, and I wouldn’t dream of saying they are ‘failing’ at anything. I disagree with them, but they’ve got valid points (well, Jog has. The other two haven’t stated their reasons, but nor have they acrively and vocally argued about it, and I know their writing well enough that if they *did* argue about it, I suspect they *would* have good points)

“If I enjoy Peter Greenaway films, for instance, and you don’t I would not say ‘well you’re not seeing the deeper meaning in the film.’”
On the other hand, you seem perfectly happy to dismiss the opinions of those who do see something that you don’t in a work by saying “Nah, it’s a terrible comic.”

Let me explain some things to you very clearly and simply, for the very last time. It is *fine* that you do not like the comic. No-one here disputes your right to dislike Final Crisis. No-one here is trying to persuade you to start liking it. You’re the one who has turned up and started trying to persuade other people that something they like, that they think is very good (in the case of myself and Zom) or at least potentially interesting (in the case of pillock) or a pleasant way to pass the time on a dull bus journey (Holly) is ‘terrible’. If you want to persuade people of this, you need to have an argument.

So far, the only argument that you have used – and it is literally the *only* argument you have used, over and over and over and over and over again – is that Final Crisis ‘fails as an event comic’ because of a lack of ‘impact’ on other comics. Not one person in this thread cares about that, or ever will. It has *no relevance whatsoever* to the qualities of the comic itself. The Falstaff in The Merry Wives Of Windsor seems very different from the Falstaff in Henry IV parts I and II, and Merry Wives doesn’t ‘impact’ on the historical plays. Guess what? Plenty of people still think Shakespeare was a quite good writer.

If you want to argue that Final Crisis is a bad comic, feel free to do so *with reference to the comic itself, not to your preconceived ideas about it, and without imputing any bad motives to those who disagree with you*. Otherwise feel free to shut up.

IT. IS. NOT. THAT. WE. DO. NOT. UNDERSTAND. YOUR. POINT. BUT. THAT. WE. THINK. IT. IS. WRONG.

Got that?

Good. As you were…

I am not a reader of this work. I don’t really care if you are annoyed with them or not. I am not here to defend those who like it, because they seem perfectly content as they are, so I’m not putting down “readers who don’t get it” in order to boost their egos, much less mine, because i am not a reader of this work. Nor am I saying that people who don’t like it are just failing (there’s that word again! and not from me) somehow; some people just don’t like things. There are all kinds of worthy things in the world that I can’t stand; I don’t find that particularly interesting or significant to me or to the things.

I don’t want to vilify you or anonymous masses of fanboys, I don’t know or care much about that stuff either. I used the word “hate” about imaginarily intolerant silent-film fans (and in the middle of the word “whatever,” my browser’s find function helpfully adds); I don’t think that kills communication. But I’m not really here to further conversation either. I don’t think there’s much to be had here, because like i said nothing here is going to change your mind or anyone else’s. I don’t think you’re wrong for not liking it, but I do think there’s enough of a disconnect between you and this other lot here that, well, I’m regretting sticking my oar in. (It was that line accusing Andrew, or someone, of bringing stuff to the book that got me, it just cracked me up.)

You talk about success and failure by some metric I don’t really understand; not financial, not artistic exactly, but… democratic? It’s not up to some expectedly mutual expectation? You might think the terms of success or failure so obvious you don’t have to explain it, yet sadly this is not the case; maybe it’s because I’m not a comic person but I’m dense and I need things spelled out. But these guys talk about what they like and dislike, their actual tastes, rather than what anything “should” be. And…never the twain shall meet, I suppose.

I wrote a lot more but, thankfully perhaps, lost it before posting. I’ll just leave it here, trying to correct some misapprehensions about what I said and reassure you that I’ve no desire to vilify anybody or be hostile.

Final Crisis is a not an art comic, which is my point. For any aspersions to greatness that it may have, it is about guys in tights beating the hell out of each other.

I never stated that I demand all comics to be about guys tights beating the hell out of each other. In fact I pointed out that Civil War (a series accused as being both stupid and pointless) is actually about something. Super hero comics can have a deeper meaning. You’re inferring that I have this stance that comics can only be one thing for some reason, possibly the same reason you’re seeking to vilify me in some way and give a face to the anonymous mass called ‘fanboys.’

I am merely trying to remind people that Final Crisis is at its heart nothing more than guys in tights (etc). How the series is stretching beyond that restriction has yet to be touched upon at all, just that for some reason Final Crisis special. I’m not saying that it cannot explore ideas beyond the accepted restrictions of a corporate super hero comic, merely that it’s not.

Unless I’m not understanding their points, Andrew, Zom and Pillock have stated that they enjoy Final Crisis by both ignoring the flaws and the fact that Final Crisis does not succeed as either a marketing event or as a major event comic (despite the blog post by Andrew stating that FC is the quintessential event comic… both Zom and Pillock even accept that it may be a complete failure, in fact). That’s a major ask of the readers and not one of reading comprehension, as you are suggesting. Stating that dislike of something is a failure on the readers part on account of the reader’s ability to comprehend complex ideas is both insulting and does not serve the purpose of furthering conversation.

I’m not sure what you thought to accomplish in implying that disliking a comic you enjoy is a failure in the reader aside from making those who like this comic book feel better. In any case, I don’t think it’s a good practice and again kills most chances of open communication. If I enjoy Peter Greenaway films, for instance, and you don’t I would not say ‘well you’re not seeing the deeper meaning in the film.’ You might just not like it. Or it might (shock) be a bad Peter Greenaway film.

To expect your reader to look beyond the flaws and also accept that they are reading a comic book that makes up its own rules as it goes along is not a successful comic at all. If you enjoy it, I’m not going to step on your toes and say that you are wrong for liking it. Comic books are, after all, another form of escapism. Alluding to other works rather than explaining what the series is doing or even accomplishing does not support the statement at all, actually.

