Page 24 of 48 FirstFirst ... 1420212223242526272834 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 708
  1. #346
    Senior Member Bluebow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    There is also the idea that Lois Lane fell for Superman rather than Clark Kent and while being jealous of yourself is bizarre and the fact that he didn't let her know his identity was not her fault, perhaps he feels that Wonder Woman likes him for his whole self not just aspects of it and it would be a more open and honest relationship from that point and he can be more relaxed about it.

  2. #347
    Senior Member misslane38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebow View Post
    There is also the idea that Lois Lane fell for Superman rather than Clark Kent and while being jealous of yourself is bizarre and the fact that he didn't let her know his identity was not her fault, perhaps he feels that Wonder Woman likes him for his whole self not just aspects of it and it would be a more open and honest relationship from that point and he can be more relaxed about it.
    Why are you using old continuity to explain new continuity? Lois in the New 52 hasn't fallen for Superman and she respects Clark and sees him as a very good friend. In past continuities when Lois preferred Superman, it was when that was the more authentic side of his personality and the side that often pursued her romantically.

  3. #348
    It's Lexrules... GET HIM. Lexrules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,827

    Default

    Once Lois saw Superman's big bulging muscle...aaaahhhhhh I mean muscles she was hopelessly in love.

  4. #349
    Blue Boba ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,651

    Default

    I've seen in speculated elsewhere, that what Diana (the SM/WW relationship, really) is bringing to the table, is possible future drama during and possibly after Trinity War.

    We still don't have a lot to go on, but if each of the Trinity takes a different side (Phantom Stranger, Pandora, and the Question), it might make for a better, potentially heart-breaking story, since Clark and Diana are romantically involved. Geoff Johns is writing both Justice League (where the bulk of the relationship is) and Trinity War.
    DC: Action Comics - Detective Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
    Marvel: All-New X-Factor

  5. #350
    Senior Member Bluebow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misslane38 View Post
    Why are you using old continuity to explain new continuity? Lois in the New 52 hasn't fallen for Superman and she respects Clark and sees him as a very good friend. In past continuities when Lois preferred Superman, it was when that was the more authentic side of his personality and the side that often pursued her romantically.
    Perhaps I should have said admired instead of 'fell for' and she respects Clark when she wants to and is critical when he doesn't behave as she wants him to such as leaving The Daily Planet. The basic point that he can be more open and relaxed still stands.
    Last edited by Bluebow; 01-04-2013 at 12:31 PM.

  6. #351
    Senior Member misslane38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebow View Post
    Perhaps I should have said admired instead of 'fell for' and she respects Clark when she wants to and is critical when he doesn't behave as she wants him to such as leaving The Daily Planet. The basic point that he can be more open and relaxed still stands.
    She respects Clark as a journalist so much that she wants him to return to the Daily Planet. Her desire to have him return--or as you put it "behave as she wants him to"--is the direct result of her wanting to work with him again. That's all she's been wanting and missing from Clark since the relaunch began. It is because she cares for and respects him that she is so desperate to have him apologize to Edge and return to work. Thus, Lois has genuinely strong, positive feelings for Clark and doesn't favor Superman over him, as you initially clamed.

    The whole point of the secret issue with Lois and Clark is to tell a story about Clark's personal growth and maturity. For him to find it easy to relax and be open with Diana eliminates the poetic story about an alien who once found love and acceptance from humans (the Kents) being able to do the same with a human. It's about overcoming and transcending differences. The epic quality, the meaning, and pathos of love stories of Romeo and Juliet or Jack and Rose from Titanic comes from the two individuals from different worlds fighting against the odds and confronting their insecurities, to take a chance on love and achieve integration.

    Myth expert Levi Strauss posits that the function of myth is to tell a story that ultimately reconciles binary contradictions. In the Superman myth, those contradictions are between alien/hero and human/civilian. So while I can see Superman and Wonder Woman serving a purpose now in terms of exploring one part of that dichotomy, I don't think that's where the story is headed or where it should end up. For Superman and Wonder Woman to eventually be just as capable of openness and relaxation with humans would be more of a sign of growth, because it would take courage and indicate a more balanced approach to their lives and identities.

  7. #352
    Ek Vitki Runoz Writu CaptMagellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misslane38 View Post
    Myth expert Levi Strauss posits that the function of myth is to tell a story that ultimately reconciles binary contradictions.
    Wow. Your mischaracterization of Claude Lévi-Strauss' work (he was an anthropologist and ethnologist, not a mythologist), and how he would use the term 'myth' is pretty astonishing.

