8 ms·

'Fandom has toxified the world': Watchmen author Alan Moore

67 points by zeristor 2y ago

zeristor 2y ago
[flagged]
- Simon_ORourke 2y ago
  What's the matter with calling it out like it is, "fandom is sometimes a grotesque blight that poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement."
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
J.M. Greer recently wrote a post that elegantly makes the same argument. It's the best essay I've read this year, and I think about it quite a lot, actually. He's right about Tolkien, too. > https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkien/ https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkie... > . . . It’s occurred to me more than once recently that one of the most distinctive things about the Western cultures of the last century or so is the way it’s become so obsessed with wholly imaginary worlds, as different as possible from the one we actually inhabit. That’s a very odd habit, when you stop and think about it.
- janmarsal 2y ago
  Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it so far as it becoming a religion. It's the most distinctively human thing to do and this behaviour predates written history.
  - lukan 2y ago
    It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
    - fidotron 2y ago
      > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.
- zeristor 2y ago
  Its almost like it becomes a religion; with the emphasis on almost.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    with the decline of regular religion, something had to take its place. and it's not like people got less fanciful or spiritual, they just changed where they invest that energy.
- mrkeen 2y ago
  I couldn't get through this. Dunking on Star Wars, LOTR, and NATO strategy all at once. Someone hire this guy immediately and make him executive director at the ministry of creative arts and war! I thought I was going into a piece of writing that would be critical of drawing comparisons between fantasy and the real world, but the author did the exact opposite. He drew the comparison between the Ukraine counter-offensive and magic swords, and put those words into NATO's mouth.
  - lukan 2y ago
    No, he made the theory, that too many in NATO believed their own sides fiction. (And orcs for russian soldiers is a literal slang) As someone who followed all of that quite extensivly, I tend to confirm this. Otherwise that disastrous offensive last year never would have happened at all. As it was quite clear from the beginning, that it was bound to fail - but the imagination that the glorious win of the righteous forces of history is about to happen. So it needed to happen, despite objections from reality seeing people on the ground. Because the russian minefields and fortifications and russian artillery supperiority turned out to be very real. And they were real before.
    - rebolek 2y ago
      He made a theory that Russia is not the bad guy. They invaded a country without a reason. They literally are the bad guy. Some random percent of Russians believe that Putin is great? Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. He has a point about West sending trash to Ukraine. But saying it's somehow Anduril? You have to be quiet open minded to accept his associations. The guy makes some good points but buries them in a ton of his opinions that it's hard to find the points he makes.
      - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
        > They invaded a country without a reason. They had their reasons or at least rationalizations, though you don't see them and they might not make sense to you. > They literally are the bad guy. Maybe. I agree that the invasion was a very grave evil. Even so, it doesn't mean that they're destined to lose, and we shouldn't think that way. Mongols were bad guys but won so much that they got tired of winning. It's a very grave fallacy to believe that the Good Guys always prevail. And, besides, the Russians you ask would surely say, "Wait, you think those Banderite Ukrainians are the GOOD Guys?! And here I thought we were the Good Guys! Throughout its entire history, Russia has always fought and always conquered evil." > Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. You can't seriously believe this. I'd invite you to hang out on the Russian internet (or Russian Telegram) for a different view. Have a look at what they write in their own language, when talking between themselves.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  That piece is as much a victim of western magical thinking as the people who it criticizes. The issues that we're seeing in Ukraine are purely material - offensives are no longer possible due to technological advances and the defensive position always wins. The fact that every Russian advance is also being ground down by a country with a quarter it's population is proof enough of this. That we found this out in a small scale conflict is a blessing - our forefathers found it out in 1914 in a very unpleasant way across 1000km of trenches. This is not a permanent state of affairs - a tank will be invented and it will break the stale mate in months.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  That's quite a trick to dive into a fantasy that the problem with your opponents it that they are living in fantasy.
- beretguy 2y ago
