The hell is wrong with Bendis Dialogue?
prestorjon
phrase is "WHAT the hell" not "the hell". Ther first time I saw it I
assumed he was trying to write some naturalistic dialogue and whoever
it was just left off the "what" in a hurry, but it's popped up
everywhere.
The Black Guardian
Nearly everyone I know (from my teenaged brother and sister to my
grandmother) uses "the hell" in speech. The pronoun is generally
understood by listeners, so is often ignored.
bar...@shentel.net
I don't know how it was used in the comics, but when I think of the two
phrases "What the Hell...? is yelled and is an expression of anger,
"...the hell...?" is sort of a quirky confused thing where you're
stunned by something.
JLB
badth...@yahoo.com
of them. People drop "what" all the time. It's implied.
Martin Feller
<badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122509105....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> There are many reasons to dislike Bendis' writing, but this ain't
> one
> of them. People drop "what" all the time. It's implied.
Did he just do it once, or is he turning it into a Bendisism? That is,
once he gets a phrase he likes, ala Claremont, he starts having *all*
of his characters use it.
prestorjon
is,
once he gets a phrase he likes, ala Claremont, he starts having *all*
of his characters use it. >>
A Bendisism. As I said I thought it was just a one off the first time
I saw it, but he repeated it and it was more than just one character
saying it. Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the responses here. I've
never heard anyone say "the hell" like that, unless of course the what
was just swallowed or inaudible.
The reason it bothers me is that because for me at least it's so
unnatural it takes me right out of the story. It's like Emma using
British slang like "bollocks".
Lets hope it doesn't get to be as bad as Claremont's phraseology. I
generally loved Claremont's writing but he could really beat a phrase
to death: "body and soul" etc
Dale Hicks
prest...@aol.com says...
> <<Did he just do it once, or is he turning it into a Bendisism? That
> is,
> once he gets a phrase he likes, ala Claremont, he starts having *all*
> of his characters use it. >>
>
> A Bendisism. As I said I thought it was just a one off the first time
> I saw it, but he repeated it and it was more than just one character
> saying it. Frankly I'm a bit shocked by the responses here. I've
> never heard anyone say "the hell" like that, unless of course the what
> was just swallowed or inaudible.
I'm with you, it must be something local to their hood. Of course, I
really can't remember anybody using the phrase around me -- who gets so
surprised at something that they have to utter bad movie dialogue? I'm
not sure I've ever heard anyone use that phrase in isolation (meaning
that I have heard it in cases like "what the hell is going on here?").
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Ibn Tumart
>I'm with you, it must be something local to their hood.
>
Not really. I've heard it from California to Texas. It's just an
evolving version of the familiar phrase.
--
The majestic equality of the law forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
Comic book klatch: http://ibntumart.blogspot.com
badth...@yahoo.com
the same. Every character saying "the hell?" is a problem, not the
basic use of it.
And my favorite Claremontism was how he describe every single fight "no
quarter asked, none given."
Mathew Krull
> <<Did he just do it once, or is he turning it into a Bendisism? That
> is,
> once he gets a phrase he likes, ala Claremont, he starts having *all*
> of his characters use it. >>
>
> A Bendisism. As I said I thought it was just a one off the first time
> I saw it, but he repeated it and it was more than just one character
> saying it.
From what I've seen, only one character used it: The Wrecker in New
Avengers 7. Where else has the phrase shown up?
Shawn H
: The Black Guardian wrote:
: > Nearly everyone I know (from my teenaged brother and sister to my
: > grandmother) uses "the hell" in speech. The pronoun is generally
: > understood by listeners, so is often ignored.
: I don't know how it was used in the comics, but when I think of the two
: phrases "What the Hell...? is yelled and is an expression of anger,
: "...the hell...?" is sort of a quirky confused thing where you're
: stunned by something.
Sadly, the latter is a pretty accurate description of most Bendis
characters most of the time.
shawn h.
Shawn H
: Does anyone else find that incredibly annoying? Note to Bendis: the
It is in every book he does these days, isn't it? Even in 8 sneaky pages
in Giant-Size Spiderwoman it crops up.
It's his version of "no quarter asked, none given."
Shawn H.
Steven R. Stahl
prestorjon wrote:
snip]
> The reason it bothers me is that because for me at least it's so
> unnatural it takes me right out of the story. It's like Emma using
> British slang like "bollocks".
>
> Lets hope it doesn't get to be as bad as Claremont's phraseology. I
> generally loved Claremont's writing but he could really beat a phrase
> to death: "body and soul" etc
One of the rules of writing fiction I recall reading years ago is to
not have characters speak in a dialect constantly. Although Star Trek's
Scotty was a Scotsman, the accent and Scotch (markedly different from
English in spelling; Scotch words occasionally show up in crossword
puzzles) words appear infrequently in stories. A grandmother of mine
used to say "You know" every third or fourth sentence, it seemed, but I
can't imagine someone replicating that speech in prose.
Grammatically-incorrect speech is dialect; repetition of that can be
obvious and annoying.
SRS
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> Grammatically-incorrect speech is dialect; repetition of that can be
> obvious and annoying.
>
No, it's not. Grammatically incorrect speech and dialect are not the
same thing.
Steven R. Stahl
When used in stories, the two are equivalent. There have been pieces
written on the differences between conversational speech and dialogue
in fiction. Grammatical errors in casual speech don't matter, because
of the context in which the speech is used, but grammatical errors in a
story's dialogue can take the reader out of the story. Here's an
interview with a professional copy editor:
http://www.identitytheory.com/interviews/birnbaum148.php
SRS
Shawn H
: prestorjon wrote:
Jessica uses it in Giant-Size Spider-Woman. It's showed up frequently in
Daredevil. It's been in House of M.
Shawn H.
