· Posted: 21 May 2007 13:20 · Edited by: jock123
Congratulations, dalidali. You allow your own prejudices and narrow-minded thinking completely destroy any ability to appreciate a story.
You appear to have taken a very high-handed tone, Aristotle, which doesn’t serve your argument well, I’m afraid - it might be that you are allowing your own prejudices and narrowmindedness to cloud what you say; however I don’t know you, just like you don’t know dalidali, so I wouldn’t presume to condescend to you in such a manner.
What's most pathetic about this whole post of yours is that what offends you most is the idea that Tintin could possibly be homosexual. Oh, how scary. Save us from the scary gay people. Seriously, dude, get past your prejudices.
No that isn’t necessarily the point at all; the sexualization for sensation of a childrens’ character is possibly unacceptable, regardless of sexual orientation. Those who seek to sensationalize sexuality - even in real life, with real people – often seek to make greater issue of the matter by presenting a person as homosexual. Tintin has been subjected to both hetrosexual and homosexual interpretations, and in both cases it has been seen by some as an unnecessary and inappropriate advance.
May I remind you that Captain Haddock has ALWAYS been a has-been drunkard. That's his character, and for those of us who were actually READING the stories, that's why we loved him.
Well again, there is in fact more readings of this than just your opinion.
I think that the character has always been a sort of redemption figure, and that his humanity has been invested with greater resonance by being someone who, far from being a has-been, comes to realise his worth, and gets away from his problems through making a difference in the world.
Whenever the Captain goes back to the bottle, he gets into trouble.
When he stays away, he is often heroic. In my view, the Captain is loveable not because he is a has-been drunk, but because he picks himself up and gets over it.
The charcter in Tuten is far more like the figure slumped at the table in the cabin in Crab than the rest of the series in which he stops being that figure, and becomes something far better, so in that sense the rendering in New World is a retrograde step, as rather than making some new telling point about the Captain, he just ignores the journey the character has been on, and in a rather lazy fashion just makes the figure a stock drunk, as if he hadn’t actually read the books at all.
Likewise, Snowy was originally conceived as a character to crack wise and serve as a foil to Tintin's relentless optimism. Snowy became more comic relief-oriented ONLY after Haddock was introduced.That you can only perceive this to be an attempt at creating an "anti-hero" further betrays your complete lack of ability to understand art.
Why? Why not just see that as a different position to your own? It also has to be said that the novel han’t really been a critical success either, so for whatever reason, perhaps the fault isn’t in not recognizing the brilliance of the novel, but as seeing art where there is in fact none (“Look at the King! Look at the King”)
The story is attempting to re-examine Tintin, as well as the adventure-story archetype, in a new, more abstract manner. We all know Tintin isn't real, and that his adventures probably could never take place. They're cartoony. And even if they weren't, a kid doesn't stay the same age for 60 years. So what happened when Tintin finally grew up? Well, here's one possibility.
Exactly. And dalidali has looked at it and found it wanting - surely a proper response to a piece of art? Surely the point of art is to provoke a response, and this is what it has done; at least he isn’t ambivelent about it.
Add to that that an attempt to bolt a “real” dynamic onto a “cartoony” character might be doomed to failure anyway, and perhaps Tuten just didn’t have a good idea to build from. That’s just another point of view, by the way, I don’t feel compelled to belittle your own alternate position.
If it helps your tiny brain comprehend the story,
There really isn’t any need to be rude - you have yet to show your own intellectual credentials are greater or better than anyone elses, and stooping to name-calling makes it hard to take you and your philosophical handle seriously as a great thinker of the age. Let’s keep things on a higher level than that, please.
look at it as if it were an "Elseworlds" story, a possible future, an interesting musing.
I agree with you that there is certainly room to make that comparison, but only so far as that what one person finds interesting another will be bored to tears by; you couldn’t pay me enough to sit through a football match. So it is up to the individual to decide whether they find the novel interesting, because you can’t dictate for that, and you certainly can’t make that assumption for dalidli.
