Last edited by jesse_custer; 01-16-2013 at 08:33 AM.
The usage is not incorrect. Your definition is.
To give an example that is closer to what was said, if someone says that westerns are automatically better than operas, that's not pretentious; it's dismissive, perhaps, maybe even myopic, but not pretentious. It's an honest opinion that could be called into question. The statement might be coming from someone who doesn't find opera that important. It could be coming from someone who simply likes gun fights over singing. Is this person pretentious or merely honest?
And like I pointed out earlier, if the statement were truly pretentious, it wouldn't be followed by a statement that points out that the person in question likes and reads superhero comic books.
The real issue here is that you have a love affair with superhero comic books and are extremely sensitive when people say something negative about them. If someone made the westerns/operas comment in this very thread, you wouldn't care, and you certainly wouldn't start butchering the English language due to hurt feelings.
Last edited by jesse_custer; 01-16-2013 at 09:47 AM.
I hope you're not too old, because the thought of me having to explain this to a grown person. Well, you get the gist.
Please show me in the dictionary where it says this would be the case? It sounds made up.......oh it is. :Dif the statement were truly pretentious, it wouldn't be followed by a statement that points out that the person in question likes and reads superhero comic books.
If it helps you in any way I can pretend to be somebody with a love affair for superhero comics, as opposed to somebody who saw complete nonsense being written and simply calling said persons on it. I'm nice like that. :) Let me know.The real issue here is that you have a love affair with superhero comic books and are extremely sensitive when people say something negative about them.
pretentious, if it were about him trying to claim "unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature," he'd have not claimed to be a fan of superhero comics. Enjoying something for what it is, loving something for what it is, isn't pretentious, it's just honest and self-aware.
Most superhero comics aren't great art not because they're superhero stories but because most weren't ever meant to be great art and most really don't need to be great art. That doesn't mean I can't or won't love them all the same.
How exactly is claiming that a superhero comic by default can never attain the quality that non-superhero work can, not unwarranted or exaggerated? He even backtracked a couple of posts earlier because it was exactly that.
Even in the link you give the only thing missing from definition A is a link to that guy's post as an example.
You have to face reality: there is nothing objectively true about what you believe (that superhero comics can attain the quality that non-superhero work can) versus the opposite of your belief. If there is nothing objectively true about the subject, then how can there be pretense, which by default involves objective truth?
Reality is that he judged an entire genre, if you want to call superhero a genre, not on it's quality but merely on it's association. That's not objective at all. Or are you now going to argue what that word means as well?You have to face reality: there is nothing objectively true about what you believe (that superhero comics can attain the quality that non-superhero work can) versus the opposite of your belief. If there is nothing objectively true about the subject, then how can there be pretense, which by default involves objective truth?
I think it's funny you actually think you found a loophole in your struggle. :D As if making a blanket statement of the quality of Marvel/DC/etc.published superhero stories is any better. You're still not basing it on the quality but on it's association.And by quoting him here, you kill your entire butthurt argument. Notice that the statement has a qualifier before "super-hero story": corporate. Not all superhero stories are corporate, so he wasn't talking about ALL superhero stories, as you inaccurately implied earlier. And his statement on corporate superheroes is based on the corporate stuff he has read.
At least you're not disputing Webster anymore, we're making some progress.
I'll give you a hint as to why I'm asking for clarification: isn't a genre always associated with itself?