scans_daily: Why you shouldn't worry too much about science in comics

thokstar (

thokstar) wrote in

scans_daily,
@ 2009-12-11 09:05 am UTC

Entry tags:

char: plastic man/patrick o'brian, in-joke: nothing works that way, medium: webcomic

Why you shouldn't worry too much about science in comics

The comic is from Nukees, which is a long running webcomic about U.C. Berkeley Nuclear Engineering grad students. (It also features a giant robot ant.)

(Read 23 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

box_in_the_box
2009-12-11 08:08 pm UTC (link)

It reminds me of Larry Niven's horribly overrated "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" essay, in which Niven sought to "prove" that Superman could never lose his virginity - the first time I read it, all I could think was, "You're trying to use 'science' to justify COCK-BLOCKING this character, while at the same time accepting a premise for his super-powers that isn't possible under ANY definition of 'science.' TROLL HARDER, SILVER AGE FANBOY."

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 12 comments) (Show 12 comments)

	no subject icon_uk 2009-12-11 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	Larry Niven played as fair within the scenario as the comics presented it. However, I think if you were looking for a serious real-world commentary about inter-species biology in "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" you were kidding yourself to an extent way beyond what Mr Niven could achieve. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 8 comments) (Show 8 comments)

no subject

box_in_the_box
2009-12-11 08:31 pm UTC (link)

The problem being that countless other Silver Age traditionalists have taken Niven's essay as a gospel-truth explanation of why Superman can never have sex, in order to justify their beloved "love triangle" trope.

I guess what I hate about it is that I see it as part of a trend in superhero comics, in which fans and creators alike will condemn any semblance of mental, emotional, social or physical functionality or well-being within their superheroes as "unrealistic," given their powers, and then turn around and come up with the most outrageously impossible bullshit to keep them all miserable.

This is the sort of mentality that leads to fans referring to Civil War and Dark Reign as "realistic," when in point of fact, like 90 percent of all grim-and-gritty stories, they're just as unrealistic as bright-and-shiny stories, just in the opposite direction.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 7 comments) (Show 7 comments)

no subject

icon_uk
2009-12-11 08:51 pm UTC (link)

The problem being that countless other Silver Age traditionalists have taken Niven's essay as a gospel-truth explanation of why Superman can never have sex, in order to justify their beloved "love triangle" trope.

Like who? I've never once seen a writer acknowledge MoS/WoK as anything other than entertaining nonsense.

I guess what I hate about it is that I see it as part of a trend in superhero comics, in which fans and creators alike will condemn any semblance of mental, emotional, social or physical functionality or well-being within their superheroes as "unrealistic," given their powers, and then turn around and come up with the most outrageously impossible bullshit to keep them all miserable.

It was written in 1971 as a joke, I think it's a little late to suggest that it's a trend.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 6 comments) (Show 6 comments)

	no subject autolychus2 2009-12-11 09:59 pm UTC (link)
	Hell, I love the MoS/WoK, for the simple fact that it annoys Super-fanboys/girls so much. But it should be taken in the context in which it was intended. It was and is a joke -- a well thought out and (to me) wonderful joke. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject icon_uk 2009-12-11 10:15 pm UTC (link)
	Heh, I loved it too! Had teenage me giggling rather a lot! :) (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject kamino_neko 2009-12-12 12:50 am UTC (link)
	I've never seen a writer do it, but I've seen a bunch of fans (and non-fans) cite it as gospel. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

no subject

bariman
2009-12-12 07:11 am UTC (link)

I've seen MoS/WoK used by writers a few times, but thankfully they were AUs and Elseworlds. One story I'm thinking of was in one of the Superman annuals, where Waverider was looking into people's possible futures to see who was Monarch. Lois and Clark used an experimental fertility drug to get pregnant, but close to term the baby super-kicked and gave Lois internal injuries, which she and the baby died from. Then Superman left Earth and shacked up with Maxima and had babies with her.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	no subject geoffsebesta 2009-12-12 10:05 am UTC (link)
	Honestly, the only work I can think of that really uses it is Twilight: Breaking Dawn. Which is pretty funny if you think about it. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject pseudo_tsuga 2009-12-13 03:45 am UTC (link)
	I thought of the same thing. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject auggie18 2009-12-11 11:43 pm UTC (link)
	Ugh, same. I was never a fan of that essay. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject aaron_bourque 2009-12-12 02:40 am UTC (link)
	MoSWoK was never meant to be taken seriously, in any case. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

	no subject blakeyrat 2009-12-12 06:33 am UTC (link)
	Hm, do you think it might have been written as a joke? Maybe? A little? Relax a bit, CAPS LOCK FANBOY (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(Read 23 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

Account name:	Log in with OpenID?
Password:	Forget your password?
	Remember me