Messages

 

I have no shame in aggressively calling out a post that seems to me to have gross implications.  I never imagined my efforts would amount to a monumental waste of time through such dismissiveness and disengagement. 

I guess I can't win them all.

Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements.  As in, defending racism.

Profoundly no.

Actually yes, defending racism is defending racism.  I worry that you didn't see the obvious point to what I wrote there.  I thought I was being condescending and it probably didn't need pointing out.  Well done for proving me wrong in that regard, at the very least.

Stripping a dialogue about the past context of the content of its modern context is a totalising logic.

What?  This is incoherent.  I have no idea what point is being addressed here.  Neither do I see the point trying to be made.  Stripping dialogue?  Are you referring to the edited version DM?  Are you suggesting that DM should have racist dialogue and caricatures because fiction about the past shouldn't be written in modern contexts?  Either way, you are grossly wrong and I've already stated why.

Nobody is defending racism either now or then.

As for this.  At first I thought you meant on the forum and in this discussion specifically.  But you write "now or then".  Very general statement.  Nobody is defending racism either now or then.  Then how is there the racism NOW and THEN?  Do you think people do it by accident?  Yes, people did defend racism and they still do.  Fucking hell, I can barely begin with how awful your sentence here is.

If you did mean specifically on the forum then I didn't make that accusation so your point is moot, regardless.

I have read and re-read this post countless times to see if I'm getting the wrong impression from it and every time I look at it from a different angle (which is hard because it looks like a fart of a thought) it just gets worse.  I really thought I was preaching to choir, but apparently not.  Your post, BPP, is really gross.  The Forum deserves better.

Now I concede I may be doing you wrong here and I'm not going to apologise for it because I found your post highly distasteful and offensive in what is messily being implied by it.  I have no shame in calling out this kind of garbage, whether it was your intent or not.

A lot of fictional works, much celebrated, are seen dated now. So I think it's valid when someone defenses it with "it was the times". Because that's how it was.

Defending a piece of work because it is outdated and thus of it's time can be legitimate.  For example, the writing style of Darkie's Mob is of it's time. 

Specifically the racist elements, no.  Firstly, defending the racist elements as being of their time is defending the racist elements.  As in, defending racism. 

Secondly, it gives a pass to racism of the past because it was the past and they didn't know any better.  One is ignoring all the voices of that time that suffered from and were against racism.  Anti-racism and civil right campaigners have been at it for centuries now.  For those that were ignorant, it's still not defendable.

Thirdly, it's not of it's time, it's right now as well.  Racism hasn't ended.  This is still a problem we face.  It is still relevant and it is still current. 

I'm going to assume you didn't mean specifically the racist elements, but I do feel it important to really stress this point.

In the war specifically, hardly you'd save a dear words for your enemy, who probably thinks about you the same. I read Ennis' Adventures in the Rifle Brigade and it's devilishly entertaining stuff, full of Ennis' quirkness and dark humor. And the soldiers call Germans (Nazis) - Jerry, Fritz, Kraut, as they did in real life. In Vietnam, it was changed to "gook, yellow bastard etc". Then again, there is always the question of how much of real life should be incorporated into a work of a fiction, comic book or otherwise. And you have to balance the two. If anybody read The Shadow Blood and Judgement by Howard Chaykin, you could see overt sexist tones, even for a comic released in 1986. But Chaykin said he just tried to do the justice to the character whose mindset is still in the 1930s. But I think it's important to have these works as we could observe them catching the zeitgeist of times they were set or are about.

Sure, like I said, if you're going to do something with it, it might have value and could be justified.

From what I saw of DM and what has been said so far, I feel confident that DM is just using racist language and imagery in... an exploitative manner, I guess.  The racism in DM can't be excused as realistic because it doesn't hold up in context.  It wasn't the intent of the author, it is not required for the tone of the story (re no swearing), it is a comic that was targeted towards children etc. 

Charley's War was brought up (which I have read quite a bit of).  That is not a realistic depiction of WWI despite drawing upon many real elements.  It is hyperbolic.  Nevertheless, the real elements are included in service to a point.  It's a long time since I read it, but I don't remember the depictions of German soldiers being racist caricatures, either.  I think the depictions were more sympathetic in places.

I also neglected to point out that "Darkie" is a racial slur that is still being used.  So there's that, as well.

... you have to understand not only the time it was first printed but that's how the soldiers would have spoken at the time the story was set.

Yes, it's a funny one, and weirdly comic-specific. A historical novel, film or TV series set in WW2 that has a few instances of soldiers being less-than-PC towards their foes is probably never going to face too much criticism for that.

Any argument about historically accurate dialogue in kids war comics falls at the first hurdle because none of them are swearing like the fucking troopers they are.

Have mixed feelings about this. Any work of art or entertainment is a product of the social attitudes of its time as much as its creators own ideas. So, on the one hand, I don't think editing out stuff like this is particularly useful as you're partly denying to a future reader that it ever happened. From that point of view actually leaving it as is and having this conversation about it is greater evidence of progress. On the other hand, I'm not the one being abused in the dialogue.

Colin's point about the stereotypes of those characters is perhaps more important but othering the enemy to make them seem inhuman and only to be destroyed is the entire purpose of wars and armies.

Conclusion: "And I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend the day despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and viciousness of all mankind.
"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns."

Good points here.

I feel one should be careful about dismissing these issues as being of their time or being realistic.  FYI I didn't read Darkie's Mob.  I started the Megazine reprint, said "yikes!" to myself and didn't carry on reading it.

