Kick-Ass 3 #4

[cyberghostface]

Comments

[crinos]

Kick ass 3 Huh?

They're still doing this.

[akodo_rokku]

Mark Millar will never stop doing this.

[crinos]

I suppose not.

I just want to know why I live in a world where Young Justice only gets two seasons, but Mark Millar gets to keep making Kick Ass.

[icon_uk]

You were REALLY evil in a past lifetime?

[crinos]

What kind of a sin could a man commit in a single lifetime to deserve Mark Millar?

[althechi]

Clearly, the only answer to that is to have been Mark Millar in a past lifetime.

Yeah, don't try to think too hard about the metaphysics of that.

[insolent_one]

<- This

[shadur]

Mark Millar is punishment for all of society's sins.

[icon_uk]

Let's leave directly personal comments about Mr Millar out of things please?

[shadowpsykie]

what about.... MarkMillar's type of writing/stories is punishment for all of society's sins?

[icon_uk]

If you have to ask a question like that, I suspect you already know the answer I would give.

[shadowpsykie]

actually no, i am serious. I am not trying to be smart or back-sassing. I am asking because what i mean is that stories and writing like Mark Millar's (yet not exclusive to Mark MIllar's).

I am an english major and i am all about examining text. that's what I am doing, examining what exactly we can say in regards to expressing our dislike for a certain creator's repitoire while at the same time not attacking him personally. perhaps i am thinking too much into it, but when a situation like this arises i cant help but contemplate it.

I guess, another way to look at it is, how to you criticize a person's work and it NOT be a personal attack or the like... i suppose on some level it's easy. we can't say "So and so writer is so horrible he should be subjected to treatment of his characters" or "I hope so and so get's blankity blank for what he did to so and so character"

But then there are comments like, "Writers who resort to violence and trauma purely for shock value prove nothing other than they are incredibly lazy and incredibly untalented?" which would seem to me, more of an open criticism aimed at a certain type of writer than aspecific writer.

[icon_uk]

My apologies for not taking your enquiry seriously. I'll attempt a response, without straying too far into Mod mode.

To start with I will quote the relevant passage from s_d's Rules of Conduct

Do not make personal attacks, issue insults, threats or express wishes of bodily harm in posts or comments. This applies to comments to both other members in the community and the creators whose work is being discussed. We welcome critical opinions, but please try to concentrate on the work rather than the person. If you can't do so without resorting to personal attacks or passive aggression, then that's probably a sign that you should take a step back from the conversation. Differences of opinion are welcome; no one has ever been nor will ever be banned on a difference of opinion alone.

(This is not posted as a direct challenge/warning to you, I hasten to add, just to provide the groundwork)

I guess, another way to look at it is, how to you criticize a person's work and it NOT be a personal attack or the like...

The work is not the creator, nor vice versa, and one can be commented on without passing judgement on the other.

Simply (and I appreciate it's not always that simple) avoid reference to your perceptions of the creator as a person when critiquing their work.

There are plenty of creators whose work I dislike, but I have no idea what they are like as people, so it would be wrong to comment about something I don't know the first thing about. (Consider the perception of actors; Peter Cushing could terrify with a quirked eyebrow and excelled at playing top notch evil bastards. In real life, a more kind, gentle man it would be hard to imagine)

So the examples in your third paragraph would be just the sort of thing to avoid.

I'd say that "I don't like this style of writing" or, "I've seen this approach taken by this creator too often to be impressed by it anymore" or "I don't like XXXX's style here" would be fine, because they focus on the work, and are not a judgment on XXXX as a person. They also acknowledge that your opinion is subjective.

A comment along the lines of "XXXX is a lazy hack" would NOT be appropriate since it's making a distinctly personal judgement of the creator.

The example in your last paragraph is slightly tricky since, depending on the context in which it is posted, it could be read as a critique of the creator of the scans being posted and as such should be avoided.

However, as a more general comment in the middle of a discussion, then it would be less obviously intended to refer to a particulat creator. (I'd personally say that it would still be a massive generalisation about the reason for a creator using a particular creative device because you happen not to like it, but I suspect that given s_d's commentators, that would be addressed in responses to your post.)

Oh, and of course, if a creator has said something offensive or discriminatory, then that CAN be commented on at face value, as it is, again, distinct and separate issue from their work.

Hope that makes some sort of sense, it's late here so I suspect I might have rambled on more than I needed to.

[icon_uk]

It should be stressed that the scans_daily philosophy is "Hate the work, don't hate the creator".

So feel free to say what you like about Kick Ass as a series, but let's not diss Mr Millar personally.

[crinos]

Okay, sorry, I'll be good.

[thatnickguy]

What about hating the vast majority of their work, then?