Personally I think a far better alternate universe was to be found in the DC Comics tale in which the repercussions of a small non-aligned Balkan state being in possession of an atomic rocket capable of reaching the moon a good decade before the super-powers were in such a position was played out as an apocalyptic drama; it still managed to extrapolate a “real” story with resonance, without having to reconcile a “realistic” environment to the “cartoony” world of the original.
Thank God no one got this upset when DC Comics published a trilogy of graphic novels featuring an alternate-universe Batman eventually being defeated and assimilated by vampires. Thank God no one got this upset when Luke Skywalker briefly dabbled in the Dark Side in Dark Horse Comics' "Dark Empire" miniseries
Again, why? Surely a neutral response is artistic death? You also would have to show that there was any real enthusiasm for the Elseworlds approach over the mainstream one, that they equalled or excelled the success of the main series. A lack of success could be read as tacit disapproval; personally I find the Elseworlds approach to be highly variable in terms of merit, and I don’t know that it is true to say that no-one got upset by these books - how do you know?
The public's the best critic, huh? I guess that means that Britney Spears is the pinnacle of pop music perfection, Audioslave is way better than Rage Against the Machine, George Bush is a legitimate leader, and Tintin sucks in the U.S. Just based on public opinion, mind you.
That’s a very selective approach, isn’t it? “Pop” music is what is popular (“of the people”), so if that’s what they buy, that is the de facto standard. There are many ways to define what is good and successful, and sheer bulk sales/ financial reward is one of them, without a doubt. And although I can’t say I have ever bothered to buy or even really listen to Ms. Spears, I can strongly recommend the re-interpretation of Oops! I Did it Again by folk legend Richard Thompson, which he listed as one of the greatest pop-songs of the last millennium, and he knows a thing or two about music.
You’ve also chosen to pit Rage Against the Machine against Audioslave, but it is a very personal selection isn’t it? Many people, both learned and the great unwashed will never have heard of either of them, or may consider neither of them to be real music, if they think of them even as worthy of consideration in the first place. So what you present as absolute values others might see as no value at all - it’s all relative.
The appraisal of critics and analysts does not automatically confer merit upon something; popular opinion is not automatically wrong. Charles Dickens was a popular success years before he was critically acclaimed, and even then Edmund Wilson was only saying what the masses already knew, his criticism wasn’t needed to make Dickens great.
But what the hell is the problem with those feelings? You name me one person who HASN'T felt angst, anger, resentment, disillusion, and depression, and I'll name you someone who hasn't lived.
Well yes, but Tintin didn’t live, did he? You said so yourself earlier. His make-up is exactly that of someone who literally doesn’t have a care in the world, isn’t it, so to change that is to create something which isn’t, by definition, Tintin? To stick the Tintin name on another character could be seen as both ineffectual and frankly wrong. It’s a bit like owning the thousand year old hammer in the joke, which has over the years had a dozen new heads and two dozen new handles - it ceases to be what it started out to be.
yes, it may be the author projecting those feelings onto Tintin, but the fact that you're so offended by the possibility that the fictional character of Tintin might feel the same seems to be a projection of your own deep-seated repressions of the same feelings.
No again I beg to differ - your inability to allow for the fact that taking a children’s character and applying any sexualization to it could be seen as a step too far (akin to the feelies and sex-play for children depicted in Huxley’s Brave New World) is to deny dalidali a valid and fair opinion.
Also you are actually denying the possibility that dalidali’s response is the one that Tuten wanted - it is a book which to me seems designed to push buttons, and this is what it has done.
I am reminded of Sir Ian McKellen talking very eloquently on why he understands homophobia - because he recognizes it in himself; he knows that there is a part of him which could react irrationally to things which are not within his own world picture. Perhaps that is what Mr. Tuten was looking to outline, and your passivity in response to the book is in fact a lack in yourself in some way, or indicative of your inabilty to see some nuance which dalidali is sensitive to? [Continued below.]