  I don't find it odd at all. In fact, I'm disappointed about hiatus of HxH manga because I want to see more of Dark Continent. Gigantic animals, extinction level threats, etc. - it's super interesting! I feel like humans have this interest for discovering the unknown, solving mysteries, seeing things never seen before. What's not to like about it? That's the same exact reason why I like Astronomy and quantum physics - I'm interested in things that are on the edge of what we know. Whoever thinks creating imaginary worlds is weird must be fun at parties.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  I will say, the original article, this one is rather dull and doesn’t really capture much of anything. OA spends so long on personal waffling and frivolous political commentary, ironically undermining a free and fair election and the will of the people. This article, ironically enough, does seem to actually show some degree of an argument. I haven’t read all of it, but I can definitely agree with what I’ve read so far, that the Western liberal narrative is that they are “righteous heroes” against the “wrongs”, and complexity tends to be lost on those who believe as such. Although, I will say, more to the specific quote, we have told stories of fantastical worlds for centuries. Tolkien is inspired by elven worlds mirroring ours, tales of expenses underneath the Earth, talks of star people and sky cities. So much wholly imaginary worlds have existed in many cultures, and frankly the solely Western perspective feels rather tiny when you consider that this is a global phenomenon and has consumed far more than just America or NATO.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
I love Alan's work but he is also kind of an idiot on many issues He rails against the interactions of fans and large conglomerates but he was happy to cash checks anytime his work went up for sale Remember his big publicity stunt of declining his name to appear on the Watchmen movie credits? Yet he had no issue taking the payday from DC that started it all I've read everything he has written including his novels...but, shut up Alan
- Suppafly 2y ago
  Honestly, he comes off as being contrary for the sake of being contrary, instead of the principled contrarian that he thinks he is.
- LordN00b 2y ago
  'Remember his big publicity stunt of declining his name to appear on the Watchmen movie credits? Yet he had no issue taking the payday from DC that started it all' Because back then Comics book industry was not the same, he sold his story and rights to DC and the contract specified that if DC stopped selling the book after a period of time, the rights would revert back to him. Alas, he wrote Watchmen, it's never been out of print he has not been allowed to reclaim his own work. A lot of his complaining about Movie/Comic book companies comes from the perspectivie of a creator who has lost control of his creations, and is doing what he can to protest that.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  I guess he'd been hoping his audience (his readers) would have been more like the pigs on Manor Farm, and is a touch disappointed that the majority audience (his fans) are running around bleating the equivalent of 2 legs bad: "you're locked in here with me!"
- maxerickson 2y ago
  So much of his point is that you should appreciate Watchmen for what it is, rather than worry about his association with it. You thinking he should behave a certain way in response to your appreciation is more or less exactly what he thinks is ridiculous!
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Only difference between internet slapfights over superheroes and the Crusades is that we aren't starting hundred year long wars because Superman is better than Spider-Man.
- ricc 2y ago
  Not yet
throwaway13337 2y ago
Alan touches on critique versus creation. He almost but not quite get at the core issue when he evokes that, in those old glory days of comic fandom, fans were creators too. This is a strong observation but not explored in the article. As communication technology improves, we get better at making copies of and making searchable the most resonating works. This means that new creators face bigger and bigger barriers to resonating. Most people give up. To adapt, People have become critics rather than creators - consumers rather than producers. This has a deep effect on our culture. This might explain the malaise of inaction - that we don’t feel we can accomplish much and that we’ll more readily point out the flaws in an action than encourage the action in others. As alluded to in the article, it also might increase the tribalism wherein we have one super-creator and their followers. The act of creation also deepens understanding. The creation process creates a more thoughtful person as much as it creates the work itself. How do we bring back a culture of creation?
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  > c'est en forgeant qu'on devient forgeron ("working at the forge is how one becomes a smith") I don't know if there ever was a culture of creation (have you any examples?) but I wouldn't say that there's any lack of opportunity for people today to create for themselves and their friends. Even the super-creators spin off their own opportunities for subdemiurges: recall Bowsette. Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FDFsHA20w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FDFsHA20w
  - throwaway13337 2y ago
    The shape of attention has changed. It's true that now more than ever, niche super creators have found an audience. I think the paradox here is, because of specifically this, not so gifted people have less incentive to create. 30 years ago, there simply was no spreading of media that wasn't so mainstream. So there was no medium for a lot of niches. Without the medium, people felt rewarded in their local community for showing something interesting that had no mainstream analog. In a sense, the niche creators that were great were more effectively broadcast leaving less audience for worse niche creators. This, over time, meant that less people tried to create and switched to critique.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 2y ago
