Mystique and the Tsunami meltdown
kingalt
sucking all the Tsunami books down into the Abysss.
I'm actually surprised some of them have started a second arc. Is there
relly any hope for Teen-Namor or Teen-Torch? Or will they go the way of
Teen-Tony? A classic example of not learning from past mistakes.
Stefan
news:0bRob.52603$vX.89...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Torch is set in present day.
Stefan
Sean Walsh
news:0bRob.52603$vX.89...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
is
> sucking all the Tsunami books down into the Abysss.
Considering it's sales are MUCH better than the rest of the line, I'd gather
it will survive intact.
> I'm actually surprised some of them have started a second arc. Is
there
> relly any hope for Teen-Namor or Teen-Torch? Or will they go the way of
> Teen-Tony? A classic example of not learning from past mistakes.
I think most have been given at least 12 issues (RUNAWAYS has 18!). After
that, I'm sure the grim reaper will be slashing away at Tsunami...
--
Sean
My webpage: http://www.Sean-Walsh.com
Quantum Piett! http://www.geocities.com/quantumpiett/
¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤°`°¤ø
Paul O'Brien
<s.da...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>
>Torch is set in present day.
For the benefit of anyone who's confused: issue #1 of HUMAN TORCH was a
flashback story set in his schooldays. Issue #2 onwards take place in
mainstream continuity.
Personally, I question the wisdom of opening with a flashback issue.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
W. Blaine Dowler
> I'm actually surprised some of them have started a second arc.
The idea was to have something that sold in bookstores, not necessarily in
comic shops (although I'm sure they'll gladly take both if they can get
them.) So, they continue long enough to see how volume 1 fares on
bookstore shelves.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I
have seen the shadow on the Moon, and I have more faith in a shadow
than in the Church.
- Ferdinand Magellan
starblood
news:vkItSNE+kCp$Ew...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In message <XRRob.6849$P%1.58...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, Stefan
> <s.da...@sbcglobal.net> writes
> >
> >Torch is set in present day.
>
> For the benefit of anyone who's confused: issue #1 of HUMAN TORCH was a
> flashback story set in his schooldays. Issue #2 onwards take place in
> mainstream continuity.
It's hard to tell how old the characters are when they don't even look
human.
kingalt
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vkItSNE+kCp$Ew...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> <s.da...@sbcglobal.net> writes
> >
> >Torch is set in present day.
>
> For the benefit of anyone who's confused: issue #1 of HUMAN TORCH was a
> flashback story set in his schooldays. Issue #2 onwards take place in
> mainstream continuity.
>
> Personally, I question the wisdom of opening with a flashback issue.
>
> --
Oh, that explains it. I never got passed the preview of the first issue! i
thoiught it was teen all the way!
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: It's hard to tell how old the characters are when they don't even look
: human.
If your point is that manga or anime-influenced styles have no place in superhero comics,
you're about ten years late.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Logic is the poor man's fantasy.
--
[Please note: This is a Usenet message, originally posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.
If you see it in a moderated or censored forum, it was copied there without my consent.]
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: The idea was to have something that sold in bookstores, not necessarily in
: comic shops (although I'm sure they'll gladly take both if they can get
: them.) So, they continue long enough to see how volume 1 fares on
: bookstore shelves.
That was the original idea, yes. Since right now it appears there won't be a prolonged
life on bookstore shelves for most of the Tsunami titles, however, that should be a moot
point. Except maybe for RUNAWAYS and SENTINEL, which universally get good word of mouth,
it's presumably time to swim or drown for Tsunami.
I'm not seeing much hope for NAMOR or HUMAN TORCH, for example.
W. Blaine Dowler
> That was the original idea, yes. Since right now it appears there won't
> be a prolonged life on bookstore shelves for most of the Tsunami titles,
> however, that should be a moot point. Except maybe for RUNAWAYS and
> SENTINEL, which universally get good word of mouth, it's presumably time
> to swim or drown for Tsunami.
>
> I'm not seeing much hope for NAMOR or HUMAN TORCH, for example.
Based on sales numbers (which I admit to not watching too closely) I'd say
that, of the April set, Namor and Human Torch will be the first to go.
Runaways and Sentinel will hover on the brink until the book numbers come
back. (I might try to pick up Runaways based solely on word of mouth, and
it's apparant status as an excellent book with dangerously low readership.
I'm still a bit irritated that I can't get the trade paperback I was
planning to order, though.) Mytique probably has the most life in it;
strong word of mouth, and decent numbers. Venom will outlast Namor and
Human Torch, not necessarily because it's better, but because it started
with sales so much higher that it'll take longer to fall to the
unacceptable levels.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that
there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the
evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on
the werewolf question.
- John McCarthy
starblood
news:bo2vub$34h$1...@online.de...
> starblood wrote:
>
> : It's hard to tell how old the characters are when they don't even look
> : human.
>
> If your point is that manga or anime-influenced styles have no place in
superhero comics,
> you're about ten years late.
No, that's not my point at all. I love manga and I don't see how the art on
Human Torch is influenced by it at all.
My point, of course, is that terrible art has no place in superhero comics.
Does that make me dated as well?
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: My point, of course, is that terrible art has no place in superhero comics.
What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
kingalt
>
> : It's hard to tell how old the characters are when they don't even look
> : human.
>
> If your point is that manga or anime-influenced styles have no place in
superhero comics,
> you're about ten years late.
>
> --
Thats really putting words in his mouth! What the heck is your problem?
starblood
> starblood wrote:
>
> : My point, of course, is that terrible art has no place in superhero
comics.
>
> What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
My god, I think it's the worst I have seen in 25 years of reading comics.
What's good about it?
Brian C. Saunders
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>starblood wrote:
>
>: My point, of course, is that terrible art has no place in superhero comics.