[icon_uk]

You are welcome to dislike as much of their work as you see fit, provided it doesn't involve making personal comments about them as people on scans_daily.

[wizardru]

Well, in the case of Young Justice, the sin was generally that too many NON-men we're committing the sin of watching the show. :(

[crimsonmoonmist]

Charming as always.

[big_daddy_d]

.......What prison would actually treat a child like this?

[dcbanacek]

One in a world written by Mark Millar?

[althechi]

That's some tautology right there, buster.

[pteppic]

An American one.

[shadur]

Nah, she's not black.

[shadowpsykie]

as far as i know they don't put children (especially as young as mindy) in a prison for adults (even if they commit adult crimes)

and also, they would NEVER put a female in a male prison.

[fungo_squiggly]

and also, they would NEVER put a female in a male prison.

But that's not what The Dark Knight Rises told me! D:

[beoweasel]

as far as i know they don't put children (especially as young as mindy) in a prison for adults (even if they commit adult crimes)

I think Mindy is thirteen in this series? I might be wrong, however. At any rate, children as young as she is, have been tried and punished as adults for homicide.

But you are right, they would NEVER put her in an male prison.

[shadowpsykie]

Tried as an adult thigh wouldn't mean putting them in an adult person though as far as I know.... I could be wrong.... I'll have to ask someone at work....

[pteppic]

Not sure about the US, but in the UK there are circumstances where under age offenders can be send to an adult facility.

And whilst not quite on topic, Canada just sent a post operative M-F transgendered person to a male prison.

[cyberghostface]

Well the girl in question is an almost superhuman psychotic mass murderer.

[big_daddy_d]

She's still a child and the people she murdered were criminals last I check. Don't exactly mourn the monsters.

[cyberghostface]

She hospitalized eleven guards so she's clearly dangerous to non-criminals.

[big_daddy_d]

Here's the thing though. She. Is. Still. A. Child. She's in a prison full of grown ass men. Based on what I've read here, they shot her, sicked dogs on her. Then we got a dickweed for a psychologist. I'm supposed to be ok with that...why? Please convince me why a child deserves that shit.

[cyberghostface]

And she's effectively running the prison to the point that all the grown men are scared of her and will submit to her even when she's subdued.

[big_daddy_d]

Still doesn't excuse the treatment. Again. I point out. She's a child. A little girl in a prison full of grown men. That alone is something so stupid that no adult would be for that. And if none of those adults know how to handle a child in a nonviolent way, then tough shit. Seeing that? I sure as hell don't feel sorry for them.

[cyberghostface]

There are only so many ways you can handle someone who's extremely dangerous and able to seriously injure eleven grown men by herself.

[big_daddy_d]

And once again, that someone is a little girl. They couldn't at the least use tranquilizers? The resort to dogs and guns? Sorry but no. She's a child. They could've and should've thought of better measure and for that again I don't feel sorry for them. She is a child. These are supposed to be "peace keepers". This is not a criminal organization with a "kill that kid!" mentality. You are not going to convince me that this shit is ok.

[beoweasel]

They couldn't at the least use tranquilizers?

Tranquilizers don't work that way. They're not a magical 'cure-all' to a situation. You have to know the exact height and weight of the target and adjust the dose accordingly. Knocking someone unconscious is incredibly dicey and you can easily run the risk of killing someone with a sedative.

[big_daddy_d]

Shooting someone and having dogs go after them doesn't run a risk of killing them? Sorry but I call bullshit on that. If they wanted to subdue her, they should've came up with methods that were not so damn extreme. So once again how is this preferable treatment?

[beoweasel]

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how dangerous the individual is, she is still a YOUNG GIRL. No judge in their right mind is going to sentence a thirteen year-old girl to an adult, all male populated prison. The advocacy groups ALONE would have lost their collective shit. No, she would be sent to a female correctional facility, not a male one.

[icon_uk]

Doesn't really matter, she doesn't get a free pass because the people she happened to kill were criminals.

The legal system had seen fit to incarcerate them rather than execute them.

[big_daddy_d]

doesn't excuse her treatment. Sorry but no. She's a child. There's so much I will let go in comics, movies, etc. This. This actually bothers the shit out of me.

[icon_uk]

I'm not excusing her treatment, I'm replying to the "Don't exactly mourn the monsters" bit. Just because someone is an incarcerated criminal doesn't mean that they have any less right to life than someone else.

[mrstatham]

"JESUS! HOW DID THEY TAKE HER DOWN?"

The comic showed some semblance of the fucking REALITY it was supposed to adhere to before it went completely fucking stupid and she's a ten year old? THAT'S HOW THEY TOOK HER DOWN. Man, fuck this stupid book and it's ridiculousness.