Quixotic Good

Pursuing Soaring Pinnacles of harmless eccentricity

9 notes

mmmarvel asked: I have no problem with Thor being a woman but if you like the Thor character as he was, if the traditional form of the character is intrinsic to your enjoyment, there will be a 100% less of it in the near future. Same with Steve Rogers Cap. I also feel that some fans feel pressure not to reward experimentation less their interest in the new stories be mistaken for a desire for long term or permanent change. It has less to with gender and race than it does a deviation from the status quo.

brevoortformspring:

So as long as we stick with this depiction of the character, everything will be fine then!

20,941 notes

johndarnielle:

giraffepoliceforce:

Still pretty proud of my response to this.

I loved Marvel comics when I was a kid; I was a weird kid who didn’t get down with macho stuff, in part because of the general scene in my house & in part because I was scrawny and couldn’t really front like I was tough. In my tiny limited-to-my-personal-friends-and-surroundings comics scene, the idea that macho norm-enforcer types could be into comics would have come as a huge and deeply disappointing surprise; comics, in my mind, were for people who’d already begun to sense that, in the immortal words of Anti-Flag, “their system doesn’t work for you.”
I hope Marvel systematically “ruins” absolutely every one of their legacy characters forever, one after another, and then D.C. runs a Sgt. Rock miniseries where he renounces violence as a means of conflict resolution. May the grousing of the macho comics dudes ascend to Heaven forever and make an acceptable sacrifice unto Galactus

johndarnielle:

giraffepoliceforce:

Still pretty proud of my response to this.

I loved Marvel comics when I was a kid; I was a weird kid who didn’t get down with macho stuff, in part because of the general scene in my house & in part because I was scrawny and couldn’t really front like I was tough. In my tiny limited-to-my-personal-friends-and-surroundings comics scene, the idea that macho norm-enforcer types could be into comics would have come as a huge and deeply disappointing surprise; comics, in my mind, were for people who’d already begun to sense that, in the immortal words of Anti-Flag, “their system doesn’t work for you.”

I hope Marvel systematically “ruins” absolutely every one of their legacy characters forever, one after another, and then D.C. runs a Sgt. Rock miniseries where he renounces violence as a means of conflict resolution. May the grousing of the macho comics dudes ascend to Heaven forever and make an acceptable sacrifice unto Galactus

73 notes

mallelis:

"Well, here we are, at the lighthouse." It had been a wonderful day, walking to the lighthouse.

- “To The Lighthouse,” Virginia Woolf

5 notes

http://tomato-greens.tumblr.com/post/92478010271/quixoticgood-said-serious-talk-though-why-is

tomato-greens:

quixoticgood said:

Serious talk though, why is imprecision at all attractive in and of itself? Like, I totally get “all art is useless” as this quasi poetic expression of a range of ideas but the statement as such is a falsehood, if not a lie. That doesn’t bug you?

Like, I’m…

1) Well… okay. So I think we’re conflating two different definitions of precise (and two of imprecise). When I’m referring to precision, I’m not necessarily referring to specificity. What I’m referring to is the ways in which meanings and expressions relate to each other. I can be very precise in expressing an idea and that idea will be one that, by nature, accounts for a wide range of ambiguity. For example, suppose I were to say “I just picked a random number between 1 and 100”. That’s a very precise statement in the sense of corresponding precisely to the idea I’m aiming to express, while still containing a great deal of ambiguity.

But to get a little closer to the realm of things we’re discussing, let’s talk about the terms “a little” or “a lot”. These are different from ideas like “1-100” because they’re just as blurry at the boundaries as they are at the center. Not only can “a lot” encompass a wide range of quantities, but the range has no clear cutoff point on either end and varies drastically dependent on context. “A lot” in terms of the population of a medieval city is very different compared to a modern city. But I can still be clear about the reasons why I’m using those terms in a given context, and I can be clear about the range of meanings I’m attempting to convey.

And this is actually the kind of precision that always struck me as being kind of lacking in Wilde. Like, Shakespeare has always struck me as being extremely precise in expressing ambiguity. Was Brutus a good man? I don’t know. Did he do the right thing, considering his circumstances? I don’t know. Was Caesar’s death good for the republic? Shrug. Was Caesar’s death a sign of his shortcomings as a politician or administrator or did he just have a bad luck of the draw? Who knows, man. Same question: Brutus. Double shrug. And we could go on like this for several pages.

Wilde has always struck me as imprecise in this sense, more than in the other one. The literal surface level meanings of his statements are actually extremely precise, besides being categorically false. “All art is useless” being a pretty clear example. I know exactly what it means, and I have several hundred counterexamples to it sitting in my room right now.

And… that actually pretty much encapsulates the extent of my annoyance with Wilde? It’s surface level. I know he’s trying to get to deeper things and/or stir up uncertainty, both of which are projects I have a great deal of respect for as both a student of analytic philosophy and as a person broadly. But the casual conflating of literal and figurative meaning, or the glib mutilation of literal meaning in the name of the figurative, is something that I’m very wary about. But mainly because I’m wary of sloppy thinking in general.

2) Well… let’s be fair here. I did say “the statement as such” is a falsehood if not a lie, and that’s what I’m talking about here. Like I said, I have several hundred counterexamples in my room to the statement that all art is useless. I have a shit ton of books and games and I know exactly what I need them for.

“All art is useless”—both the statement by itself and taken in the context of the larger quote it came out of as well as Dorian Grey as a whole, is a sentiment that I agree with to a pretty significant extent when taken figuratively, which you pretty much have to.

But framed in the terms that you put it, Wilde not only had a pretty express purpose for his approach to and definition of art, but it was a pretty resoundingly political purpose. So whenever Wilde claims to be apolitical or amoral, I bristle a little bit. Because I’m not completely convinced he’s always kidding, or that he’s completely aware that the statements he makes that convey truth via subtext are pretty unequivocally false in terms of their text. Or that he cares. Because again, sloppy thinking.

3) I literally have no idea what this is in response to. Like, questioning conventional definitions of terms is one of my favorite pastimes? I kind of can’t figure out what you think my thesis is. 

2,704 notes

http://blog.franchesca.net/post/92284138012/insaneofdeath-chescaleigh-insaneofdeath

chescaleigh:

lizislazy:

If you automatically give the benefit of the doubt even to potential racists but not to potential and actual victims of racism, you are racist. If your first instinct is to invent a scenario in which something racist is okay rather than to support and listen to the person the racist thing directly effects, you’re racist. If you trip over yourself in a rush to defend things that individual POC find racist, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

I went to bold one sentance and then just bolded the entire thing.

This conversation

(Source: implied-wisdom)