>
>What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
>
>--
>Marc-Oliver Frisch
>Dersc...@hotmail.com
>
>Logic is the poor man's fantasy.
Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much? Why is it
that any criticism of the pseudo manga titles that Marvel puts out
meet with the instant assumptions? And who are you to care so much as
to defend a major corporation that would just as well ignore your
tastes as suit them? Why do you care?
Brian
Ralf Haring
>
>: My point, of course, is that terrible art has no place in superhero comics.
>
>What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
Well, personally, I find it hard to read when my eyes start bleeding
profusely. ;-)
-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
-Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon
Janus
news:me8bqvka0fup7o749...@4ax.com:
> Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much? Why is it
> that any criticism of the pseudo manga titles that Marvel puts out
> meet with the instant assumptions? And who are you to care so much as
> to defend a major corporation that would just as well ignore your
> tastes as suit them? Why do you care?
>
> Brian
>
You defend starblood's opinion but disrespect Marc Oliver Frischs'? The man
was not defending Marvel, (imo), he was defending what he liked. "Why do
you care?" If you dislike Marvel so much don't buy the books. (It's the
simple motto I live by).
--
The head of the English department asked me, "Do you read any crap?"
And I said, no, in that insufferable high school manner, no doubt.
And he said, "You need to read more crap."
The point was to read more for entertainment and for fun.
GAIL SIMONE
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
:
: My god, I think it's the worst I have seen in 25 years of reading comics.
That's no answer to my question, so I presume you're not interested in letting me know
where you're coming from.
That said, it doesn't appear you've read a lot of comics in the last 25 years.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Insert shallowly witty signature line here.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much?
When did you stop beating your wife?
: Why is it
: that any criticism of the pseudo manga titles that Marvel puts out
: meet with the instant assumptions?
What assumptions?
: And who are you to care so much as
: to defend a major corporation that would just as well ignore your
: tastes as suit them? Why do you care?
I don't think I've been defending a corporation. Skottie Young's art was described as
being "terrible"; now, this being a discussion group, and since there doesn't seem to be
anything particularly wrong with the artwork to me, I'd like to know why.
What's the big deal?
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Insert shallowly witty signature line here.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: You defend starblood's opinion but disrespect Marc Oliver Frischs'? The man
: was not defending Marvel, (imo), he was defending what he liked.
Well, I don't particularly like Skottie Young's style, nor do I consider myself a big
manga fan. Matters of style and personal taste aside, however, Young seems to be a
perfectly competent artist and storyteller, so I'm curious as to what's supposed to be so
terribly wrong with it.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Insert shallowly witty signature line here.
--
Brian C. Saunders
>Brian C. Saunders <bsaund...@earthlink.DOTnet> wrote in
>news:me8bqvka0fup7o749...@4ax.com:
>
>> Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much? Why is it
>> that any criticism of the pseudo manga titles that Marvel puts out
>> meet with the instant assumptions? And who are you to care so much as
>> to defend a major corporation that would just as well ignore your
>> tastes as suit them? Why do you care?
>>
>> Brian
>>
>
>You defend starblood's opinion but disrespect Marc Oliver Frischs'?
That's an assumption.
The man
>was not defending Marvel, (imo), he was defending what he liked.
I'm not sure you were reading closely.
"Why do
>you care?" If you dislike Marvel so much don't buy the books. (It's the
>simple motto I live by).
Who said I disliked Marvel? Any corporation is going to make
controversal decision and mistakes. I merely feel it's a mistake to
assume because you agree with a corp.'s decision that it's a good one.
By the same token because you disagree doesn't mean that it's a bad
decision. Considering the sales of HUMAN TORCH, there seems to be
some errors.
Brian
Brian C. Saunders
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Brian C. Saunders wrote:
>
>: Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much?
>
>When did you stop beating your wife?
Guess you think I deserved that. You might have answered the question
though.
>
>: Why is it
>: that any criticism of the pseudo manga titles that Marvel puts out
>: meet with the instant assumptions?
>
>What assumptions?
The one you made about him criticizing the art due to it being manga
inspired.
>
>: And who are you to care so much as
>: to defend a major corporation that would just as well ignore your
>: tastes as suit them? Why do you care?
>
>I don't think I've been defending a corporation. Skottie Young's art was described as
>being "terrible"; now, this being a discussion group, and since there doesn't seem to be
>anything particularly wrong with the artwork to me, I'd like to know why.
Inasmuch as art is a key selling point of any comic related media, the
low sales of the title would seem to indicate something is wrong and
it may be the artwork. There are of course other factors, writing,
coloring and covers. Well, coloring seems to be ok, writing in line
with all the the other Marvel titles in terms of pacing and quality,
maybe a little better. That leaves the covers and art. If we exclude
them, that leaves one remaining I have not mentioned: character. I
personally think that Johnny Storm can't support a book, but since no
seems to be interrested in discussing that point, let's back up.
Skottie Young is too divorced from traditional manga style or the
traditional "American" style. It's not awful but not good enough to
sell the book, being neither fish nor fowl. Young needs to be steered
in either one direction or another, or create a book of his own to try
sell his style to the audience. What's being offered now isn't
working on HUMAN TORCH, IMO.
But of course, I still think Johnny Storm can't hold a title.
And I think criticism of art for any reason shouldn't be slammed just
because certain posters keep pointing at manga sales and insisting
that American comics be done similarly. I can't fault the reasoning
behind attempts by the Big Two to follow those sales, but imposing
that style on characters that aren't suited to them isn't going to
bring in sales. How about new characters and ideas instead?
Brian
Janus
@online.de:
> so I'm curious as to what's supposed to be so
> terribly wrong with it.
>
Fair enough, I tend to ask that of reviewers/critics frequently. However
alot of readers can't quantify their tastes. Ie. They either like it or
they don't, but they cant relate the reasons.