Ibn Tumart
>One of the rules of writing fiction I recall reading years ago is to
>not have characters speak in a dialect constantly. Although Star Trek's
>Scotty was a Scotsman, the accent and Scotch (markedly different from
>English in spelling; Scotch words occasionally show up in crossword
>puzzles) words appear infrequently in stories. A grandmother of mine
>used to say "You know" every third or fourth sentence, it seemed, but I
>can't imagine someone replicating that speech in prose.
>Grammatically-incorrect speech is dialect; repetition of that can be
>obvious and annoying.
>
>
>
Two points:
1) Scotch is a noun, whisky to be exact, the single malt variety being
the best known to mankind; Scots or Scottish is the adjectival form of Scot.
2) Dialect and gramatically incorrect speech (no hyphen) are not
synonymous.
Kurt Busiek
> Scotch is a noun, whisky to be exact,
>
Or tape! Or eggs!
kdb
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> scott34494 wrote:
> > Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> >
> > > Grammatically-incorrect speech is dialect; repetition of that can be
> > > obvious and annoying.
>
> > No, it's not. Grammatically incorrect speech and dialect are not the
> > same thing.
>
> When used in stories, the two are equivalent.
No they aren't, they really aren't. One identifies someone as coming
from a particular region, one is simply how people talk.
Hand-of-Omega
Ibn Tumart wrote:
> Dale Hicks wrote:
>
> >I'm with you, it must be something local to their hood.
> >
> Not really. I've heard it from California to Texas. It's just an
> evolving version of the familiar phrase.
>
the--?!" comics characters have been
saying for decades. The rest is implied.
Incidentally, about the only other place I've seen this widely used in
print is in Toyfare's Twisted Mego Theatre...Bendis doesn't write for
them, does he?^^
Dex
Lynley James
wrote:
I've heard many people shorten the phrase like that. It's even used
often enough in That '70's Show.
Lynley
Magnus, Robot Fighter
...The Hell?
Chris McFeely
> >
> > kdb
>
> ...The Hell?
Scotch tape and Scotch eggs are other Scotch things. :)
Chris
Brian Doyle
"Steven R. Stahl" <syns...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1122568215....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> One of the rules of writing fiction I recall reading years ago is to
> not have characters speak in a dialect constantly. Although Star Trek's
> Scotty was a Scotsman, the accent and Scotch (markedly different from
> English in spelling; Scotch words occasionally show up in crossword
> puzzles) words appear infrequently in stories.
ARRGH! If you're going to critque the use of words please at least get the
terminology correct. Scotch is a drink (or an egg), the dialect/accent is
_Scottish_, or Scots. We don't talk about an Americite, accent, please get
our terminology right in return!
Steven R. Stahl
Yup, I shoulda used the word "Scottish" instead of "Scotch." Didn't do
that, though, 'cause I was thinking about getting to the online news
articles--had ta see what all those slimy, dirty Republicans are up to
now.
I wouldn't want to read page after page of conversational speech like
the paragraph above, just as I wouldn't want to read page after page of
teenagers saying "like" every other sentence, or an adult saying "you
know" or "fuck" every other sentence.
Conversational speech is not readable dialogue. People might actually
say "[What] the hell?!", but "The hell" doesn't read well, compared to
"What the--" or "What the hell?! or "What the fuck?!" Speech that's
grammatically incorrect or a large amount of dialect--either can take a
reader out of the story. While people might not like dialogue that is
grammatically correct, they'll have less of a basis for criticizing it.
SRS
Paul O'Brien
prestorjon <prest...@aol.com> writes
>Does anyone else find that incredibly annoying? Note to Bendis: the
>phrase is "WHAT the hell" not "the hell".
People miss off the first word all the time. A lot of Bendis' stuff is
debatable, but this IS entirely natural.
--
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS - http://www.thexaxis.com
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
LIVEJOURNAL - http://www.livejournal.com/~paulobrien
Ibn Tumart
Fair enough, but Scotch whisky's the tastiest of the three items
mentioned at least!
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> On 2005-07-28 11:33:01 -0700, Ibn Tumart <ibnt...@no.email> said:
>>
>>> Scotch is a noun, whisky to be exact,
>>>
>> Or tape! Or eggs!
>>
> Fair enough, but Scotch whisky's the tastiest of the three items
> mentioned at least!
I don't care for whisky, myself, but I've had Scotch eggs that were
absolutely delicious.
They probably do more damage than the whisky, though...
kdb
Steven R. Stahl
Actually, you could check an American English dictionary. My 1979 copy
of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this definition for
"Scotch": "[n]oun 2 dialect of English spoken in Scotland;" The first
entry is for the adjective "Scottish." An American copy editor would
probably prefer "Scottish," but the word isn't mandated.
SRS
Adam Cadre
> My 1979 copy of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this
> definition for "Scotch"
Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
-----
Adam Cadre, Holyoke, MA
http://adamcadre.ac
Paul O'Brien
Steven R. Stahl <syns...@eudoramail.com> writes
>
>Actually, you could check an American English dictionary. My 1979 copy
>of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this definition for
>"Scotch": "[n]oun 2 dialect of English spoken in Scotland;" The first
>entry is for the adjective "Scottish." An American copy editor would
>probably prefer "Scottish," but the word isn't mandated.
I think even in 1979 that would have been regarded as a rather outdated
usage. I've seen books dating back to the 1940s arguing about whether
it was legitimate, and I honestly can't remember the last time I heard
someone use the word "Scotch" to mean anything other than the drink.
The prevailing usage these days tends to be "Scots" for the language and
certain other phrases, and "Scottish" otherwise. "Scotch" isn't
technically wrong, but it's archaic except in relation to whisky, and I
don't think you'd find many English teachers these days who'd encourage
you to use it in that way. It's just not how people talk.