    1) He very clearly understood and used the terms mythology, myth, etc. to represent the cosmogony, cosmology, anthropology, anthropogony, and echatology of a culture - not a fictional, corporate owned serial to which those subjects are irrelevant (if he were to liken any similarity to cultural oral story forms it might be the 'legend' but that doesn't equate either as comic book characters are literary wholly fictional creations and legends stem from a historical starting point).

    2) He fought valiantly against the Functionalist school of anthropology (which is closer to what you're arguing) and was groundbreaking in devloping the Structuralist school which wouldn't concern itself with the minutiae lawyering that rabid comic fans engage in debating (again, that would be the approach a functionalist would take).

    If you're trying to go for an appeal to authority Claude Lévi-Strauss is a poor attempt as he wouldn't see any comic book corpus as being myth, legend, saga, epic, or any other term that he would use to illustrate his disciplinary school of thought - a school of thought that wouldn't be used in the way you state, even if it was a true mythology. He would see them for what they are: Corporate owned serialized stories that are artificially and economically driven.

    He would find it fascinating how people would invest so much passion and meaning into literary fictional structures instead of applying that to the cultural mythic structures that they have a kinship with (i.e., their ancestral/ethnographic legacy), and probably bemoan the loss of our culture.

    EDITED TO ADD: If you're referencing his approach to the Hegellian Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis process (in regards to 'binary contradticions'), you're really missing the point as to how he would apply that to cultural myths.
    Last edited by CaptMagellan; 01-04-2013 at 01:39 PM.
    "The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery." - R.G. Ingersoll

  8. #353
    Senior Member Bluebow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misslane38 View Post
    She respects Clark as a journalist so much that she wants him to return to the Daily Planet. Her desire to have him return--or as you put it "behave as she wants him to"--is the direct result of her wanting to work with him again. That's all she's been wanting and missing from Clark since the relaunch began. It is because she cares for and respects him that she is so desperate to have him apologize to Edge and return to work. Thus, Lois has genuinely strong, positive feelings for Clark and doesn't favor Superman over him, as you initially clamed.

    The whole point of the secret issue with Lois and Clark is to tell a story about Clark's personal growth and maturity. For him to find it easy to relax and be open with Diana eliminates the poetic story about an alien who once found love and acceptance from humans (the Kents) being able to do the same with a human. It's about overcoming and transcending differences. The epic quality, the meaning, and pathos of love stories of Romeo and Juliet or Jack and Rose from Titanic comes from the two individuals from different worlds fighting against the odds and confronting their insecurities, to take a chance on love and achieve integration.

    Myth expert Levi Strauss posits that the function of myth is to tell a story that ultimately reconciles binary contradictions. In the Superman myth, those contradictions are between alien/hero and human/civilian. So while I can see Superman and Wonder Woman serving a purpose now in terms of exploring one part of that dichotomy, I don't think that's where the story is headed or where it should end up. For Superman and Wonder Woman to eventually be just as capable of openness and relaxation with humans would be more of a sign of growth, because it would take courage and indicate a more balanced approach to their lives and identities.
    That is not the only way she could work with him again, It is simply the most convenient for her. It is not respect to ask him to go against his own reasons for leaving. Would Lois apologize because Clark said so in the same situation? I think it would take considerable fortitude if not courage to live as Clark Kent when you were Superman and if he didn't care about some human beings such as Lois perhaps would not bother being Clark Kent as to have a 'normal' relationship you have to appear normal on the surface. Clark Kent can have dinner with Lois Lane without attracting the attention that Superman would in that situation.

  9. #354
    Senior Member misslane38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptMagellan View Post
    Wow. Your mischaracterization of Claude Lévi-Strauss' work (he was an anthropologist and ethnologist, not a mythologist), and how he would use the term 'myth' is pretty astonishing.

    1) He very clearly understood and used the terms mythology, myth, etc. to represent the cosmogony, cosmology, anthropology, anthropogony, and echatology of a culture - not a fictional, corporate owned serial to which those subjects are irrelevant (if he were to liken any similarity to cultural oral story forms it might be the 'legend' but that doesn't equate either as comic book characters are literary wholly fictional creations and legends stem from a historical starting point).

    2) He fought valiantly against the Functionalist school of anthropology (which is closer to what you're arguing) and was groundbreaking in devloping the Structuralist school which wouldn't concern itself with the minutiae lawyering that rabid comic fans engage in debating (again, that would be the approach a functionalist would take).