Stating that a work does something ‘worth doing’ without defining what that is is not an explanation of worth but instead one of opinion. That’s fine, but this quality of ‘doing something worth doing’ has taken on the role of justification.

Also, I stated that my annoyance is directed at the work and not the readers earlier, Holly, so I’m not sure why you seem to be feel the need to direct hostile statements at me.

So featuring anything other than this, Dailypop, makes it “some kind of art comic”? I must admit I’m astonished by this notion. There’s nothing intrinsic about comics as a medium or superheroism as a genre that means it has to be all tights-and-fights all the time. We’re used to that, but that doesn’t really mean anything; it’s like saying all silent films have to be funny because all the reels you have are Buster Keaton movies.

You’re entitled to think that way of course, but it’s no reason to hate people who like Metropolis or Nosferatu even though those movies, admittedly, feature very few jokes or people falling down. And the people who like them might well be confused at your judgement of failure here, though I think you’re having a hard time seeing why they’re confused because they can see your perspective easier than you can see theirs… I get the impression that a lot of comics fans do say the things you’re saying here, so Andrew and Zom and Plok might well be used to that, but I don’t read many comics blogs because I don’t read many comics. And a big part of the reason I don’t read many comics is that in large part they are soap-operatic intertwined tedious storylines that depend on a long and obsessive reading history of that entire “universe” and a relatively hefty monthly budget for new comics. In large part you get what you want, it seems.

I don’t, but I did happen to read the first couple of issues of Final Crisis (I went to the comics shop — good wife that I am — those particular weeks, and needed something to read on the bus home) and I enjoyed them. I didn’t care about continuity or consistency in character portrayal, because I don’t know enough to have an opinion on those things. I was just hoping for something fun to read that would hold my attention on the bus. Final Crisis managed that. You’d be surprised how few comics do. Guys beating the hell out of each other, tights or no, doesn’t do that for me.

Maybe you don’t care about the tastes of a sporadic comics reader who’s never going to appreciate the intricacies of your soap operas, but hopefully it at least serves as anecdotal evidence that there are other kinds of comics readers out there; there’s Zom and Andrew who, like Plok said, either don’t care about the flaws you see or don’t see them as flaws, and there are also people like me who don’t have anything to say about the supposed flaws one way or another and are just hoping that enough will be explained within the book they’re holding to get anything out of it at all.

And both these kinds of people can think Final Crisis is a success. I don’t think anything said in these 60+ comments is going to change your mind about it being a failure, but I hope you at least see that it’s possible to think it’s perfectly fine, without having to take these liberties and make all these concessions that you claim you’d have to.

Because it’s possible to let go of what you think “event comic” has to mean. It’s possible for Final Crisis to be “arty” (which I guess in this context means anything more intellectually demanding than fight scenes?) while still getting marketing hype as an event comic. If calling something an “event comic” will sell a few more issues — and I suppose it does — then anything big will get slapped with the title, surely? Even if you buy it (because it’s an event comic) and hate it (because you don’t think it’s worthy of the name), they still have your pennies in their pocket so who cares?

Plus — and I say this as somebody who’s deeply resentful of most literary criticism, after dropping out of an English lit degree — guys in tights beating the hell out of each other?

!

Don’t you think at some point, somebody’s going to get interested in unpacking that? Somebody’s not going to want to take a step back and think about what it means that this is normal and expected, especially when any deviation from tights-and-fights causes such consternation in the minds of fans such as yourself? I mean, anything people feel that strongly about is damn interesting to me. The hidden assumptions, the implications, the scores of questions it brings up… if I were a comic writer I’d be dying to convey some of this in my work. And my favorites, especially Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, are my favorites precisely because they can take a step back, play to the strengths of the comic medium (it’s really good for this complicated meta stuff) rather than writing, as Zom says, things that look good on telly, and still keep it interesting on the level of sheer story. It’s an admirable feat, and they make it look easy. I don’t see this as a bad thing, a thing worth derision and scorn just because it might be something other than guys in tights beating the hell out of each other.

If that’s all you’re after, go watch pro wrestling. It’s nothing but tights and fights.

I’d have to … accept that it’s operating on a metaphoric level. This is not something that Morrison states this in the work, it’s instead something that you are bringing to it as a reader. I understand that, but it has nothing to do with the book as being what it actually is, a comic sold as an event book.

I’m sorry but you’ve tweaked all those dormant English-major parts of my brain here. Grant Morrison is not going to write you a letter on the first page of the comic telling you it contains metaphors. He might not even say it in interviews or whatever. That’s okay. in fact most of my professors would say that’s a good thing. I would too. The most demanding works, from the Dickens and Shakespeare (who also didn’t tell me they might use metaphors but left me to figure them out myself) I read in school to the lowbrow science fiction novels I read for fun, do not lay everything out in a childlike “this happened and then this and then this…” way but instead offer layers of meaning from the straightforward to the symbolic and abstract, because symbols, metaphors, matter a lot to our pattern-recognition brains. All good art is metaphorical, allusive. A piece of music or a painting can elicit emotions and ideas in this same way. They resonate with our particular memories and emotions and personality in a way that makes the reader (or viewer or listener), when calling these things to mind, an active participant rather than just a passive consumer.

Those who’ve tried this participation via metaphor in the works that leave space for the audience to include itself agree that it is satisfying and rewarding in a way that brainless “…and then this happened and that’s all” art never manages. Yes it’s great to have fluffy undemanding books and movies sometimes, but it’s also great that not everything is just fluff, that we can demand more from our art as it demands more of us.