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>I don't care for whisky, myself, but I've had Scotch eggs that were
>absolutely delicious.
The thing about whisky is that it's only really drinkable if it's good.
And by the time it gets good, it gets terrifyingly expensive. 25 year
old Highland Park is fabulous stuff, but you've got to be a real
enthusiast or have money to burn. (Or know a whisky evangelist who
keeps pouring you free shots to prove how good it is. I find that works
very well.)
Paul O'Brien
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> writes
>
>Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
>refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
In fairness, that's become a question of offensiveness. Scotch is just
a word that's drifted into disuse over the decades.
Kurt Busiek
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> said:
> In message <2005072915110975249%kurtbusiek@aolcomics>, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>>
>> I don't care for whisky, myself, but I've had Scotch eggs that were
>> absolutely delicious.
>
> The thing about whisky is that it's only really drinkable if it's good.
> And by the time it gets good, it gets terrifyingly expensive.
>
> Not so much with the eggs, though, on either count.
kdb
Steven R. Stahl
Then perhaps you'll be more impressed by these definitions from The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:
http://www.answers.com/topic/scotch-1
For some reason, the silly IM-type jokes stopped coming, once I checked
a dictionary and found out my usage was correct. That check only
happened because I didn't have the doubt that accompanies actual
mistakes. 'Twas a pity nobody else bothered to check.
People also failed to address the substance of the criticism of
Bendis's usage of "The hell. . ." The repeated usage by multiple
characters (HOUSE OF M #2-#4 and elsewhere) is at least as irritating
as the ungrammatical sloppiness, and is something a copy editor would
correct.
SRS
Jon J. Yeager
>
>People also failed to address the substance of the criticism of
>Bendis's usage of "The hell. . ." The repeated usage by multiple
>characters (HOUSE OF M #2-#4 and elsewhere) is at least as irritating
>as the ungrammatical sloppiness, and is something a copy editor would
>correct.
Your latest complaint in an endless stream of ridiculous things to spend
hours a day whining about had to do with people supposedly NOT saying "the
hell" instead of "what the hell"... to which several people responded that
they say and hear "the hell" all the time.
"People" didn't fail to address anything. *You* simply failed to acknowledge
them.
As far as debating strategies go, closing your eyes and simply pretending
that no one has corrected you doesn't rank very high on my chart. But YMMV.
Jon
--
"In case I didn't dumb it down enough,
both you and SRS claim to know for fact
what would occur in scenarios that exist
only in the realm of science-fiction. There's
your common thread, and perhaps an
explanation as to why neither of you has
ever seen a clitoris."
- Jon (to Scott Dubin)
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: 1) Scotch is a noun, whisky to be exact, the single malt variety being
: the best known to mankind; Scots or Scottish is the adjectival form of Scot.
It's also the first name of one Scotch Fock, writer of the little-known RONNIE X
title for Marvel.
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com
COMIKADO << http://comikado.blogspot.com
SUPERCRITICAL >> http://supercritic.blogspot.com
Habemus nauseam.
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Fallen
>Adam Cadre wrote:
>
>
>>Steven R. Stahl wrote:
>> > My 1979 copy of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this
>> > definition for "Scotch"
>>
>>Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
>>refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
>>
>> -----
>> Adam Cadre, Holyoke, MA
>> http://adamcadre.ac
>>
>>
>
>Then perhaps you'll be more impressed by these definitions from The
>American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
>Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company:
>
>http://www.answers.com/topic/scotch-1
>
>For some reason, the silly IM-type jokes stopped coming, once I checked
>a dictionary and found out my usage was correct. That check only
>happened because I didn't have the doubt that accompanies actual
>mistakes. 'Twas a pity nobody else bothered to check.
>
>
The link you supplied leads to the following...
"Scotch is an English contraction of Scottish that came into use in
Scotland as well for a time (as in that came into use in Scotland as
well for a time (as in Burns's O thou, my Muse! guid auld Scotch
drink! ) but subsequently fell into disfavor there. In the interest of
civility, forms involving are best avoided in reference to people!"
Fallen.
Kurt Busiek
> The link you supplied leads to the following...
>
> "Scotch is an English contraction of Scottish that came into use in
> Scotland as well for a time (as in that came into use in Scotland as
> well for a time (as in Burns's O thou, my Muse! guid auld Scotch
> drink! ) but subsequently fell into disfavor there. In the interest of
> civility, forms involving are best avoided in reference to people!"
>
> Fallen.
"One cynical joke is that Scotch can only be used for things which can
be bought, such as whisky, eggs and politicians."
Ha!
kdb
prestorjon
Avengers 7. Where else has the phrase shown up? >>
In House of M two or three characters used it across two issues.
prestorjon
prestorjon
the--?!" comics characters have been
saying for decades. The rest is implied. >>
The difference for me is that "what the..." is obviously either
censorship or the character not being able to get everything out in
time. Dropping "hell" from the end makes an awful lot more sense to me
than dropping the "what" from the begining.
Obviously other people have heard it and have no probem with it, but
for me it's just incredibly awkward dialogue
Jack Bohn
>In message <SJKdnZ6Oo9_...@comcast.com>, Adam Cadre
><see-website...@adamcadre.ac> writes
>>
>>Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
>>refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
>
>In fairness, that's become a question of offensiveness.
I'm just a Westerner, why is "Orientals" offensive?
Because it was used in the past by offensive people?
--
-Jack
scott34494
Steven R. Stahl wrote:
>
> People also failed to address the substance of the criticism of
> Bendis's usage of "The hell. . ." The repeated usage by multiple
> characters (HOUSE OF M #2-#4 and elsewhere) is at least as irritating
> as the ungrammatical sloppiness, and is something a copy editor would
> correct.