Janus
> That's an assumption.
>
Made from the reply's tone.
> The man
>>was not defending Marvel, (imo), he was defending what he liked.
>
> I'm not sure you were reading closely.
>
You're right, he actually wasn't defending either. He was making an
intelligent inquiry.
> "Why do
>>you care?" If you dislike Marvel so much don't buy the books. (It's the
>>simple motto I live by).
>
> Who said I disliked Marvel? Any corporation is going to make
> controversal decision and mistakes. I merely feel it's a mistake to
> assume because you agree with a corp.'s decision that it's a good one.
> By the same token because you disagree doesn't mean that it's a bad
> decision. Considering the sales of HUMAN TORCH, there seems to be
> some errors.
>
Once again, the tone of your earlier reply sounded like an attack on
Marvel critics. If I was wrong, I apologize. I agree with you comments on
a corporation's decisions. Afterall, Marvel's motive is to make money, as
a customer mine is in getting satisfaction from the product.
Kevin J. Maroney
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Janus wrote:
>
>: You defend starblood's opinion but disrespect Marc Oliver Frischs'? The man
>: was not defending Marvel, (imo), he was defending what he liked.
>
>Well, I don't particularly like Skottie Young's style, nor do I consider myself a big
>manga fan. Matters of style and personal taste aside, however, Young seems to be a
>perfectly competent artist and storyteller, so I'm curious as to what's supposed to be so
>terribly wrong with it.
I'll go further and say that Skottie Young's work on Human Torch had
virtues that American comic book art frequently lacks: It was easy to
tell the characters apart, and their emotional responses to events
were generally well-communicated by their expressions and body
language.
It wasn't representational in the way that, say, Don Heck was
representational, but it was pretty effective storytelling.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >: Why does starblood's opinion seem to threaten you so much?
: >
: >When did you stop beating your wife?
:
: Guess you think I deserved that. You might have answered the question
: though.
I can't answer your question, since I don't feel threatened much, and don't have any idea
where you got your impression from, either. Hence my analogous rebuttal.
: >What assumptions?
:
: The one you made about him criticizing the art due to it being manga
: inspired.
His original comment was that the characters "don't look like humans." Since I don't
believe anyone would really have a problem identifying Young's characters as humans, I
presumed that the poster has a beef with manga-inspired artwork in general, rather than
with the particular artist at hand. It's not exactly uncommon.
: Inasmuch as art is a key selling point of any comic related media, the
: low sales of the title would seem to indicate something is wrong and
: it may be the artwork.
No, the sales indicate that not a lot of people have given the book a try and/ or liked it
when they did so. Maybe that means that something's "wrong" with the book in commercial
terms, but nobody was talking about that.
: Skottie Young is too divorced from traditional manga style or the
: traditional "American" style. It's not awful but not good enough to
: sell the book, being neither fish nor fowl.
There's a profound difference between work being "bad" and it not being to your tastes.
If the style doesn't appeal to the target audience, that's a problem for sure, but that
says nothing whatsoever about whether the art is "good" or "bad." In order for it to be
"bad," you'd have to detect shortcomings in the storytelling, i.e. it doesn't manage to
communicate what's supposed to be going on in the story, it fails to suggest motion, or
you're not able to tell the characters apart.
If the other poster thinks there are such flaws, from his perspective, I would be curious
to hear them, because I didn't notice any myself. That's why I asked.
: And I think criticism of art for any reason shouldn't be slammed...
Could you point out where you think I "slammed" the other guy's comments?
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
Dersc...@hotmail.com
Insert shallowly witty signature line here.
--
starblood
> starblood wrote:
>
> : > What do you find so terrible about Young's art, then?
> :
> : My god, I think it's the worst I have seen in 25 years of reading
comics.
>
> That's no answer to my question, so I presume you're not interested in
letting me know
> where you're coming from.
The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not that he's trying to be
abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of drawing a figure, or a face, or
anything else.
Basically, it looks like a five year old is drawing it.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not that he's trying to be
: abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of drawing a figure, or a face, or
: anything else.
So it's just a matter of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as I suspected.
That's not the same as the artwork being "bad."
starblood
> starblood wrote:
>
> : The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not that he's trying to
be
> : abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of drawing a figure, or a face,
or
> : anything else.
>
> So it's just a matter of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as
I suspected.
> That's not the same as the artwork being "bad."
So really, there is no bad art.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: So really, there is no bad art.
Sure there is; it's just not necessarily the same as "art you don't like."
If you find that the artwork in HUMAN TORCH confused the hell out of you and failed to
tell you what on earth is supposed to be going on in the book, for example, or if you were
unable to tell whether Johnny is supposed to be on fire or not any given moment, then I
might still disagree with you vehemently, but I can understand why YOU'd think it's bad
art, since it clearly didn't do its job in your particular case.
But what you're saying is that you don't like the way Skottie Young draws faces and
figures, which brings things down to a simple matter of style and taste. (Unless you want
to postulate that comic book art which is not anatomically correct is ALWAYS "bad art," of
course, in which case I might disagree vehemently again, but understand that it's bad art
by YOUR standards, at least.)
Selaboc
> There's a profound difference between work being "bad" and it not being to your tastes.
Bad is in the eye of the beholder. I think the paintings of Jackson
Pollock (and all the other "abstract" artists) are bad art. Others
disagree, but that doesn't change what I view as good or bad in art.
> If the style doesn't appeal to the target audience, that's a problem for sure, but that
> says nothing whatsoever about whether the art is "good" or "bad."
So there is no such thing as bad art, just styles that aren't to your
taste?
> In order for it to be
> "bad," you'd have to detect shortcomings in the storytelling, i.e. it doesn't manage to
> communicate what's supposed to be going on in the story, it fails to suggest motion, or
> you're not able to tell the characters apart.
