Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site colossus.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!fluke!moriarty
From: moriarty@fluke.UUCP (The Napoleon of Crime)
Newsgroups: net.comics
Subject: Re: X-Factor
Message-ID: <2497@colossus.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 11:43:10 EST
Article-I.D.: colossus.2497
Posted: Wed Dec 11 11:43:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 06:41:26 EST
References: <690@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: The Institute for Criminal Masterminds
Lines: 57

In article <690@k.cs.cmu.edu> tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney) writes:
>(Oh, am I going to catch it for this....)

Oh, you're right, Tim!  But not due to your views on X-Factor, though I
totally disagree with your views on it and on Claremont (and somewhat on
Wein... "always trite and feeble" is much too harsh for him).  As we've
argued before, opinions is opinions, and everybody's got a right to vent
'em.  However, the following little exchange caught my eye...

>PS.  My love Pam, who's about to begin her Ph.D. in Writing, agrees with me
>concerning the relative quality of this book and Claremont's drivel.  Is it
>possible a classics scholar knows some things you don't?  Nah, you read
>comics and science fiction, not those outdated old farts like Dickens and
>Shakespeare and James, so you must have highly discerning standards of plot
>and characterization....

[enter heavy sarcasm mode]

Ah, but I know one person with a Master's degree in English Literature and
another finishing up a Master's in Classics who both HATE X-Factor!  Gosh,
do two Masters beat a prospective Ph.D.?

[exit heavy sarcasm mode]

I get very suspicious of the strength of someone's viewpoint on "literary
quality" when they need to resort to bringing in someone with a degree to
support their opinions.  A person with an education dealing in Literature
and Literary Studies will have read more material to compare a novel, play
or story against, and can make more specific criticisms; but their
experience makes them no more or less "correct" in their assessment of a
literary work -- and certainly not without detailed criticism backing it up.
Also, it strikes me that a background in popular literature would be of more
help to someone reviewing comics -- the more you've read, the more "good"
books you've found that you can compare the work you're currently reading
with.  I like Dickens and most of Shakespeare (however, James has always
struck me as a writer who sacrifices emotional power for technical artifice
(Woo!)), but that does not hinder me from appreciating some of the deft
characterizations Chris Claremont has done over the years (granted, his
style has been uneven of late...).  I'm know many people who combine reading
comics with all sorts of other literature -- heavy readers read, and their
amount of intake often results in a startling breadth of genres and literary
forms.  

It strikes me we should just stick to letting each other know our opinions
(and why we formed 'em) and remember that, no matter what our background,
that's all they are -- opinions.  Besides, some of us HAD to read Homer!
(right, Ellen?)  "And their shields clattered amongst the dust..."  Sounds
kindof like Crisis, doesn't it? :-)

                                "Just remember, he knows more than you do!"
                                "I have a Master's Degree!"
                                "In SCIENCE!"

                                        Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, allegra, sb6, lbl-csam}!fluke!moriarty
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>