No, sadly, your complaint is inane. Not only are you one of the few
people who claims to be distracted by natural grammar, but your
argument, that dialect should be avoided in fiction, is utter nonsense.
I suppose the collected works of Mark Twain and Charles Dickins are in
desperate need of a rewrite, as they use dialect frequently. Quick,
give your copy editor friend a red pen! Somebody has to save the world
from Twain's "ungrammatical sloppiness" before it's too late!
First paragraph of Huckleberry Fin:
"YOU don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of
The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter. That book was made
by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things
which
he stretched, but mainly he told the truth. That is nothing. I never
seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Aunt Polly,
or
the widow, or maybe Mary. Aunt Polly--Tom's Aunt Polly, she is--and
Mary, and the Widow Douglas is all told about in that book, which is
mostly a true book, with some stretchers, as I said before."
Now go read the rest and quit harping on Bendis!!!!!
Paul O'Brien
<jack...@bright.net> writes
>
>I'm just a Westerner, why is "Orientals" offensive? Because it was used
>in the past by offensive people?
Essentially, yes. The literal meaning of the word isn't particularly
problematic, but it's come to be associated with rather unpleasant
views, and consequently it's picked up some connotations that English
speakers would probably prefer to avoid. In some ways it's similar to
the fate that befell "gay" in its non-sexual usage - it's not strictly
speaking wrong to use it in that sense, but it's acquired some wholly
irrelevant connotations, and so it's probably best avoided unless you
deliberately want to invoke them or you're consciously trying to write
in a dated style.
Paul O'Brien
scott34494 <scott...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>No, sadly, your complaint is inane. Not only are you one of the few
>people who claims to be distracted by natural grammar, but your
>argument, that dialect should be avoided in fiction, is utter nonsense.
Or indeed Irvine Welsh, who must be gloriously incomprehensible to most
American readers.
I think the real problem with Bendis' dialogue - if you consider it a
problem - is that his attempts at naturalism involve heavy re-use of the
same devices, again and again. He likes his hesitations, his broken
sentences, repetition, and so forth. These things are meant to give his
dialogue a natural rhythm, but because it's so obvious, and the devices
are so familiar to regular readers, it ends up just sounding like a
Brian Bendis script.
Adam Cadre
>> [...] why is "Orientals" offensive?
Paul O'Brien replied:
> The literal meaning of the word isn't particularly problematic [...]
Well, the literal meaning of the word is "people from the East,"
which sounds fairly neutral... until you think about what it implies
about where you're standing. It didn't start out as a slur, but it
has always been a Eurocentric term - as is "Far East" (now more
properly called "East Asia") and "Middle East" (which, at least in
the academic community, is starting to be called, quite properly,
"Southwest Asia").
To think about it another way - the term "Oriental" was in wide
use when I was growing up in Southern California in the 1980s...
but you certainly don't get from Los Angeles to Tokyo or Beijing
by flying *east*. If we were going to go by direction, we should
should have been calling East Asians "Occidentals". You can argue
that it's a matter of Western vs. Eastern Hemisphere, but that
doesn't hold up very well - it makes Canterbury part of the
Orient, for one.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: I think the real problem with Bendis' dialogue - if you consider it a
: problem - is that his attempts at naturalism involve heavy re-use of the
: same devices, again and again.
I don't even think that would be much of a problem.
What turns me off Bendis' recent work is that it seems to be on autopilot. As
long as the devices you mention are just tools, used to convey information and
emphasize the characters' personalities, the result can be fabulously
entertaining.
Recently, however, they seem to have become an end in themselves. Bendis'
characters tend to sound the same, no matter whether it's Spider-Man or Iron Man
or Captain America he's writing. Characters talk "like Bendis characters" not
because it serves a certain purpose, but because Bendis happens to have grown
used to writing that way, and people have come to like how he writes, so, hey,
why not give them some more of it.
Which is very unfortunate, because every idiot can write that way. It's subject
matter and context that make the difference between an interesting,
hyper-realistic dialogue and nerve-racking, inane gibberish.
Fallen
>Paul O'Brien wrote:
>
>: I think the real problem with Bendis' dialogue - if you consider it a
>: problem - is that his attempts at naturalism involve heavy re-use of the
>: same devices, again and again.
>
>I don't even think that would be much of a problem.
>
>What turns me off Bendis' recent work is that it seems to be on autopilot. As
>long as the devices you mention are just tools, used to convey information and
>emphasize the characters' personalities, the result can be fabulously
>entertaining.
>
>Recently, however, they seem to have become an end in themselves. Bendis'
>characters tend to sound the same, no matter whether it's Spider-Man or Iron Man
>or Captain America he's writing. Characters talk "like Bendis characters" not
>because it serves a certain purpose, but because Bendis happens to have grown
>used to writing that way, and people have come to like how he writes, so, hey,
>why not give them some more of it.
>
>Which is very unfortunate, because every idiot can write that way. It's subject
>matter and context that make the difference between an interesting,
>hyper-realistic dialogue and nerve-racking, inane gibberish.
>
>
>
I think that's also my main problem. It's just very jarring that every
character has the same slightly sarcastic sense of humour and they can
all take a joke etc.
Fallen.
Jack Bohn
>Jack Bohn asked:
> >> [...] why is "Orientals" offensive?
>
>Paul O'Brien replied:
> > The literal meaning of the word isn't particularly problematic [...]
>
>Well, the literal meaning of the word is "people from the East,"
>which sounds fairly neutral... until you think about what it implies
>about where you're standing.
Eurocentric or Eurasiancentric? Did the Chinese not think of
themselves as "from the East"? They were east of everyone they
knew up until recent times (the last 600 years or so). Well,
everyone except the Japanese -- how long have they been calling
themselves "The Land of the Rising Sun"?
--
-Jack
Ibn Tumart
> Essentially, yes. The literal meaning of the word isn't particularly
> problematic, but it's come to be associated with rather unpleasant
> views, and consequently it's picked up some connotations that English
> speakers would probably prefer to avoid. In some ways it's similar to
> the fate that befell "gay" in its non-sexual usage - it's not strictly
> speaking wrong to use it in that sense, but it's acquired some wholly
> irrelevant connotations, and so it's probably best avoided unless you
> deliberately want to invoke them or you're consciously trying to write
> in a dated style.
>
I've also heard from Asian/Asian-American acquaintances that it's
offensive because of a belief that Oriental refers properly to an
object, such as an Oriental rug or vase, rather than a person.
I'm not arguing that's the way the word was always intended, please
understand, but that does seem to be a not uncommon perception at any rate.
Kurt Busiek
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> said:
Right. "Oriental" takes, as one of its presuppositions, that you're
talking about someone else -- those guys over there. "Caucasian"
doesn't -- if I say "Caucasian" and if Syevie Wonder says "Caucasian,"
we mean the same thing; it's purely descriptive.
But if a guy in Kowloon says "Oriental," he's defining himself as a guy
from the east of the real place -- Europe. And since he doesn't think
of himself as from the edge of civilization, but from his own
civilization, whose center is right there, not off in Europe, he may
not like the idea of a term that defines white people as real people
and Asians as "other people, over there."
kdb
Adam Cadre
> Did the Chinese not think of themselves as "from the East"?
No. The Chinese thought of themselves as belonging to the Middle
Kingdom, the center of the world.
Kurt Busiek
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:15:09 -0400, Adam Cadre
> <see-website...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>
>> Steven R. Stahl wrote:
>>> My 1979 copy of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this
>>> definition for "Scotch"
>>
>> Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
>> refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
>
> Outside of the US, it still is acceptable. There are Chinese
> businesses in the UK with Oriental in their name, for instance.
> Neither they nor anyone else who isn't American has a problem with
> this. But then, we never took Edward Said as seriously as you did.
We have businesses with Oriental in the name too. Plus, we have the
United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. But those names date from times the
terms were more generally acceptable.
Oriental doesn't get as strong a reaction as some others, but
resistance to it is rising, and not just in the US. It's just that
California is the first place to react to this sort of thing, so it
always seems to start there...
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> Eurocentric or Eurasiancentric? Did the Chinese not think of
> themselves as "from the East"? They were east of everyone they
> knew up until recent times (the last 600 years or so).
>
No, they thought of all those other people as from the West. They
thought of China as "right here," not as something removed from the
center. It was the center, to them.
Well,
> everyone except the Japanese -- how long have they been calling
> themselves "The Land of the Rising Sun"?
>
That's because they felt the sun rose on them first, as I recall, not
because they thought themselves east-of-center.
kdb
scott34494
Marc-Oliver Frisch wrote:
> Paul O'Brien wrote:
>
> : I think the real problem with Bendis' dialogue - if you consider it a
> : problem - is that his attempts at naturalism involve heavy re-use of the
> : same devices, again and again.
>
> I don't even think that would be much of a problem.
>
> What turns me off Bendis' recent work is that it seems to be on autopilot. As
> long as the devices you mention are just tools, used to convey information and
> emphasize the characters' personalities, the result can be fabulously
> entertaining.
>
> Recently, however, they seem to have become an end in themselves. Bendis'
> characters tend to sound the same, no matter whether it's Spider-Man or Iron Man
> or Captain America he's writing.
They really don't sound the same any more than most other comic
writer's characters sound the same. They might all use similar
expressions- but when they aren't doing that, Spider-man is making
wisecracks, Cage is espousing ghetto morality, Cap's harping on old
times, etc.
It's really not a fair criticism.
Martin Feller
"scott34494" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122864516.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I completely disagree. Bendis has a very definite and strong voice.
This voice works for him very well in some places and is a crutch in
others. Just like every other writer out there, Scott, your Gawd
Bendis has some weak spots he could work on.
Unless you think Bendis is above critique?
scott34494
I know he has a strong voice, that doesn't mean the characters all
sound alike.
Shawn H
: > They really don't sound the same any more than most other comic
: > writer's characters sound the same. They might all use similar
: > expressions- but when they aren't doing that, Spider-man is making
: > wisecracks, Cage is espousing ghetto morality, Cap's harping on old
: > times, etc.
: >
: > It's really not a fair criticism.
: I completely disagree. Bendis has a very definite and strong voice.
: This voice works for him very well in some places and is a crutch in
: others. Just like every other writer out there, Scott, your Gawd
: Bendis has some weak spots he could work on.
: Unless you think Bendis is above critique?
Unless?
What's "ghetto morality" anyway?
Shawn H.
scott34494
Shawn H wrote:
>
> What's "ghetto morality" anyway?
See the scene where Luke Cage tells off Matt Murdock for lying about
his secret identity over in Daredevil.
Shawn H
: Martin Feller wrote:
: > >
: > > It's really not a fair criticism.
: >
: > I completely disagree. Bendis has a very definite and strong voice.
: I know he has a strong voice, that doesn't mean the characters all
: sound alike.
It's just that ... they do.
Shawn H.
Tony
--I agree that Bendis has a definite strong voice, but there are
times--as Marc-Oliver pointed out that many of his "voices" sound
alike. It certainly seems that way on New Avengers. It's very
difficult to discern a different voice for each character. When I'm
reading the book, most of the heroes sound quite alike.
Tony
Hand-of-Omega
Rob Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:15:09 -0400, Adam Cadre
> <see-website...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>
> >Steven R. Stahl wrote:
> > > My 1979 copy of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this
> > > definition for "Scotch"
> >
> >Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
> >refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
>
> Outside of the US, it still is acceptable. There are Chinese
> businesses in the UK with Oriental in their name, for instance.
> Neither they nor anyone else who isn't American has a problem with
> this. But then, we never took Edward Said as seriously as you did.
I was told, when I once used the term, that it refers to *objects*
(which businesses could count as), not to people. My Asian friend
looked at me and asked: "Oriental? Do I look like a piece of furniture
to you?"^^
Then again, one of my roomie's Asian friends once refered to himself as
"a Chinaman", so, who knows...^^
Dex
Shawn H
: >No, sadly, your complaint is inane. Not only are you one of the few
: >people who claims to be distracted by natural grammar, but your
: >argument, that dialect should be avoided in fiction, is utter nonsense.
: Or indeed Irvine Welsh, who must be gloriously incomprehensible to most
: American readers.
Well, if you see Trainspotting first, it helps.
: I think the real problem with Bendis' dialogue - if you consider it a
: problem - is that his attempts at naturalism involve heavy re-use of the
: same devices, again and again. He likes his hesitations, his broken
: sentences, repetition, and so forth. These things are meant to give his
: dialogue a natural rhythm, but because it's so obvious, and the devices
: are so familiar to regular readers, it ends up just sounding like a
: Brian Bendis script.
It bespeaks a world view where everyone has the same flaws in both
thought processes and elocution. The same gaps between thought and
utterance. Surely some people are more articulate than others? Everyone
in the Marvel U. isn't muddling through with the same handicaps?
Shawn H.
Paul O'Brien
<shill#@fas.harvard.edu> writes
>
>Well, if you see Trainspotting first, it helps.
Yeah, but they re-dubbed that film for Americans. Seriously.
Paul O'Brien
<kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>
>But if a guy in Kowloon says "Oriental," he's defining himself as a guy
>from the east of the real place -- Europe.
I question that, to be honest. East and west are simply points on a
map, and the fact that Europe happened to be taken as the mid-point is
ultimately just a historical quirk. China and Japan *are* in the east.
There is nothing Eurocentric about saying that. It's just what the word
"east" means. You've got to pick a mid-point somewhere, or how would
co-ordinates work?
CleV
<hando...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Rob Hansen wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:15:09 -0400, Adam Cadre
>> <see-website...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>> >Steven R. Stahl wrote:
>> > > My 1979 copy of The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary has this
>> > > definition for "Scotch"
>> >Your 1979 dictionary probably also says that it's acceptable to
>> >refer to people of East Asian descent as "Orientals."
>> Outside of the US, it still is acceptable. There are Chinese
>> businesses in the UK with Oriental in their name, for instance.
>> Neither they nor anyone else who isn't American has a problem with
>> this. But then, we never took Edward Said as seriously as you did.
>I was told, when I once used the term, that it refers to *objects*
>(which businesses could count as), not to people. My Asian friend
>looked at me and asked: "Oriental? Do I look like a piece of furniture
>to you?"^^
>Then again, one of my roomie's Asian friends once refered to himself as
>"a Chinaman", so, who knows...^^
In my experience, it's only an American thing. Most east Asians are
quite happy to be "oriental".
Kurt Busiek
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:18:37 -0700, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>> Plus, we have the United Negro College Fund and the National
>> Association for the Advancement of Colored People. But those names
>> date from times the terms were more generally acceptable.
>
> Well, if the terms are not as acceptable now I suppose they could keep
> the initials but change the name. NAACP could be National African
> American Coalition for Progress, for instance, which means essentially
> the same thing.
>
Sure, but the organization shows no sign of this; apparently, the
general feeling is that new names get affected by new attitudes, old
names stay the way they are. Still, if you ever want to pass as a
California liberal, you could trot this out and fool 'em all.
Of course, you then end up with the same problem when
> African-American becomes archaic which, on past form, there seems a
> high likelihood it will.
>
Lawrence Block makes a strong argument that it won't, on the grounds
that it's too long and awkward for bigots to adopt. There's more to
his point, and it's funny, but it takes up a couple of pages of TANNER
ON ICE and is best exprienced in context.
Oriental doesn't get as strong a reaction as some others, but
resistance to it is rising, and not just in the US. It's just that
California is the first place to react to this sort of thing, so it
always seems to start there...
>>
> Yeah, but it doesn't always spread to the rest of the world.
>
Are there any people who use the term African-Europeans, even?
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:10:43 -0700, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>
>> But if a guy in Kowloon says "Oriental," he's defining himself as a guy
>> from the east of the real place -- Europe. And since he doesn't think
>> of himself as from the edge of civilization, but from his own
>> civilization, whose center is right there, not off in Europe, he may
>> not like the idea of a term that defines white people as real people
>> and Asians as "other people, over there."
>
> See, I've never understood this. I've always thought of myself as a
> Westerner and never even once thought this implied I was therefore to
> the west of some 'real place', as you put it.
In part, that's because you're part of the dominant culture, one that
considers itself the center of history, learning and the human
universe, and the term long post-dates those it mirrors; it's a
back-engineered construction.
Back in the day, a man of the West would be Irish. Or from Fairyland,
when "the West" was thought to be the direction from which the beings
of magic came.
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> said:
> In message <2005073118104350073%kurtbusiek@aolcomics>, Kurt Busiek
> <kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>>
>> But if a guy in Kowloon says "Oriental," he's defining himself as a guy
>> from the east of the real place -- Europe.
>
> I question that, to be honest. East and west are simply points on a
> map, and the fact that Europe happened to be taken as the mid-point is
> ultimately just a historical quirk. China and Japan *are* in the east.
> There is nothing Eurocentric about saying that. It's just what the
> word "east" means. You've got to pick a mid-point somewhere, or how
> would co-ordinates work?
China and Japan are no more in the East than France or Duluth. It's a sphere.
And yes, saying China and Japan *are* in the east is Eurocentric. It's
not a historical quirk but a cultural assumption -- and people who are
not part of your culture don't necessarily make the same assumptions
about where the mid-point is.
You can pick a mid-point for the convenience of global charts, but
that's not where the term "Oriental" derives from. The mid-point and
the term both derive from prior Eurocentric assumptions. That it
doesn't seem like a big deal to someone who lives at the "center"
doesn't mean it won't bother anyone else.
Heck, go to New Zealand and you can buy maps of the world with the
South Pole on top and New Zealand on the midline -- they're gag maps,
but the gag is rooted in the sense of unimportance and inferiority
being considered "way down there at the edge" brings.
You may think it makes no sense, but check around -- it's not imaginary.
kdb
Ibn Tumart
> In message <dclm7f$pls$1...@us23.unix.fas.harvard.edu>, Shawn H
> <shill#@fas.harvard.edu> writes
>
>>
>> Well, if you see Trainspotting first, it helps.
>
>
> Yeah, but they re-dubbed that film for Americans. Seriously.
>
The DVD edition I wasn't re-dubbed, though it was a new deluxe edition
or some such. I really didn't find it hard to follow, but then, I lived
a little while in Glasgow, so maybe that helped a wee bit.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 2005-08-01 14:28:38 -0700, Paul O'Brien
><pa...@SPAMBLOCK.esoterica.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>> In message <2005073118104350073%kurtbusiek@aolcomics>, Kurt Busiek
>> <kurtb...@aol.comics> writes
>>>
>>> But if a guy in Kowloon says "Oriental," he's defining himself as a guy
>>> from the east of the real place -- Europe.
>>
>> I question that, to be honest. East and west are simply points on a
>> map, and the fact that Europe happened to be taken as the mid-point is
>> ultimately just a historical quirk. China and Japan *are* in the east.
>> There is nothing Eurocentric about saying that. It's just what the
>> word "east" means. You've got to pick a mid-point somewhere, or how
>> would co-ordinates work?
>
>China and Japan are no more in the East than France or Duluth. It's a sphere.
>
>And yes, saying China and Japan *are* in the east is Eurocentric. It's
>not a historical quirk but a cultural assumption -- and people who are
>not part of your culture don't necessarily make the same assumptions
>about where the mid-point is.
>
>You can pick a mid-point for the convenience of global charts, but
>that's not where the term "Oriental" derives from. The mid-point and
>the term both derive from prior Eurocentric assumptions. That it
>doesn't seem like a big deal to someone who lives at the "center"
>doesn't mean it won't bother anyone else.
>
We don't live in the centre though. We live in the West.
David Goldfarb
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:18:37 -0700, Kurt Busiek
><kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>>Oriental doesn't get as strong a reaction as some others, but
>>resistance to it is rising, and not just in the US. It's just that
>>California is the first place to react to this sort of thing, so it
>>always seems to start there...
>
I can remember the first time that I heard "Oriental" deprecated and
"Asian" recommended in Berkeley. It was somewhat over twenty years ago.
So, no, it doesn't always spread.
--
David Goldfarb |From the fortune cookie file:
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |"You think that is a secret, but it never has
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | been one."
ron saarna
"Kurt Busiek" <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote in message
news:2005080117024716807%kurtbusiek@aolcomics...
> Oriental doesn't get as strong a reaction as some others, but
> resistance to it is rising, and not just in the US. It's just that
> California is the first place to react to this sort of thing, so it
> always seems to start there...
As well it should. California is where the railroad ended, and as a result
where many of the workers settled down. What some people don't get is that
some families might have been members of the American community longer than
their's were. To be singled out as "Oriental" is as great an insult as to
call the descendants of the families landing at Plymouth Rock "boat
people".
Adam Cadre
> I can remember the first time that I heard "Oriental" deprecated and
> "Asian" recommended in Berkeley. It was somewhat over twenty years
> ago. So, no, it doesn't always spread.
Tone doesn't translate well over the net - are you being sarcastic?
Because this is one that *did* spread: I've lived all over North
America and I haven't heard the word "Oriental" applied to people
in the past 15 years except by racists and Englishmen.
Adam Cadre
> We don't live in the centre though.
Tell that to the International Meridian Conference.
> We live in the West.
What are you west of?
George Peatty
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>What are you west of?
The Prime Meridian
Lee K. Seitz
Kurt Busiek <kurtb...@aol.comics> wrote:
>Heck, go to New Zealand and you can buy maps of the world with the
>South Pole on top and New Zealand on the midline -- they're gag maps,
>but the gag is rooted in the sense of unimportance and inferiority
>being considered "way down there at the edge" brings.
I proudly have a copy of McArthur's Universal Corrective Map of the
World hanging on the wall of my office at home
(<http://www.odt.org/NewMaps.htm#Mcarthur>). I got it on my trip to
Australia over ten years ago.
--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
WATCHER: By the time you finish reading this tome you shall realize
that I even save silly and trivial stories. No one's perfect.
-- Jim Starlin, _The Big Change_
Shawn H
: Yeah, but they re-dubbed that film for Americans. Seriously.
My version had sub-titles.
Shawn H.
Kurt Busiek
> As noted in another message, that's a back-engineered construction.
> The sea that southern Europe fronts on is named "the Middle of the
> World."
Heck, "the East" usesd to be Istanbul. That's why China was "the Far East."
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> said:
Out in the noonday sun?
kdb
Kurt Busiek
So...Paris is the Near East, then?
kdb
Kurt Busiek
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:02:47 -0700, Kurt Busiek <kurtb...@aol.comics>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-08-01 10:07:42 -0700, Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> said:
>>> Of course, you then end up with the same problem when
>>> African-American becomes archaic which, on past form, there seems a
>>> high likelihood it will.
>>>
>> Lawrence Block makes a strong argument that it won't, on the grounds
>> that it's too long and awkward for bigots to adopt. There's more to
>> his point, and it's funny, but it takes up a couple of pages of TANNER
>> ON ICE and is best exprienced in context.
>
> I have several black American friends, every one of whom prefers
> 'black' to 'African-American'. Since I never probed them further on
> this I don't know precisely why this should be but, given their ages -
> they're all over 30 - possibly it's a generational thing.
>
In part. Also a patience thing -- some people don't like to bother
with a seven-syllable construction when a one-syllable one sounds just
fine to their ears.
"Black" is still widely acceptable; there are some who don't like it,
many who don't have a problem with it.
kdb
David Johnston
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
> > We don't live in the centre though.
>
>Tell that to the International Meridian Conference.
>
> > We live in the West.
>
>What are you west of?
The former Warsaw Pact nations.
David Johnston
wrote:
No it isn't. We are not defined as being west of the East. Where we
start is way west of the East. We are the West because we were west
of Russian domination during the Cold War. And it's because the Earth
is a globe that Japan pulls off the amusing trick of being both West
and East at the same time.
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: And yes, saying China and Japan *are* in the east is Eurocentric. It's
: not a historical quirk but a cultural assumption -- and people who are
: not part of your culture don't necessarily make the same assumptions
: about where the mid-point is.
There are cultures on Earth who disagree on the popular geographical definition
of the poles...?
--
Marc-Oliver Frisch
POPP'D! >> http://poppd.blogspot.com
COMIKADO << http://comikado.blogspot.com
SUPERCRITICAL >> http://supercritic.blogspot.com
Habemus nauseam.
--
[This is a Usenet message, posted to the rec.arts.comics.* groups.]
Kurt Busiek
> You think "Oriental" dates from the Cold War?
Where you start is not "way west of the East." Check out the location
of the Near East sometime -- everything west of that -- up to the
Canary Islands, which was considered the western edge of things during
Ptolemy's time -- was considered the middle.
Russia was part of the East before the Cold War, long, long before
Europe was the West.
kdb
Adam Cadre
> > What are you west of?
David Johnston replied:
> The former Warsaw Pact nations.
Well, it's a better answer than "the Prime Meridian," at any rate.
But "the West" and "Western Civilization" as concepts predate
14 May 1955.
Furthermore, it's hard to prove that "the West" isn't a Eurocentric
concept by defining it in terms of a European entity. Yes, if you're
thinking in terms of non-communist vs. communist (and then formerly
communist) nations between 1955 and 1991, then *in Europe* you get
a nice West vs. East split. Elsewhere it's not so easy. The USSR
used to lie two miles *west* of the USA, thanks to islands in the
Bering Strait.
Adam Cadre
> There are cultures on Earth who disagree on the popular geographical
> definition of the poles...?
There is no East Pole.
Kurt Busiek
<Dersc...@hotmail.com> said:
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
> : And yes, saying China and Japan *are* in the east is Eurocentric. It's
> : not a historical quirk but a cultural assumption -- and people who are
> : not part of your culture don't necessarily make the same assumptions
> : about where the mid-point is.
>
> There are cultures on Earth who disagree on the popular geographical definition
> of the poles...?
Probably. There are certainly groups that consider the picture of the
world created by the assumption that the north pole is the "top" to be
arbitrary and Eurocentric.
But the poles only define which directions are east and west, not which
countries are "in the East" or "in the West." That's culturally based,
and quite Eurocentric -- and it long predates the Prime Meridian, which
was unsurprisingly chosen by the British, wasn't formally adopted
internationally until 1884 (and it'd be interested to see what nations
were represented in the early International Geographical Congesses, and
made these decisions for the world), and wasn't even accepted by France
until something like 1911. Before then, nations tended to have
multiple prime meridians, one centered on their own capital, and
Greenwich, since Britain's Navy was dominant, and that's the one they
used.
Interestingly, part of the international agreement over making
Greenwich the Prime Meridian was an agreement on Brittain's part that
they'd adopt the metric system in return. Took 'em a while...
kdb
Kurt Busiek
<see-website...@adamcadre.ac> said:
> Marc-Oliver Frisch wrote:
> > There are cultures on Earth who disagree on the popular geographical
> > definition of the poles...?
>
> There is no East Pole.
It's apparently in the Western Hemisphere:
http://www.tagyerit.com/eastpole.php
kdb
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: There is no East Pole.
According to a 2002 census, there are at least 36,983,720 Poles in the East.
(Work on your grammar.)
Marc-Oliver Frisch
: But the poles only define which directions are east and west, not which
: countries are "in the East" or "in the West." That's culturally based,
: and quite Eurocentric --
It's "Eurocentric" in the most literal sense of the word -- i.e., it's centered
in Europe, geographically. But, as Paul says, that's a historical happenstance
more than anything else: It happens to be placed there because Europeans
happened to be in charge at the time it became necessary to agree on a Prime
Meridian.
Unless a fundamentally different geographical system is dominant in other
regions of the globe, however, I don't see what's supposed to be Eurocentric
about adhering to the popular system. You have to use a point of reference,
and, for all intents and purposes, everyone appears to agree on it now, no
matter whether they're in Europe or anywhere else. It's as universal as it
gets.
: Interestingly, part of the international agreement over making
: Greenwich the Prime Meridian was an agreement on Brittain's part that
: they'd adopt the metric system in return. Took 'em a while...
Unfortunately, the agreement took place before anyone needed to decide which
side on the street was reserved for which direction. It might have saved a few
lives.