Maybe what you consider bad art only "fails to communicate" to you
because it's a style of art/storytelling that isn't to your tastes?
> If the other poster thinks there are such flaws, from his perspective, I would be curious
> to hear them, because I didn't notice any myself. That's why I asked.
since he said "The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not
that he's trying to be abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of
drawing a figure, or a face, or anything else." I guess the poor grasp
of human anatomy would count as a flaw or do you just consider poor
human anatomy in art depicting characters that are supposed to be
human looking as "good" art?
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>starblood wrote:
>
>: So really, there is no bad art.
>
>Sure there is; it's just not necessarily the same as "art you don't like."
>
>If you find that the artwork in HUMAN TORCH confused the hell out of you and failed to
>tell you what on earth is supposed to be going on in the book, for example, or if you were
>unable to tell whether Johnny is supposed to be on fire or not any given moment, then I
>might still disagree with you vehemently, but I can understand why YOU'd think it's bad
>art, since it clearly didn't do its job in your particular case.
Surely you can see the circular logic inherent in this. What you
consider to be confusing and lacking in storytelling ability, someone
else may consider to have been obscured purposely and to add deeper
layers to the art. In which case, you'd be the heathen who isn't
advanced enough to properly understand the genius of the work, as
opposed to the other way around.
Dan McEwen
news:0bRob.52603$vX.89...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> I really enjoy this title. i hope it survives the enormous rip-tide
> that is sucking all the Tsunami books down into the Abysss.
> I'm actually surprised some of them have started a second arc. Is
> there
> relly any hope for Teen-Namor or Teen-Torch? Or will they go the way
> of Teen-Tony? A classic example of not learning from past mistakes.
I'd say if Namor drastically changed direction it might survive. I
haven't read it since #2, and all indications are that I made the right
choice. I'm not aware of a Teen-Torch, unless you're referring the the
HT book by Karl Kesel. I've never read it, but I was under the
impression that the book took place in the present (unless you're
simply referring to some sort of character regression).
As far as Tsunami goes, I don't see why they can't just remove the
little tidal wave from the top left corner and not worry about what
line it's in. It's not like these books had any special connection to
one another. I seem to remember Doctor Strange moving in and out of
the "Midnight Sons" line without any worry of cancelation.
--
Dan
a.a. #1617
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > There's a profound difference between work being "bad" and it not being to your
tastes.
:
: Bad is in the eye of the beholder.
I agree, but that doesn't mean "I think it's bad" equals "I don't like it."
Old Will Shakespeare's plays do nothing for me. I can still acknowledge that he was a
very good writer who knew his craft.
: > In order for it to be
: > "bad," you'd have to detect shortcomings in the storytelling, i.e. it doesn't manage
to
: > communicate what's supposed to be going on in the story, it fails to suggest motion,
or
: > you're not able to tell the characters apart.
:
: Maybe what you consider bad art only "fails to communicate" to you
: because it's a style of art/storytelling that isn't to your tastes?
Either the storytelling is clear to you, or it isn't. I'm not sure how you think the
question whether you personally like the art style or not is supposed to figure into that.
: since he said "The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not
: that he's trying to be abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of
: drawing a figure, or a face, or anything else." I guess the poor grasp
: of human anatomy would count as a flaw or do you just consider poor
: human anatomy in art depicting characters that are supposed to be
: human looking as "good" art?
I don't understand the logic of your question; for one thing, I'm not sure why anyone
would suggest that Young has a "poor grasp" on human anatomy. It's bloody obvious that
his artwork is supposed to be cartoony and stylized, and not realistic. For another,
anatomically correct artwork has never been a requirement for comics, nor will it ever be.
But still, if your personal standard for "good art" is that it has to be anatomically
correct and realistic, I guess it's fair enough to say that Skottie Young is a "bad
artist," from that particular perspective. It wouldn't be a standard I'd agree with, but
I would at least understand the logic behind it.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Surely you can see the circular logic inherent in this. What you
: consider to be confusing and lacking in storytelling ability, someone
: else may consider to have been obscured purposely and to add deeper
: layers to the art.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying my standards for "good" and "bad" are correct
and others are wrong, but that there HAVE to be certain -- SUBJECTIVE -- standards in
order for something to qualify as "good" or "bad."
For me, those standards, where comic book art is concerned, primarily involve clarity and
internal consistency. For others, these standards involve other things. When the
original poster made it a point to describe the artwork as "terrible," I was surprised and
wondered what on earth their standards for "good" artwork are.
starblood
> I don't understand the logic of your question; for one thing, I'm not sure
why anyone
> would suggest that Young has a "poor grasp" on human anatomy. It's bloody
obvious that
> his artwork is supposed to be cartoony and stylized, and not realistic.
For another,
> anatomically correct artwork has never been a requirement for comics, nor
will it ever be.
It used to be, certainly.
David Doty
@newshog.newsread.com:
> It used to be, certainly.
Well, Eisner, Jack Cole, and Jack Kirby all have exagerrated/ cartoony
anatomy in much of their most prominent work, so that would be a "no."
Dave Doty
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Dan McEwen
news:Sdhqb.189$Re.1...@newshog.newsread.com:
Not for a while. Women, in particular, have been endowed with enormous
breasts that are nearly impossible to support on their bodies. Then
there's Rob Liefeld, where people had tiny heads and enormous bodies.
Don Heck(?) drew characters with pointy feet.
--
Dan
a.a. #1617
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ralf Haring wrote:
>
>: Surely you can see the circular logic inherent in this. What you
>: consider to be confusing and lacking in storytelling ability, someone
>: else may consider to have been obscured purposely and to add deeper
>: layers to the art.
>
>You're missing the point. I'm not saying my standards for "good" and "bad" are correct
>and others are wrong, but that there HAVE to be certain -- SUBJECTIVE -- standards in
>order for something to qualify as "good" or "bad."
>
>For me, those standards, where comic book art is concerned, primarily involve clarity and
>internal consistency. For others, these standards involve other things. When the
>original poster made it a point to describe the artwork as "terrible," I was surprised and
>wondered what on earth their standards for "good" artwork are.
That doesn't seem to jibe with statements like "So it's just a matter
of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as I suspected.
That's not the same as the artwork being 'bad.'"
Why is enjoyment not enough of a subjective standard to categorize
something as good or bad?
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: For another,
: > anatomically correct artwork has never been a requirement for comics, nor
: will it ever be.
:
: It used to be, certainly.
No, it didn't. I think you'd be doing Wilhelm Busch, Joe Schuster, Charles Schultz,
Albert Uderzo, Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko the gravest injustice by calling their artwork
"realistic" or "anatomically correct."
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Why is enjoyment not enough of a subjective standard to categorize
: something as good or bad?
Do you enjoy everything you think is "good" and dislike everything you think is bad?
How about a very well-written and well-drawn manual for a vacuum cleaner, or an
excellently crafted story asking the all-deciding question "Will Patterson win the cricket
match, or will McRoberts kick his ass?"
Selaboc
> : Maybe what you consider bad art only "fails to communicate" to you
> : because it's a style of art/storytelling that isn't to your tastes?
>
> Either the storytelling is clear to you, or it isn't. I'm not sure how you think the
> question whether you personally like the art style or not is supposed to figure into that.
Go back to my abstract art example. I get no message from abstract
art. It completely fails to communicate ANYTHING to me. Other people
claim to get the message of abstract art, to them it clearly
communicates something.
> For another,
> anatomically correct artwork has never been a requirement for comics, nor will it ever be.
People should look like people, not deformed things. unless, of
course, those people are Ben Grimm :-)
> But still, if your personal standard for "good art" is that it has to be anatomically
> correct and realistic, I guess it's fair enough to say that Skottie Young is a "bad
> artist," from that particular perspective. It wouldn't be a standard I'd agree with, but
> I would at least understand the logic behind it.
well that seems to be the perspective of the person whom you've been
grilling because they called it bad art ("The drawing is so horribly
distorted. And it's not that he's trying to be abstract. He just
doesn't seem capable of drawing a figure, or a face, or anything
else." )
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ralf Haring wrote:
>
>: Why is enjoyment not enough of a subjective standard to categorize
>: something as good or bad?
>
>Do you enjoy everything you think is "good" and dislike everything you think is bad?
Just because I agree with the former does not mean I need to agree
with the converse.
>How about a very well-written and well-drawn manual for a vacuum cleaner, or an
>excellently crafted story asking the all-deciding question "Will Patterson win the cricket
>match, or will McRoberts kick his ass?"
I don't believe I would categorize either of them as good or bad.
There's a big grey inbetween calleh "nyeh".
Shawn H
: starblood wrote:
: : The drawing is so horribly distorted. And it's not that he's trying to be
: : abstract. He just doesn't seem capable of drawing a figure, or a face, or
: : anything else.
: So it's just a matter of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as I suspected.
: That's not the same as the artwork being "bad."
If that's not the definition of bad, what is? Criticism is always subjective.
Shawn
Shawn H
: starblood wrote:
: : It's hard to tell how old the characters are when they don't even look
: : human.
: If your point is that manga or anime-influenced styles have no place in superhero comics,
: you're about ten years late.
There's a place; but maybe THIS sort of hybrid style is not it.
Shawn
Shawn H
: Ralf Haring wrote:
: For me, those standards, where comic book art is concerned, primarily involve clarity and
: internal consistency. For others, these standards involve other things. When the
: original poster made it a point to describe the artwork as "terrible," I was surprised and
: wondered what on earth their standards for "good" artwork are.
And when he shared them with you, you told him "oh, those don't count."
Shawn
Shawn H
: "starblood" <moonh...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:Sdhqb.189$Re.136435
: @newshog.newsread.com:
:> It used to be, certainly.
: Well, Eisner, Jack Cole, and Jack Kirby all have exagerrated/ cartoony
: anatomy in much of their most prominent work, so that would be a "no."
They also have consistency, in that their distortions make sense for the
stories they were telling. and they had an ability to depict three-dimensional
space on the page. The Human Torch artist isn't quite there.
Shawn
kingalt
"Dan McEwen" <dannyb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942ADD1458C6d...@130.133.1.4...
> "kingalt" <lki...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:0bRob.52603$vX.89...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
> > I really enjoy this title. i hope it survives the enormous rip-tide
> > that is sucking all the Tsunami books down into the Abysss.
> > I'm actually surprised some of them have started a second arc. Is
> > there
> > relly any hope for Teen-Namor or Teen-Torch? Or will they go the way
> > of Teen-Tony? A classic example of not learning from past mistakes.
>
> I'd say if Namor drastically changed direction it might survive. I
> haven't read it since #2, and all indications are that I made the right
> choice. I'm not aware of a Teen-Torch, unless you're referring the the
> HT book by Karl Kesel. I've never read it, but I was under the
> impression that the book took place in the present (unless you're
> simply referring to some sort of character regression).
>
Sort of a goof by me. i only read the first issue which is a flashback to a
teen torrch.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >: Why is enjoyment not enough of a subjective standard to categorize
: >: something as good or bad?
: >
: >Do you enjoy everything you think is "good" and dislike everything you think is bad?
:
: Just because I agree with the former does not mean I need to agree
: with the converse.
Aha, so you agree that "I don't like it" and "It's bad" are two different things, after
all. (If they weren't, the reverse would have to be true.)
But let's reverse it, if that's more to your tastes: Do you think everything you enjoy is
good, and everything you dislike is bad?
: >How about a very well-written and well-drawn manual for a vacuum cleaner, or an
: >excellently crafted story asking the all-deciding question "Will Patterson win the
cricket
: >match, or will McRoberts kick his ass?"
:
: I don't believe I would categorize either of them as good or bad.
: There's a big grey inbetween calleh "nyeh".
No, there isn't. In both examples I cited, story and artwork are doing an excellent job
for people who want to know how their vacuum cleaner is supposed to work or who are
interested in cricket, respectively. There's nothing whatsoever which prevents you from
acknowledging that they're a very good manual and a very good story about cricket.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > Either the storytelling is clear to you, or it isn't. I'm not sure how you think the
: > question whether you personally like the art style or not is supposed to figure into
that.
:
: Go back to my abstract art example. I get no message from abstract
: art. It completely fails to communicate ANYTHING to me. Other people
: claim to get the message of abstract art, to them it clearly
: communicates something.
We were talking about sequential art. Sequential art wants to communicate something
specific to you, namely a sequence of events. If you believe it fails to do that, it's
valid to call it bad.
: People should look like people, not deformed things. unless, of
: course, those people are Ben Grimm :-)
So all those "Peanuts" strips and ASTERIX graphic novels are badly drawn, then. Damn.
: > But still, if your personal standard for "good art" is that it has to be anatomically
: > correct and realistic, I guess it's fair enough to say that Skottie Young is a "bad
: > artist," from that particular perspective. It wouldn't be a standard I'd agree with,
but
: > I would at least understand the logic behind it.
:
: well that seems to be the perspective of the person whom you've been
: grilling because they called it bad art
I thought so as well, but it doesn't seem to be the case. He said he loves manga, and
manga hardly passes as anatomically correct or realistic. It's a trademark of manga art
that certain body parts are exaggerated and distorted in certain ways.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: And when he shared them with you, you told him "oh, those don't count."
Oh, they count, they just don't make much logical sense with the rest of what he said.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: : So it's just a matter of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as I
suspected.
: : That's not the same as the artwork being "bad."
:
: If that's not the definition of bad, what is?
"It doesn't achieve what it wants to achieve," generally. Which, in this case, would be
not to tell the story.
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ralf Haring wrote:
>
>: >: Why is enjoyment not enough of a subjective standard to categorize
>: >: something as good or bad?
>: >
>: >Do you enjoy everything you think is "good" and dislike everything you think is bad?
>:
>: Just because I agree with the former does not mean I need to agree
>: with the converse.
>
>Aha, so you agree that "I don't like it" and "It's bad" are two different things, after
>all. (If they weren't, the reverse would have to be true.)
>
>But let's reverse it, if that's more to your tastes: Do you think everything you enjoy is
>good, and everything you dislike is bad?
Yup...for me. Always "for me." I can't say whether something will be
good for you and nothing can just be said to be universally good for
everybody. I can hazard a guess or I can recommend it because I think
it is of sufficiently high quality, but that's it.
>: >How about a very well-written and well-drawn manual for a vacuum cleaner, or an
>: >excellently crafted story asking the all-deciding question "Will Patterson win the
>cricket
>: >match, or will McRoberts kick his ass?"
>:
>: I don't believe I would categorize either of them as good or bad.
>: There's a big grey inbetween calleh "nyeh".
>
>No, there isn't. In both examples I cited, story and artwork are doing an excellent job
>for people who want to know how their vacuum cleaner is supposed to work or who are
>interested in cricket, respectively. There's nothing whatsoever which prevents you from
>acknowledging that they're a very good manual and a very good story about cricket.
Except that I don't give a crap about vacuum cleaner manuals or
stories about cricket. I have no interest in trying to categorize
things which are of no interest to me. I'm sure there's people out
there who can tell you which wines are great and which ones taste like
cow piss. I couldn't care less and am not going to start arbitrarily
assigning them values because of some worldview that only allows for
two extremes.
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Shawn H wrote:
>
>: : So it's just a matter of the style not being to your tastes, after all, as I
>suspected.
>: : That's not the same as the artwork being "bad."
>:
>: If that's not the definition of bad, what is?
>
>"It doesn't achieve what it wants to achieve," generally. Which, in this case, would be
>not to tell the story.
I would say entertainment is trying to achieve that the reader enjoys
it.
I V
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:26:23 +0100, "Marc-Oliver Frisch"
> <Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"It doesn't achieve what it wants to achieve," generally. Which, in
>>this case, would be not to tell the story.
>
> I would say entertainment is trying to achieve that the reader enjoys
> it.
That's the purpose of entertainment in general, but I think it's a mistake
to conclude from that that individual pieces of entertainment are intended
to be entertaining. They're supposed to do something (in the case of
comics, communicate a story, usually), and that something is supposed to
be entertaining, but the intention is to do the former, not the latter. If
someone doesn't find what is communicated entertaining, the comic has
failed as entertainment; but if it does communicate, it may not have
failed as a comic.
--
" - Penny, I worry that you are loosing heart... You are not the sweet little
girl I once knew. Where's your sense of wonder?
- Currently flowing into a sanitary napkin... Guess where my childlike
innocence and idle dreams are currently wedged. Come on, I dare you."
http://www.huh.34sp.com/
I V
> Yup...for me. Always "for me." I can't say whether something will be
> good for you and nothing can just be said to be universally good for
> everybody. I can hazard a guess or I can recommend it because I think
> it is of sufficiently high quality, but that's it.
What's the difference between being 'high quality' and being 'good'?
Selaboc
> Selaboc wrote:
>
> : > Either the storytelling is clear to you, or it isn't. I'm not sure how you think the
> : > question whether you personally like the art style or not is supposed to figure into
> that.
> :
> : Go back to my abstract art example. I get no message from abstract
> : art. It completely fails to communicate ANYTHING to me. Other people
> : claim to get the message of abstract art, to them it clearly
> : communicates something.
>
> We were talking about sequential art. Sequential art wants to communicate something
> specific to you, namely a sequence of events. If you believe it fails to do that, it's
> valid to call it bad.
We are talking entertainment. Entertainment wants to entertain you.
Clearly Skottie Young's art failed to foster that entertainment in
that individual, therefore it is valid (for that individual) to call
it bad.
> : People should look like people, not deformed things. unless, of
> : course, those people are Ben Grimm :-)
>
> So all those "Peanuts" strips and ASTERIX graphic novels are badly drawn, then. Damn.
In a way, yeah they are. High art they are not. However, as
simplistically as they are drawn, they have a sense of style and
consistency that Skottie Young's art does not, IMHO.
> : well that seems to be the perspective of the person whom you've been
> : grilling because they called it bad art
>
> I thought so as well, but it doesn't seem to be the case. He said he loves manga, and
> manga hardly passes as anatomically correct or realistic.
manga has nothing to do with it. I like manga, I don't particularily
care for Skottie Young's art on the Human Torch. Skottie Young's art
is NOT manga. so you can toss that strawman aside.
> It's a trademark of manga art
> that certain body parts are exaggerated and distorted in certain ways.
And it's done with style and consistency that I find lacking in
Skottie Young's art. Even with their "big eyes" most manga's human
characters look closer to human that Skottie Young's human characters
look. You were a lot closer when you called his art cartoony (as long
as you mean poorly done American cartoons that is) then calling it
manga.
Selaboc
Bull. What you mean is they don't match your criteria for what
consistitues bad art so they aren't good enough for you.
Selaboc
I say he has a LONG LONG LONG ways to go before he's even close to there.
starblood
> I thought so as well, but it doesn't seem to be the case. He said he
loves manga, and
> manga hardly passes as anatomically correct or realistic. It's a
trademark of manga art
> that certain body parts are exaggerated and distorted in certain ways.
It may not be what's hot with the kiddies, but there is quite a lot of manga
that is realistic and anatomically correct. Look at the work of Katsuhiro
Otomo, Masamune Shirow, Ryoichi Ikegami, Yukito Kishiro or Naoki Yamamoto.
On the other end of the spectrum, I don't think Rumiko Takahashi is a real
great artist, though I enjoy other aspects of her works.
Ralf Haring
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:52:31 +0000, Ralf Haring wrote:
>> Yup...for me. Always "for me." I can't say whether something will be
>> good for you and nothing can just be said to be universally good for
>> everybody. I can hazard a guess or I can recommend it because I think
>> it is of sufficiently high quality, but that's it.
>
>What's the difference between being 'high quality' and being 'good'?
In the context of the above sentence both would mean "I enjoyed it
enough to recommend it."
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >But let's reverse it, if that's more to your tastes: Do you think everything you enjoy
is
: >good, and everything you dislike is bad?
:
: Yup...for me. Always "for me." I can't say whether something will be
: good for you and nothing can just be said to be universally good for
: everybody. I can hazard a guess or I can recommend it because I think
: it is of sufficiently high quality, but that's it.
You can also state that, although you don't like it yourself, you could imagine that
others with different tastes will probably get more out of it.
Because, you see, there are drinks you don't like because they're not the kind of drink
you like to drink, and then there are drinks you don't like because they're badly done
ones of the kind you usually like.
What I'm talking about is the perspective to know the difference, or, at least, the effort
to recognize it.
: Except that I don't give a crap about vacuum cleaner manuals or
: stories about cricket. I have no interest in trying to categorize
: things which are of no interest to me.
You're side-stepping the argument.
At some point, as a matter of fact, you'll have seen enough manuals to instantly know
whether you'd call the one in front of you helpful or useless, and you'll have been
exposed to enough fiction to instantly know whether you'd consider that movie about
cricket you've watched with your nephew a well-constructed piece of fiction for people who
like cricket.
It doesn't have to be nearly as technical and conscious a choice as you make it sound.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: > So all those "Peanuts" strips and ASTERIX graphic novels are badly drawn, then. Damn.
:
: In a way, yeah they are. High art they are not.
Depends on your definition of "high art," I guess.
: However, as
: simplistically as they are drawn, they have a sense of style and
: consistency that Skottie Young's art does not, IMHO.
I don't really know what you mean by "sense of style," but if you feel that Young's art
lacks consistency, that's more than the original poster offered.
I don't agree, but I think it would be a valid criticism, if you feel that way.
: > : well that seems to be the perspective of the person whom you've been
: > : grilling because they called it bad art
: >
: > I thought so as well, but it doesn't seem to be the case. He said he loves manga, and
: > manga hardly passes as anatomically correct or realistic.
:
: manga has nothing to do with it. I like manga, I don't particularily
: care for Skottie Young's art on the Human Torch. Skottie Young's art
: is NOT manga.
They share quite a number of characteristics, but that's not relevant here.
The point is that Young's art, just like a lot of manga art, is exaggerated and
"anatomically incorrect." It's illogical to "love manga" and at the same time have
something against artwork which doesn't strive for anatomical correctness.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >: If that's not the definition of bad, what is?
: >
: >"It doesn't achieve what it wants to achieve," generally. Which, in this case, would
be
: >not to tell the story.
:
: I would say entertainment is trying to achieve that the reader enjoys
: it.
No, entertainment wants to entertain a certain group of people in a certain way. It's
unreasonable to criticize a piece of entertainment for not being entertaining to everyone,
since there is no such animal.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: It may not be what's hot with the kiddies, but there is quite a lot of manga
: that is realistic and anatomically correct. Look at the work of Katsuhiro
: Otomo, Masamune Shirow, Ryoichi Ikegami, Yukito Kishiro or Naoki Yamamoto.
http://www.lool.net/Akira/pics/manga/Akira_chamber.jpg
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/juzzam1/gits.htm
http://www.geocities.com/lasher99_2000/ikegami/ryoichi.htm
http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/firehand/steve/gallyri.htm
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1569319847.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
You'd consider these as "anatomically correct" but not this one?
http://www.comixtreme.com/gallery/data/media/92/ht5.jpg
Really?
starblood
> starblood wrote:
>
> : It may not be what's hot with the kiddies, but there is quite a lot of
manga
> : that is realistic and anatomically correct. Look at the work of
Katsuhiro
> : Otomo, Masamune Shirow, Ryoichi Ikegami, Yukito Kishiro or Naoki
Yamamoto.
>
> http://www.lool.net/Akira/pics/manga/Akira_chamber.jpg
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/juzzam1/gits.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/lasher99_2000/ikegami/ryoichi.htm
> http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/firehand/steve/gallyri.htm
> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1569319847.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>
> You'd consider these as "anatomically correct" but not this one?
>
> http://www.comixtreme.com/gallery/data/media/92/ht5.jpg
>
> Really?
Hell yes. Some of the side characters in Shirow's work are cartoony, but
look at the detail and hyperrealism in the rest of his work. There's
absolutely no comparison.
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You can also state that, although you don't like it yourself, you could imagine that
>others with different tastes will probably get more out of it.
Yes, that can be said about everything. Every comic, every art style,
every everything. It's such a general statement as to be useless.
>Because, you see, there are drinks you don't like because they're not the kind of drink
>you like to drink, and then there are drinks you don't like because they're badly done
>ones of the kind you usually like.
>
>What I'm talking about is the perspective to know the difference, or, at least, the effort
>to recognize it.
Ok, so in this particular instance the art in HUMAN TORCH matches your
latter category for the original poster. It's something he usually
likes, but he doesn't like this iteration of it.
Ralf Haring
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ralf Haring wrote:
>
>: >: If that's not the definition of bad, what is?
>: >
>: >"It doesn't achieve what it wants to achieve," generally. Which, in this case, would
>be
>: >not to tell the story.
>:
>: I would say entertainment is trying to achieve that the reader enjoys
>: it.
>
>No, entertainment wants to entertain a certain group of people in a certain way. It's
>unreasonable to criticize a piece of entertainment for not being entertaining to everyone,
>since there is no such animal.
"X failed to entertain me" is not a criticism. It is a statement of
fact.
Winter Arcane
> http://www.lool.net/Akira/pics/manga/Akira_chamber.jpg
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/juzzam1/gits.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/lasher99_2000/ikegami/ryoichi.htm
> http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/firehand/steve/gallyri.htm
> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1569319847.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
>
> You'd consider these as "anatomically correct" but not this one?
>
> http://www.comixtreme.com/gallery/data/media/92/ht5.jpg
>
> Really?
>
> --
> Marc-Oliver Frisch
> Dersc...@hotmail.com
>
> Insert shallowly witty signature line here.
The other art is certainly much better proportioned than the Human Torch
cover. When I first looked at the HT cover, it seemed okay but after a
couple of moments looking at it I started noticing gross distortions. I'm
not against distortions, even gross ones, if they're used purposefully for
dramatic effect...but this cover doesn't look like a dramatic
distortion...it feels like a failure to pay attention to proportion and
angle. If I focus on individual pieces of it, it looks fine...good
even...but if I look at Johnny's whole body it just doesn't fit together in
a remotely sensible way. It wouldn't discourage me from buying the book if
I had any interest in the Human Torch, though, since I care more about
writing than art.
-Vanuslux-
starblood
news:bAxrb.71244$un.4...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> The other art is certainly much better proportioned than the Human Torch
> cover. When I first looked at the HT cover, it seemed okay but after a
> couple of moments looking at it I started noticing gross distortions. I'm
> not against distortions, even gross ones, if they're used purposefully for
> dramatic effect...but this cover doesn't look like a dramatic
> distortion...it feels like a failure to pay attention to proportion and
> angle. If I focus on individual pieces of it, it looks fine...good
> even...but if I look at Johnny's whole body it just doesn't fit together
in
> a remotely sensible way. It wouldn't discourage me from buying the book
if
> I had any interest in the Human Torch, though, since I care more about
> writing than art.
I think Skottie got the Torch confused with Mr. Fantastic.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: >You can also state that, although you don't like it yourself, you could imagine that
: >others with different tastes will probably get more out of it.
:
: Yes, that can be said about everything. Every comic, every art style,
: every everything.
Exactly, but it can only be truthfully said by people who believe that the chief problem
may not be quality, but taste.
: Ok, so in this particular instance the art in HUMAN TORCH matches your
: latter category for the original poster. It's something he usually
: likes, but he doesn't like this iteration of it.
Not according to what he said.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: Hell yes. Some of the side characters in Shirow's work are cartoony, but
: look at the detail and hyperrealism in the rest of his work.
Detail and hyperrealism aren't the same things as correct anatomy and realism by any
stretch of the imagination.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: "X failed to entertain me" is not a criticism. It is a statement of
: fact.
It's also a criticism -- just not one that's particularly useful, unless you elaborate on
it.
Which is the point.
(1) "X failed to entertain me because it was in Japanese, and I couldn't understand a
word."
(2) "X failed to entertain me because it was about shrimp fishing, and I'm not really
interested in shrimp fishing."
(3) "X did not fail to entertain me, although that mostly comes down to it being
enormously funny in ways not intended."
(4) "X failed to entertain me because the characters were shallow, it was lacking the
coolness and freshness of the first movie, the action sequences were pointless and what
the hell about all those people trapped in the Matrix, anyway?"
Not all of these four examples say something about whether you liked X, or whether you
thought X was good. And those which do say something about whether you liked X are not
necessarily the same ones which say something about whether you thought X was good, and
vice versa.