![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I've been slogging through Hegel and Kojeve's commentaries on Hegel. This is tragic-- BUT! I had the best kind of lol moment: lolphilosophy, which is the ultimate, I say ULTIMATE, moment of lol. It came when Kojeve, filled with disgust said: "Let us speak no further of this." And then called relativists vulgar. Philosodis, oh snap. Ok, maybe catty philosophy is funnier in context. :-(
This is why I can't sell my books - 'lol!' in the margins.
***
Questions!
Question: So what's up with Reed Richards? Apparently he has big plans for the world that no one knows about.
Oh Reed, you'd make, if I may say, a FANTASTIC supervillain.
In interviews it's been established that Reed's psychohistory equations reveal something ominous which his Plan aims to avoid. Now, this is something ominous that is distinct from the ominous future Tony Stark envisioned and Reed verified, and presumably, distinct from the work the Mad Thinker checked. So like, ominous times two, people. At least this is what the interviews seem to suggest.
I think there's an alternative possibility of Reed losing his shit and trying to make heaven-on-earth.
Next summer's Event?
Question: why don't comic book writers get that if they do something really radical, the next guy is going to overturn the crack and return it to the previous status quo? And further that this leads to needlessly complicated continuity?
I mean, I'm not saying that radical change in comics is bad per se, but radical change that is obviously, necessarily going to be changed by the next guy? Is just willful silliness. It's like, "Screw you guys, I can so sell the concept of Batman as a pro ball player to the fans! Bat-Man, get it?"
Good GOD, do they not understand that comics is a collaborative medium and that their interpretation of the character will not, CANnot be the only, or the only right interpretation? Superhero comics especially is an agglomeration of versions of characters and events with no solid center. So you can get away with a lot in terms of interpretation but it's nigh impossible to change the 'essence' of the character, because a) nobody knows what a universally accepted essence of the character would look like; and b) your fellow writers are bound to disagree with you 90% of the time.
The only way to make a radical change stick, is by convincing your fellow writers AND the fans that you're right.
Good luck, cowboy.
This is why I can't sell my books - 'lol!' in the margins.
***
Questions!
Question: So what's up with Reed Richards? Apparently he has big plans for the world that no one knows about.
Oh Reed, you'd make, if I may say, a FANTASTIC supervillain.
In interviews it's been established that Reed's psychohistory equations reveal something ominous which his Plan aims to avoid. Now, this is something ominous that is distinct from the ominous future Tony Stark envisioned and Reed verified, and presumably, distinct from the work the Mad Thinker checked. So like, ominous times two, people. At least this is what the interviews seem to suggest.
I think there's an alternative possibility of Reed losing his shit and trying to make heaven-on-earth.
Next summer's Event?
Question: why don't comic book writers get that if they do something really radical, the next guy is going to overturn the crack and return it to the previous status quo? And further that this leads to needlessly complicated continuity?
I mean, I'm not saying that radical change in comics is bad per se, but radical change that is obviously, necessarily going to be changed by the next guy? Is just willful silliness. It's like, "Screw you guys, I can so sell the concept of Batman as a pro ball player to the fans! Bat-Man, get it?"
Good GOD, do they not understand that comics is a collaborative medium and that their interpretation of the character will not, CANnot be the only, or the only right interpretation? Superhero comics especially is an agglomeration of versions of characters and events with no solid center. So you can get away with a lot in terms of interpretation but it's nigh impossible to change the 'essence' of the character, because a) nobody knows what a universally accepted essence of the character would look like; and b) your fellow writers are bound to disagree with you 90% of the time.
The only way to make a radical change stick, is by convincing your fellow writers AND the fans that you're right.
Good luck, cowboy.