3 ms·

My point is that not everything appeals equally to all people. The reason dime-store romance novels aren't centered on nerdy boys is because they are trying to

My point is that not everything appeals equally to all people. The reason dime-store romance novels aren't centered on nerdy boys is because they are trying to entertain adult women. Frank Miller's comics are about edgy superheroes, violence, and sex from a perspective that's trying to appeal to teenage boys. If you're trying to write a book that appeals equally to all people without offending anyone, I think you'll end up with something anodyne. Some authors have a consistent style or niche and I don't think anything is wrong with that. Finally, it's also not true that there are no romance novels focused on nerdy boys. There are plenty. Likewise, there are plenty of comic books where women or girls are portrayed well or are the focus of the story.

tptacek 5y ago
Polo's criticism of Miller isn't rooted in its appeal to teenaged boys. It's taking dead aim at Miller's reputation as a forerunner for "comics for adults", and as a skilled deconstructer of superhero archetypes on a level with Alan Moore. So this rebuttal doesn't really say much, does it? Polo is criticizing Miller in a way that you could not, for instance, criticize Todd MacFarlane, who had the clearly defined audience you're thinking of. It wouldn't make sense; of course MacFarlane's work was silly and superficial; that's the point. This is a thing people say a lot about Roger Ebert --- that part of his skill as a critic was his ability to put himself in the shoes of the intended audience for a piece, and evaluate it on those terms, so that for instance he could give 4 stars to "Iron Man", the same rating he'd give to "Tokyo Story". Polo's criticism here is compatible with Ebert's approach.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The word "adult" is used once in that post and in context it is about how a 12 year old thought the comics were meant for adults. Where do you get the idea that Miller's reputation is "comics for adults"? The author, for example, read them as a child. My impression is that mostly these comics are read by teen boys. If your impression is that they are read by adults then I suppose one of us would need to bring in some data to break the impasse. If I wanted to research it I would use the Google ad word tool to check the demographics of who searches for "Frank Miller" and his different comic books. Miller's comics are known to be "gritty", violent, whatever. That's his style. The author liked it when she was a child and doesn't like it having grown up. That seems not too remarkable to me.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Are you familiar with Miller or do you come by your understanding of him just from this piece? Because Miller is like, on the vanguard of the "comics for adults" movement. It would be like saying Salvador Dalí is known for his surrealist work; it hardly needs a cite.
watwut 5y ago
It sounds to me that you did not read the article you are commenting on.

tptacek 5y ago

Polo's criticism of Miller isn't rooted in its appeal to teenaged boys. It's taking dead aim at Miller's reputation as a forerunner for "comics for adults", and as a skilled deconstructer of superhero archetypes on a level with Alan Moore. So this rebuttal doesn't really say much, does it? Polo is criticizing Miller in a way that you could not, for instance, criticize Todd MacFarlane, who had the clearly defined audience you're thinking of. It wouldn't make sense; of course MacFarlane's work was silly and superficial; that's the point. This is a thing people say a lot about Roger Ebert --- that part of his skill as a critic was his ability to put himself in the shoes of the intended audience for a piece, and evaluate it on those terms, so that for instance he could give 4 stars to "Iron Man", the same rating he'd give to "Tokyo Story". Polo's criticism here is compatible with Ebert's approach.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The word "adult" is used once in that post and in context it is about how a 12 year old thought the comics were meant for adults. Where do you get the idea that Miller's reputation is "comics for adults"? The author, for example, read them as a child. My impression is that mostly these comics are read by teen boys. If your impression is that they are read by adults then I suppose one of us would need to bring in some data to break the impasse. If I wanted to research it I would use the Google ad word tool to check the demographics of who searches for "Frank Miller" and his different comic books. Miller's comics are known to be "gritty", violent, whatever. That's his style. The author liked it when she was a child and doesn't like it having grown up. That seems not too remarkable to me.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Are you familiar with Miller or do you come by your understanding of him just from this piece? Because Miller is like, on the vanguard of the "comics for adults" movement. It would be like saying Salvador Dalí is known for his surrealist work; it hardly needs a cite.

watwut 5y ago

It sounds to me that you did not read the article you are commenting on.