    If you're trying to go for an appeal to authority Claude Lévi-Strauss is a poor attempt as he wouldn't see any comic book corpus as being myth, legend, saga, epic, or any other term that he would use to illustrate his disciplinary school of thought - a school of thought that wouldn't be used in the way you state, even if it was a true mythology. He would see them for what they are: Corporate owned serialized stories that are artificially and economically driven.

    He would find it fascinating how people would invest so much passion and meaning into literary fictional structures instead of applying that to the cultural mythic structures that they have a kinship with (i.e., their ancestral/ethnographic legacy), and probably bemoan the loss of our culture.

    EDITED TO ADD: If you're referencing his approach to the Hegellian Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis process (in regards to 'binary contradticions'), you're really missing the point as to how he would apply that to cultural myths.
    I didn't deny that Strauss was a scholar in other fields or use the exact word "mythologist." Still, he did contribute substantially to how myths are analyzed, which is why he was cited in the sources that informed my statements:

    THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINATTI

    "Structuralism": the structural theory of myth, proposed by the great French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. Myth is one mode of human communication, similar to (and a product of) language, but also different in important respects Just as the elements of language (sounds = "phonemes") are meaningless in isolation, and only take on meaning in combination with other phonemes, so also the elements of myth (the individual narrative elements, the persons or objects) are meaningless in themselves, and only take on significance through their relation with each other. It is not therefore the formation of the narrative that is significant, but rather the underlying structure of relations that determines the real "meaning" of a myth.

    Variant versions of a myth may show changes in surface meaning, but the structure and basic relationships will often remain constant. Myths typically revolve around the mediation of extremes for binary oppositions which are fundamental to the society of the mythmaker: such as kinship relations, or the nature/culture antithesis. "Mythical thought always works from the awareness of opposition toward their progressive mediation."

    Human perception (i.e., the way the physical brain works in interpreting the world around us) is, according to Lévi-Strauss fundamentally binary. Humans, because of the binary brain, perceive the world in terms of sharp contrasts-- hot and cold, bitter and sweet, raw and cooked (=nature / culture), life and death. The contradictions we perceive in the world we naturally mediate by telling stories that bridge these contradictions in the world around us. The "structure" that determines the meaning is usually an unconsciously formed one. That is, most authors or reproducers of a myth will be unaware of the meaning that a structuralist interpreter like Lévi-Strauss will assign to them. (Source)

    WORLDS WILL LIVE, WORLDS WILL DIE: MYTH, METATEXT, CONTINUITY AND CATACLYSM IN DC COMICS’ CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS

    Clearly, there was a need for some kind of symbolic reconciliation between the equally fervent desires for continuity and change. The manner in which this need was ultimately met is evoked in the much earlier words of mythologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, describing the mythic impulse and its relationship to problem-solving, especially the reconciliation of opposing concepts. (Source)

    Since creator like Grant Morrison conceive of comic books as a form of mythology and often we use the word "mythos" to describe comic books, I think it's fair to analyze comics as myths.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebow View Post
    That is not the only way she could work with him again, It is simply the most convenient for her.
    So she's supposed to quit her job just to show him respect?

    It is not respect to ask him to go against his own reasons for leaving
    She's not asking him to go against his reasons. She's under the impression that Clark's stated reasons aren't his real reasons, and he doesn't necessarily dispel that impression when he runs with some of her hypotheses: (1) He's upset they're not working together anymore. (2) He's angry about her love life (3) He's contradicted his motivated reasons for leaving by suggesting he's now using his time to interview cosplayers.

    I think it would take considerable fortitude if not courage to live as Clark Kent when you were Superman and if he didn't care about some human beings such as Lois perhaps would not bother being Clark Kent as to have a 'normal' relationship you have to appear normal on the surface. Clark Kent can have dinner with Lois Lane without attracting the attention that Superman would in that situation.
    Sharing his whole secret with a human would be more courageous, and such a courageous and mature act has been explored again and again in the comics and in live action.
    Last edited by misslane38; 01-04-2013 at 02:18 PM.

