I'm just surprised at how many 21st century readers seem to agree with the mid-1950s censors who crippled US comics for a generation by a literal rule that "good must always triumph over evil."
Well, it might seem that way to a person who didn't recognize the difference between wanting only stories in which good triumphed and wanting only stories in which evil were never treated as something other than evil.
LoL. Your craft skills fabricating with straw are truly outstanding.
Ah, no. Using the word “seem”, you set-up a straw-man. I noted the least implausible way for things to seem as you proposed them to seem. Of course, I didn't assert that you were sincere in your claim of how things seemed; an announcement that you were just taking a cheap shot wouldn't contradict me at all.
We do seem to agree that in this series the author seems to want us to admire a character who acts like a piece of shit,
No, I don't go that far. The writer seems to want to lead the audience to sympathy. Whether she'll want us to admire that character is unclear to me.
and that’s bad writing, however.
Indeed, wanting us to admire such a character would be bad writing, because prescribing with a broken moral compass is bad writing. And, for the same reason, wanting us to sympathize with a character who behaves as she does is bad writing. And wanting to normalize some of the behavior in the other series was bad writing.
Nearly any reader will accept a story in which what he or she regards as goodness does not triumph, and instead what the reader regards as evil is successful, if the reader is still somehow led to believe that a perverse morality is not being advanced. (In the simplest such cases, the message is that goodness faces a very great challenge.)
last edited at Dec 1, 2021 9:07AM