In my opinion the biggest problem with fandom is that it leads to an overly attached attitude towards some work and creates a sense of entitlement and audience capture. Fanservice is a very close cousin to fandom and for very obvious reason, a lot of media with huge fandoms end up being driven by serving people the same thing over and over again because creators lose the ability to actually challenge their audience. It's how you get the whole Marvel industrial complex. I've always liked Nabokov's attitude towards reading: "A wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading." Fandom is the opposite of this where people end up treating their favorite media the way K-Pop fans treat K-Pop idols and it's why fandom driven media just ends up lowbrow and bad.
andrewstuart 2y ago
The Truth About "Toxic Fandoms" - The Critical Drinker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3FF_vBwftw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3FF_vBwftw Why The "Toxic Fandom" Excuse Stopped Working - Critical Drinker After Hours https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tQBnhFCVcl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tQBnhFCVcl4 In summary, blaming “Toxic Fandoms” is a convenient way for Hollywood to divert blame for the garbage movies they roll out and demand the audiences love. “Oh you hate our movies? It’s definitely not our fault, it must be because you’re just a hater and a toxic fan.”
- ffsm8 2y ago
  From reading the headline, that was my first thought too... But after reading the article, I don't think that he's even touching on that? He's taking about how the culture of >fandom< itself is toxic to a society - among other reasons, because it creates unhealthy habits that spread beyond media consumption (he's naming politics specifically) I honestly think he's onto something, even though I also agree with critical thinkers point that the fans aren't particularly toxic, the recent productions are just shit or at least shouldn't be associated with the IPs they're being associated with
  - cocacola1 2y ago
    This reminds me of when Hollywood got pissed at Ted Turner because he decided to colorize some movies. They're movies. Anyone spewing toxicity over them needs therapy.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      It does lead back to fans making the product/media as part of their identity (which is something Hollywood, Disney etc absolutely fosters and tries to spread!). At that point, changing this product/media effectively becomes an attack on their identity, which they understandably react strongly against. It's kinda feels like a "you reap what you sow" situation in the context of media. But if it rationalizes such behavior in other areas such as politics (which I think he's right on), then it really does become a much bigger issue for our society in general
xtiansimon 2y ago
> “…poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement.” > “…liking something is OK. You don’t need the machete or the megaphone.” I feel this very strongly in terms of BIG (work) TRUCKS not used for work. Those big trucks with Marvel’s The Punisher themed graphics, flat/matte paints, military-inspired details (I’m thinking of a particular bumper style), and most of all comic inspired details: blacked out windows—so much easier to draw, so much the worse for actual driving. Main character syndrome in the worst way. Just go for a walk or bicycle ride or ride your motorcycle on a Saturday in the greater NYC area and you’ll know exactly how I feel ...
histories 2y ago
Every time I read some Alan Moore interview, I find myself agreeing with him. Also his masterclass on writing was great to listen to, and I'm not interested in writing. His ideas about writing/creation = magic have stuck with me. He's always lucid, and clear, and has a stark sense of observation. One of my favorites: https://alanmooreworld.blogspot.com/2019/11/moore-on-jerusalem-eternalism-anarchy.html https://alanmooreworld.blogspot.com/2019/11/moore-on-jerusal... Here's an excerpt: ---- What was the impact of popular heroes comic books in our culture? Why are people fascinated by alternative realities? I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum. The superheroes themselves – largely written and drawn by creators who have never stood up for their own rights against the companies that employ them, much less the rights of a Jack Kirby or Jerry Siegel or Joe Schuster – would seem to be largely employed as cowardice compensators, perhaps a bit like the handgun on the nightstand. I would also remark that save for a smattering of non-white characters (and non-white creators) these books and these iconic characters are still very much white supremacist dreams of the master race. In fact, I think that a good argument can be made for D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation as the first American superhero movie, and the point of origin for all those capes and masks. ----
- throw4847285 2y ago
  When I read quotes like that, I realize how much Moore must have idolized Michael Moorcock when he was young (and maybe still does). It's reminiscent of Epic Pooh, Moorcock's essay about Tolkien and epic fantasy more broadly. Though, if we're being honest, I like the critique of the immaturity of genre fiction more when Moore makes it. That might just be because I think Moore is the better writer, but I haven't read nearly as much Moorcock so it isn't exactly fair.

67 points by zeristor 2y ago

zeristor 2y ago

[flagged]

Simon_ORourke 2y ago
What's the matter with calling it out like it is, "fandom is sometimes a grotesque blight that poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement."

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

J.M. Greer recently wrote a post that elegantly makes the same argument. It's the best essay I've read this year, and I think about it quite a lot, actually. He's right about Tolkien, too. > https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkien/ https://www.ecosophia.net/the-three-stigmata-of-j-r-r-tolkie... > . . . It’s occurred to me more than once recently that one of the most distinctive things about the Western cultures of the last century or so is the way it’s become so obsessed with wholly imaginary worlds, as different as possible from the one we actually inhabit. That’s a very odd habit, when you stop and think about it.

janmarsal 2y ago
Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it so far as it becoming a religion. It's the most distinctively human thing to do and this behaviour predates written history.
- lukan 2y ago
  It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.
zeristor 2y ago
Its almost like it becomes a religion; with the emphasis on almost.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  with the decline of regular religion, something had to take its place. and it's not like people got less fanciful or spiritual, they just changed where they invest that energy.
mrkeen 2y ago
I couldn't get through this. Dunking on Star Wars, LOTR, and NATO strategy all at once. Someone hire this guy immediately and make him executive director at the ministry of creative arts and war! I thought I was going into a piece of writing that would be critical of drawing comparisons between fantasy and the real world, but the author did the exact opposite. He drew the comparison between the Ukraine counter-offensive and magic swords, and put those words into NATO's mouth.
- lukan 2y ago
  No, he made the theory, that too many in NATO believed their own sides fiction. (And orcs for russian soldiers is a literal slang) As someone who followed all of that quite extensivly, I tend to confirm this. Otherwise that disastrous offensive last year never would have happened at all. As it was quite clear from the beginning, that it was bound to fail - but the imagination that the glorious win of the righteous forces of history is about to happen. So it needed to happen, despite objections from reality seeing people on the ground. Because the russian minefields and fortifications and russian artillery supperiority turned out to be very real. And they were real before.
  - rebolek 2y ago
    He made a theory that Russia is not the bad guy. They invaded a country without a reason. They literally are the bad guy. Some random percent of Russians believe that Putin is great? Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. He has a point about West sending trash to Ukraine. But saying it's somehow Anduril? You have to be quiet open minded to accept his associations. The guy makes some good points but buries them in a ton of his opinions that it's hard to find the points he makes.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      > They invaded a country without a reason. They had their reasons or at least rationalizations, though you don't see them and they might not make sense to you. > They literally are the bad guy. Maybe. I agree that the invasion was a very grave evil. Even so, it doesn't mean that they're destined to lose, and we shouldn't think that way. Mongols were bad guys but won so much that they got tired of winning. It's a very grave fallacy to believe that the Good Guys always prevail. And, besides, the Russians you ask would surely say, "Wait, you think those Banderite Ukrainians are the GOOD Guys?! And here I thought we were the Good Guys! Throughout its entire history, Russia has always fought and always conquered evil." > Of course they say that, otherwise they would be in prison. You can't seriously believe this. I'd invite you to hang out on the Russian internet (or Russian Telegram) for a different view. Have a look at what they write in their own language, when talking between themselves.
llm_trw 2y ago
That piece is as much a victim of western magical thinking as the people who it criticizes. The issues that we're seeing in Ukraine are purely material - offensives are no longer possible due to technological advances and the defensive position always wins. The fact that every Russian advance is also being ground down by a country with a quarter it's population is proof enough of this. That we found this out in a small scale conflict is a blessing - our forefathers found it out in 1914 in a very unpleasant way across 1000km of trenches. This is not a permanent state of affairs - a tank will be invented and it will break the stale mate in months.
maxerickson 2y ago
That's quite a trick to dive into a fantasy that the problem with your opponents it that they are living in fantasy.
beretguy 2y ago
I don't find it odd at all. In fact, I'm disappointed about hiatus of HxH manga because I want to see more of Dark Continent. Gigantic animals, extinction level threats, etc. - it's super interesting! I feel like humans have this interest for discovering the unknown, solving mysteries, seeing things never seen before. What's not to like about it? That's the same exact reason why I like Astronomy and quantum physics - I'm interested in things that are on the edge of what we know. Whoever thinks creating imaginary worlds is weird must be fun at parties.
tourmalinetaco 2y ago
I will say, the original article, this one is rather dull and doesn’t really capture much of anything. OA spends so long on personal waffling and frivolous political commentary, ironically undermining a free and fair election and the will of the people. This article, ironically enough, does seem to actually show some degree of an argument. I haven’t read all of it, but I can definitely agree with what I’ve read so far, that the Western liberal narrative is that they are “righteous heroes” against the “wrongs”, and complexity tends to be lost on those who believe as such. Although, I will say, more to the specific quote, we have told stories of fantastical worlds for centuries. Tolkien is inspired by elven worlds mirroring ours, tales of expenses underneath the Earth, talks of star people and sky cities. So much wholly imaginary worlds have existed in many cultures, and frankly the solely Western perspective feels rather tiny when you consider that this is a global phenomenon and has consumed far more than just America or NATO.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

I love Alan's work but he is also kind of an idiot on many issues He rails against the interactions of fans and large conglomerates but he was happy to cash checks anytime his work went up for sale Remember his big publicity stunt of declining his name to appear on the Watchmen movie credits? Yet he had no issue taking the payday from DC that started it all I've read everything he has written including his novels...but, shut up Alan

Suppafly 2y ago
Honestly, he comes off as being contrary for the sake of being contrary, instead of the principled contrarian that he thinks he is.
LordN00b 2y ago
'Remember his big publicity stunt of declining his name to appear on the Watchmen movie credits? Yet he had no issue taking the payday from DC that started it all' Because back then Comics book industry was not the same, he sold his story and rights to DC and the contract specified that if DC stopped selling the book after a period of time, the rights would revert back to him. Alas, he wrote Watchmen, it's never been out of print he has not been allowed to reclaim his own work. A lot of his complaining about Movie/Comic book companies comes from the perspectivie of a creator who has lost control of his creations, and is doing what he can to protest that.
082349872349872 2y ago
I guess he'd been hoping his audience (his readers) would have been more like the pigs on Manor Farm, and is a touch disappointed that the majority audience (his fans) are running around bleating the equivalent of 2 legs bad: "you're locked in here with me!"
maxerickson 2y ago
So much of his point is that you should appreciate Watchmen for what it is, rather than worry about his association with it. You thinking he should behave a certain way in response to your appreciation is more or less exactly what he thinks is ridiculous!

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

MisterBastahrd 2y ago

Only difference between internet slapfights over superheroes and the Crusades is that we aren't starting hundred year long wars because Superman is better than Spider-Man.

ricc 2y ago
Not yet

throwaway13337 2y ago

Alan touches on critique versus creation. He almost but not quite get at the core issue when he evokes that, in those old glory days of comic fandom, fans were creators too. This is a strong observation but not explored in the article. As communication technology improves, we get better at making copies of and making searchable the most resonating works. This means that new creators face bigger and bigger barriers to resonating. Most people give up. To adapt, People have become critics rather than creators - consumers rather than producers. This has a deep effect on our culture. This might explain the malaise of inaction - that we don’t feel we can accomplish much and that we’ll more readily point out the flaws in an action than encourage the action in others. As alluded to in the article, it also might increase the tribalism wherein we have one super-creator and their followers. The act of creation also deepens understanding. The creation process creates a more thoughtful person as much as it creates the work itself. How do we bring back a culture of creation?

082349872349872 2y ago
> c'est en forgeant qu'on devient forgeron ("working at the forge is how one becomes a smith") I don't know if there ever was a culture of creation (have you any examples?) but I wouldn't say that there's any lack of opportunity for people today to create for themselves and their friends. Even the super-creators spin off their own opportunities for subdemiurges: recall Bowsette. Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FDFsHA20w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FDFsHA20w
- throwaway13337 2y ago
  The shape of attention has changed. It's true that now more than ever, niche super creators have found an audience. I think the paradox here is, because of specifically this, not so gifted people have less incentive to create. 30 years ago, there simply was no spreading of media that wasn't so mainstream. So there was no medium for a lot of niches. Without the medium, people felt rewarded in their local community for showing something interesting that had no mainstream analog. In a sense, the niche creators that were great were more effectively broadcast leaving less audience for worse niche creators. This, over time, meant that less people tried to create and switched to critique.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 2y ago