  10. #355
    Ek Vitki Runoz Writu CaptMagellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    846

    Default

    I can see where you're coming from, but the binaries that Lévi-Strauss were reconciling were a bit bigger in their cultural contexts. One of the big ones is the role of a creator god who is also a god of death and how a whole culture and the individuals within would, in a somewhat illusory manner, 'reconcile' those two extremes through the imparting of meaning via myth - but the structure necessary for the personal/cultural resolution of that 'paradox' would also include the funerary rites of the people, some of their linguistic structures, initiation ordeals, social structure, etc. Without all of that, it is an excercise in the function of trivial elements.

    It may seem nitpicky, but trying to apply that to Superman's arbitrary relationships (whoever it is with) which has no greater cultural significance or meaning is applying an inappropriate methodology.

    Also, while I am a Grant Morrison fan, just because he, like many people, misuses the term 'mythology' doesn't mean that a methodology that DOES use the term correctly can be applied. Especially considering that the creator of that methodology wouldn't have used the term that way.

    By way of hypothetical example. If someone wants to look at the structure of Western Culture and the role of Superhero comics as a poor stand in for organic mythic structures, that would be a valid use of the Structuralist approach. Looking at the similarities of superhero narratives, isolating market vs. audience demographics, and possibly comparing and contrasting their success and failure in isolated 'cultural' sections of rural and metropolitan areas, would make for a fascinating study.

    Trying to apply that to a specific in-story plot that was created to generate hype, controversy, and sales, is missing the forest for the trees.
    "The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery." - R.G. Ingersoll

  11. #356
    Senior Member misslane38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptMagellan View Post
    I can see where you're coming from, but the binaries that Lévi-Strauss were reconciling were a bit bigger in their cultural contexts. One of the big ones is the role of a creator god who is also a god of death and how a whole culture and the individuals within would, in a somewhat illusory manner, 'reconcile' those two extremes through the imparting of meaning via myth - but the structure necessary for the personal/cultural resolution of that 'paradox' would also include the funerary rites of the people, some of their linguistic structures, initiation ordeals, social structure, etc. Without all of that, it is an excercise in the function of trivial elements.

    It may seem nitpicky, but trying to apply that to Superman's arbitrary relationships (whoever it is with) which has no greater cultural significance or meaning is applying an inappropriate methodology.

    Also, while I am a Grant Morrison fan, just because he, like many people, misuses the term 'mythology' doesn't mean that a methodology that DOES use the term correctly can be applied. Especially considering that the creator of that methodology wouldn't have used the term that way.

    By way of hypothetical example. If someone wants to look at the structure of Western Culture and the role of Superhero comics as a poor stand in for organic mythic structures, that would be a valid use of the Structuralist approach. Looking at the similarities of superhero narratives, isolating market vs. audience demographics, and possibly comparing and contrasting their success and failure in isolated 'cultural' sections of rural and metropolitan areas, would make for a fascinating study.

    Trying to apply that to a specific in-story plot that was created to generate hype, controversy, and sales, is missing the forest for the trees.
    I think it's fair to view and apply mythical standards to comics, and it is my preference for comics to aspire to a more mythic and epic scope rather than lower itself to plots whose value rests in the things you list above. Morrison's recent Action Comics #9 seems to be a direct commentary on such storytelling. Moreover, the debate over a relationship between two gods versus a god and a human can be viewed through a more mythic lens, in my opinion. What are your thoughts on Umberto Eco's structuralist approach to studying comics? One book, Writing Essays About Literature even says that stucturalists tend to analyze popular myth and Eco is an example of that, especially in his famous work entitled The Myth of Superman.

    To quote Warren Ellis (WHY THEY’LL NEVER LET ME WRITE SUPERMAN: Brief, Disconnected Notes On An American Mythology"),

    Superman, then, is the agent of modern fable — the most compelling fable the 20th Century gave us. Soap opera is unworthy of him, and, as has been proved many times, is not big enough to contain him and the central concepts of his story. At the heart of myth and legend is Romance. That is not the same as the weak, whiny demands of soap opera that begin with “characterisation” and crap on with demands for ever more levels of “conflict”, “jeopardy”, “ensemble writing”, “tight continuity” and all the rest of that bollocks. These things are unimportant. Many of them just completely get in the way of the job at hand. SUPERMAN requires only the sweep and invention and vision that myth demands, and the artistry and directness and clean hands that Romance requires.

    SUPERMAN is about someone trying their best to save the world, one day at a time; and it’s about that person’s love for that one whose intellect and emotion and sheer bloody humanity completes him. It’s about Superman, and it’s about Lois and Clark. And that’s all there is. That’s the spine. That must be protected to the death, not lost in a cannonade succession of continuing stories. That’s what, in the continuing rush to top the last plotline, I see getting lost.