If the story explored the nature of war and the dehumanising of the "enemy", then there is certainly value to be had, as it is engaging with the problem.  If it doesn't, it is the problem.  It's just the thing.  To be pedantic, the very nature of fiction negates realism.  For instance, all the mundanity and inaction is excised for the sake of a paced narrative (usually).  There are also choices as to what realistic aspects to include and what not to include re. the point about swearing.  Darkie's Mob didn't need the racism and the fact soldiers can be racist in and of itself does not justify the racism. 

It being of it's time is rather dismissive of the problems as well.  Even in the 70's there were anti-racist and civil rights movements.  As with today, there wasn't one unified social attitude and also as with today, the voices of those marginalised are not given the same volume as those that marginalise.  It is not a product of it's time, it's a product of ignorance. 

I think it's fair to say that John Wagner was writing in a time when he didn't know better and I think it is good that he recognises the problems now that he does know better. 

Whether it should be changed to remove the racism, I don't know.  It's already out there with the racism.  Still, those who it harms might like to enjoy the story without feeling attacked by it.

I couldn't get into Darkie's Mob, myself, but I have enjoyed lots of other problematic media.  It's kinda inescapable, really.  I guess if you like the old boy's comic style of writing* of a military conflict in a real world setting with a story that has parallels with Bad Company, you'll probably like Darkie's Mob.

I also hope no one feels like I'm calling them out with my post.  My experience with Forum so far has been largely positive in these regards and I've not had much call to doubt you are all fine people.  I just want to point out the potential certain takes have of developing into apologia because I think it has value in discussions of this nature.

*This was the other reason I stopped reading.  I find the style hard to read so I need a big sell to get me through it.  Struggling to read something offensive isn't fun for me.

[Mortal Kombat]

Mortal Kombat

Not as good as last year's animation, better than the '95 outing.  I'm still very unsure about the new character that's not from the game.  The movie is hard to think about because it does come across as a feature length prologue.  If there is a sequel then I'm interest in seeing what they do.  If there isn't, this film is somewhat a waste of time.  Not the first time that's happened.  Looking at you, Warcraft.

Gunn's Suicide Squad 2 looks like it'll land in the same ballpark as those and I keep hoping (against hope!) that this will be the direction that DC's movies will take over the angst and pseudo-psychological drama of Joker and the Snyder JL cut.

Amen to that. 

I've got superhero fatigue.  Lost total interest in the MCU.  DC are still a mixed bag.  I'll consider watching Suicide Squad 2 and maybe whatever weird trash Sony dumps out (I liked Venom... I liked Tom Hardy in Venom).  Otherwise I probably be avoiding them.

The more times I watch Starship Troopers the less of the satirical I can see.  The first time I watched it I thought it was biting, but every time since I have question that more and more.

I get the point of comparing those properties with Falling Down, but I don't think Falling Down is satire specifically.  I think it's a grim film about a horrible man.  Nevertheless, I see the parallels. 

I don't know much about The Punisher.  I've only watched the three films and they certainly aren't satire or misunderstood.  Still enjoyable as trashy movies, though.

Now you might justifiably argue that I'm supposed to find him completely unsympathetic, but that is most definitely not the way the film was promoted, widely received or indeed entered the vocabulary of popular culture.

I'm glad I've never been exposed to any of that.  I first watched the film on recommendation without knowing a single thing about it.  I found the character unsympathetic and really thought that was the point, especially as it kept escalating, showing how self-aware he wasn't and just what a piece of shit he is.  That was just me taking it at face value.

I didn't really get into SG1 to begin with either.  I'm not sure what spurred me on to give it another go, but I ended up appreciating it for what it is.  Silly and dumb.

I couldn't watch all of Atlantis.  It just wasn't particularly entertaining.

[SG:U]

I finished watching SG:U.  It was a show with whole heaps of promise to it.  It utilises the lore of the franchise really well in places, but at other times it's a hindrance.  Especially the pro-military thing, which I don't think works as well with this premise.  I would have liked to see them explore ideas and concepts that they set.  The ethics around using the communication stones, for one.

I also don't like that it is made beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are supposed to be empathising and supporting the incompetent leader, Colonel Young.  He's the Captain Janeway of the SG franchise.  There are places where it is clear that different writers handle different episodes because characterisation fluctuates, so we are left with all these threads left hanging in the air and never addressed.

So it was a clumsy show, but some of the ideas they did explore were done really well.  Robert Carlyle is fantastic in this show.  The rest of the cast are a mixed bag.

It was cut short too soon and had so much potential.  A third season would have shown whether it could stand shoulder to shoulder with the best TV sci-fi or whether it had used up all the inspiration they had for the concept.  We'll never know.  For what it is, I'd say it's very good.

I'm now rewatching SG1

[Mr and Mrs Smith]

Mr and Mrs Smith

This film has little value beyond the action.  Nevertheless, I enjoy the action and I like watching this film when I want something that doesn't require too much attention.  The plot is paper thin, the characters are bland, the framing is muddled.  The pacing is good and as I said, so is the action. 

Yeah, it does really hit the ground running.  The first three seasons are top quality.

Saw that one covered on Scaredy Cats.  Looked like a lot of fun.  It's on my list.

[1. tomwe #32. Dark Jimbo3. Woolly #2]

I considered rolling dice to decide for me, but in the end I made the very difficult selection myself.

1. tomwe #3
2. Dark Jimbo
3. Woolly #2

HM: Bolt-01

I used to own Battle for Endor on VHS.  I enjoyed it as a kid, quite a lot.  I also asked for a copy of Howard the Duck as a kid because I enjoyed that, too.  Take that how you will.

I have never seen Caravan of Courage, but I now have it, Battle for Endor and Howard the Duck, but I'm too afraid to watch them.