In my opinion the biggest problem with fandom is that it leads to an overly attached attitude towards some work and creates a sense of entitlement and audience capture. Fanservice is a very close cousin to fandom and for very obvious reason, a lot of media with huge fandoms end up being driven by serving people the same thing over and over again because creators lose the ability to actually challenge their audience. It's how you get the whole Marvel industrial complex. I've always liked Nabokov's attitude towards reading: "A wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle even though we must keep a little aloof, a little detached when reading." Fandom is the opposite of this where people end up treating their favorite media the way K-Pop fans treat K-Pop idols and it's why fandom driven media just ends up lowbrow and bad.

andrewstuart 2y ago

The Truth About "Toxic Fandoms" - The Critical Drinker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3FF_vBwftw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3FF_vBwftw Why The "Toxic Fandom" Excuse Stopped Working - Critical Drinker After Hours https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tQBnhFCVcl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tQBnhFCVcl4 In summary, blaming “Toxic Fandoms” is a convenient way for Hollywood to divert blame for the garbage movies they roll out and demand the audiences love. “Oh you hate our movies? It’s definitely not our fault, it must be because you’re just a hater and a toxic fan.”

ffsm8 2y ago
From reading the headline, that was my first thought too... But after reading the article, I don't think that he's even touching on that? He's taking about how the culture of >fandom< itself is toxic to a society - among other reasons, because it creates unhealthy habits that spread beyond media consumption (he's naming politics specifically) I honestly think he's onto something, even though I also agree with critical thinkers point that the fans aren't particularly toxic, the recent productions are just shit or at least shouldn't be associated with the IPs they're being associated with
- cocacola1 2y ago
  This reminds me of when Hollywood got pissed at Ted Turner because he decided to colorize some movies. They're movies. Anyone spewing toxicity over them needs therapy.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    It does lead back to fans making the product/media as part of their identity (which is something Hollywood, Disney etc absolutely fosters and tries to spread!). At that point, changing this product/media effectively becomes an attack on their identity, which they understandably react strongly against. It's kinda feels like a "you reap what you sow" situation in the context of media. But if it rationalizes such behavior in other areas such as politics (which I think he's right on), then it really does become a much bigger issue for our society in general

xtiansimon 2y ago

> “…poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement.” > “…liking something is OK. You don’t need the machete or the megaphone.” I feel this very strongly in terms of BIG (work) TRUCKS not used for work. Those big trucks with Marvel’s The Punisher themed graphics, flat/matte paints, military-inspired details (I’m thinking of a particular bumper style), and most of all comic inspired details: blacked out windows—so much easier to draw, so much the worse for actual driving. Main character syndrome in the worst way. Just go for a walk or bicycle ride or ride your motorcycle on a Saturday in the greater NYC area and you’ll know exactly how I feel ...

histories 2y ago

Every time I read some Alan Moore interview, I find myself agreeing with him. Also his masterclass on writing was great to listen to, and I'm not interested in writing. His ideas about writing/creation = magic have stuck with me. He's always lucid, and clear, and has a stark sense of observation. One of my favorites: https://alanmooreworld.blogspot.com/2019/11/moore-on-jerusalem-eternalism-anarchy.html https://alanmooreworld.blogspot.com/2019/11/moore-on-jerusal... Here's an excerpt: ---- What was the impact of popular heroes comic books in our culture? Why are people fascinated by alternative realities? I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum. The superheroes themselves – largely written and drawn by creators who have never stood up for their own rights against the companies that employ them, much less the rights of a Jack Kirby or Jerry Siegel or Joe Schuster – would seem to be largely employed as cowardice compensators, perhaps a bit like the handgun on the nightstand. I would also remark that save for a smattering of non-white characters (and non-white creators) these books and these iconic characters are still very much white supremacist dreams of the master race. In fact, I think that a good argument can be made for D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation as the first American superhero movie, and the point of origin for all those capes and masks. ----

throw4847285 2y ago
When I read quotes like that, I realize how much Moore must have idolized Michael Moorcock when he was young (and maybe still does). It's reminiscent of Epic Pooh, Moorcock's essay about Tolkien and epic fantasy more broadly. Though, if we're being honest, I like the critique of the immaturity of genre fiction more when Moore makes it. That might just be because I think Moore is the better writer, but I haven't read nearly as much Moorcock so it isn't exactly fair.