  12. #357
    Ek Vitki Runoz Writu CaptMagellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    846

    Default

    I'm more interested and familliar with Eco as a semiotician so I don't have an informed opinion on his approach.

    Although I do recognize that quite a few disciplines, outside of those that specifically study cultural myth, conflate that term with any literary form of convincing greater narrative structure. I could argue for ages and ages about how that distracts from what is special and powerful about the discrete distinctions by turning them into a murky brown. But let's just chalk it up to disciplinary differences and leave it at that.

    As for the rest, that's your choice and it's neither wrong nor right. I personally don't think that comics can adequately address the needs or role of true cultural myth and truly hope they never do - otherwise we might get a cult dedicated to the Guardians of the Galaxy, or the Monitors as the agents of our cosmology. Or secret societies of vigilantes dedicated to the Punisher as an exemplary model of emulation. Or religious sects giving up their worldly goods and dedicating themselves to the esoteric practice of trying to reach the planes of order and chaos where Nabu (i.e., Dr. Fate) awaits them with enlightened wisdom. Or worse, people looking to "Kingdom Come" as a prophecy of eschatology and trying to live their lives by the words of the prophets Waid and Ross. We already do have chaos magicians like Morrison that 'interact' with comic book characters and approach them as if they have ontological validity.

    That all might seem hyperbolic, but THAT is what real mythologies provide: meaning for cultures in how they live, interact, and die - with each other and the universe around them - in their everyday lives.

    I heard a fascinating presentation on 'American Mythology' that effectively argued that, mythically, the Founding Fathers can be seen as secular cosmogonic and cosmologic agents (pulling our right order out of the hands of wrong oppresion and setting it to a 'higher standard' than what came before), raised us with a higher anthropogonic and anthropolgical status than before (Giving us rights and a model to follow regarding 'liberty and justice for all'), and prepared us for our eschatology (in that if we died, at least we'd die free and righteous).

    That more closely fills the role of myth (and parallels how the early Italic mythic structure was glossed onto the founding of Rome). John Wayne, Superman, Wonder Woman, Mickey Mouse, etc. does not.

    The closest I'l admit is that to many dedicated fans, the simplistic morality of comic book heroes provides an exemplary model of behaviour to emulate.

    Other than that, comic book 'mythologies' (when approached as such) are entertainment at best, and placebo distractions for those who are so atomized that they need to get mythological 'empty-calories' from mass-produced corporate media at worst.
    "The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery." - R.G. Ingersoll

  13. #358
    U dont need my user title brettc1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beyond the Dune Sea.
    Posts
    11,546

    Default

    According to what I just read in Superman #13, he can bench the weight of the planet. For five days.

    LOL.

    Which means if fans are going to use the woman of kleenex arguement it doesnt matter whether its Wonder Woman, Lois, or anyone esle, they are still going to end up looking like an Bull Elephant got freaky with Tinkerbell.

    +
    Irene Adler: “I would have you right here on this desk until you begged for mercy twice.”
    Sherlock: “I’ve never begged for mercy in my life.”
    Irene: “Twice.”


  14. #359
    Senior Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    According to what I just read in Superman #13, he can bench the weight of the planet. For five days.

    LOL.

    Which means if fans are going to use the woman of kleenex arguement it doesnt matter whether its Wonder Woman, Lois, or anyone esle, they are still going to end up looking like an Bull Elephant got freaky with Tinkerbell.
    They can both be tissue. It's just one will last slightly longer because it's quilted 2-ply, whereas the other will shred like the cheap stuff you buy by the truck full.

  15. #360
    Ek Vitki Runoz Writu CaptMagellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brettc1 View Post
    Which means if fans are going to use the woman of kleenex arguement it doesnt matter whether its Wonder Woman, Lois, or anyone esle, they are still going to end up looking like an Bull Elephant got freaky with Tinkerbell.
    Nah, once Johns gets through with her she'll be right there with him in power levels. Hell, in a very short time, she's gone from not flying and being modestly super-powered to flying as fast as him and being able to lift aircraft carriers.

    <tongue in cheek> Obviously, all she needed was SUPER LOVE. A few more dates and possibly some heavy-petting on the Smallville porch-swing and she'll be ready for Dr. Manhattan level reality manipulation.</tongue in cheek>
    "The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason" - Benjamin Franklin

    "Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery." - R.G. Ingersoll

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •