For it is all the wealth that he hath left, to be known a reasonable creature ...

I'm reading Batman in the Sixties. I like this frame.

Comments

[Zedd]

Ah would have thought as a putative filosophe u might have raised an objection to the status of Robinski's exclusive disjunction: is it correct to assert that Clay-face, whatever it is, is either a creature, OR a human, but not both? At the very least Robin needs to provide a axiomatic definition of "creature", distinguishing it from human.

[Scotto]

"Creature" from create -- if you subscribe to Intelligent Design, then all things are created: humans, animal, same difference. Robin, clearly, is a darwinist, wondering if Clayface was a human being who changed, or was created as he is now.

Scientific advances since the sixties have let us acertain that Clayface 1 was a human being, probably an actor in a costume -- probably an old horror movie star driven mad by watching low-quality remakes of his masterworks appear. That sort of thing.

[Matt]

Would a creature still money? One who wanted to buy some things might.

[jholbo]

Yes Zedd, it's odd that I didn't focus on the categorically-addled aspect of the dialogue. But obviously, when I said I liked the frame, I was saying that I thought it was a particularly nice picture of Robin's arm, and worthy of drawing to everyone's attention as such.

[Doctor Slack]

However, we could always interrogate the binary of creature/human through a deconstructive operation that consummates the radical instability of Barthes' concept of mythification.

(File under: Drunken Eclecticism.)

[David Moles]

I just love that "creature" is clearly a reified, well-defined concept in the DC world, or at least in Batman's world.

[Adam Kotsko]

Perhaps it would represent a step forward if more academics substituted Higher Eclecticism for Drunken Eclecticism.

[Phred]

Ignoring Paddy K-Co's sophistry du jour and Robins category error, one could view much of the super-hero comic book "villainization" as a type of suburban escape: the pulp-entertainment bidness has an astounding ability to replace the ordinary, to replace history. THat's not to suggest another re-run of historical materialism via marx, but perhaps historical materialism, post-marx (but not post-mod). The events of the last 90 years or so are hardly kitschy. (ah always preferred Sgt. Rock or, egads Gasoline Alley, ZIPPY, over Batman & S-man).

[David Moles]

Do I want to know in what way pulp entertainment replaces the ordinary and in what way it replaces history, or am I just asking for trouble?

[Phred]

Ah admit it would be difficult to confirm the actual cognitive process, but most American pod-people know far more about say Batman (and many other pop phenomena) than they do about say, the facts of 'Nam, Korea, WWII, the great depression, WWI, etc. etc. That's not to give carte blanche to Adorno's ideas of the Culture Industry, but one could hardly deny that much of American life is based on celebrity-infatuation--and super-heroes are sort of ersatz celebrities. And this pop-intoxication does prevent a certain type of, well, gravitas, methinks; of course there are snooty postmods who might argue that pop entertainment says something profound about American politics, but if pulp/manga/pop-art does do that, it does so negatively.

In effect, the comic book super-hero is generally a type of populist icon, and might be used by either populist reds or populist repugs; and the moral "code" of the super-hero comix is not so far from the standard cliche heroes and villains of say greek myth. Reiterations of Hercules, methinks; or perhaps Perseus (can you say Holy Intrepidness, Batman?) at least Hermes; and Hamlet/Horatio ..or Kirk/spock sort of parallels too--the superior rationalists dealing with the rabble. So there is reification of some sort, and one doesn't have to buy into marxism to perceive that. Other races/culture have their own super-hero icons of course (what were those old massive soivet Stalin/Lenin portraits if not super-hero icons).

[Phred]

Titanocracy, that's it. Not only super-heroes, but pro-athletes, soldiers, cowboys, rasslers, thugs of various types; men of action-- more Laertes than Hamlets--and the thugs get the goils, of course. All part of the irrational, populist spectacle--the soldier-Sergeant is the hero, but the crew of high-powered techies who built the planes, rockets, aircraft carriers, etc. are part of the geek squad. You see that same impulse in Batman or James Bond.

[Phrumious]

A Categorical Error?

[David Moles]

Actually, it's only the guys who design the planes and rockets and whatnot that are geeks, and in a very 50s, hornrims-and-sliderules kind if way. The guys who build them are pretty blue-collar.

[Phrumious]

Yes, but the engineers and designers are not so marketable. Ho-wood films, advertisers, comic books generally keep the propeller heads in the background--they are the suppport staff for the daring deeds of the super-hero, usually; the men of action, can-do guys, heroes (or anti-hero thugs) are flouted. The hive needs its sergeant heroes. Batman seems a bit more more an officer type, slightly aristocratic (as done by Keaton's Bruce Wayne sort of captures it); but still a can-do guy, like Capn' Kirk a bit. Kirk/Hamlet/Batman/Tommy Cruise: the Lieutenant hero; clowns like Willis, Chuck Norris, Eastwood: the yankee sergeant figure. Or Hans Solo: the rogue NCO pilot/helmsman--sheet goes back to Homer. Heroes affirm agency, volition, liberty: doesn't really matter what they do: save lives, fight villains/aliens, or kill 1000's, they are strong and FREE, with beaucoup gear--they may be scoundrel/pirates too-- pirate/buccaneer again the hero contrary. Batman might turn Hitler/Stalin and nuke a nation with a flick of his wrist and return to his boudoir with some lovely maiden; or Depp's Capn. Jack might off a few thousand hicks and come back to his ship and hump the lassies and everyone would cheer. Humans crave murder and fucking on a grand scale, man.

[Phrumious]

But of course most American "philosophers" or literary clowns, or for that matter bidness and engineering majors, generally never grasped, much less attended History 101. Nor do most American artists, pop or high-brow. For all their errors and hyper-conceptualizations, most Hegelians and marxists (pre-post maud at least) have a historical sense; the old fabians had the historical sense.

[jholbo]

Dear Phrumious,

What do you make of the fact that you are apparently just writing the same comment, over and over and over? We at J&B do concede that your stylings - and even typography - constitute a distinctive signature of sorts. Still, you basically keep posting the same comment over and over and over and over and over. What's with that? You keep saying the same thing over and over and over. (What's with that?) Some people might say that repetition is unnecessary. Once you've said something once, if you don't have any additional arguments to add, you don't need to keep saying it over and over and over and over. On the other hand, people might say that my posts get a bit repetitive. And they'd have a point. Still, I don't think I come close to the repetitiveness of our friend Phrumious. Saying the same things over and over and over. It's not like we haven't noticed that you don't like Adam Kotsko. It's not like we haven't noticed that you like to mangle his name, to express your dislike. So why do it over and over and over and over? What's with that?

You are forever immortal on account of 'college squid' and 'liberal sockhopper' in that CT thread. "Even Ezra Pound would have called you a bitch." That's funny stuff. Still, in terms of the substance of your comments, you are saying the same thing over and over and over and over. Just sayin'.

I'm not saying that noticing that you keep saying the same things over and over and over and over constitutes a historical sense on my part, either. But it is a piece of microhistory, all the comments saying the same thing - mangling Adam Kotsko's name. In short, you're repeating yourself. What do you make of that?

[Phrumious]

Naw, ah just think as a professional academic you simply don't care for dissent as a rule; regardless of what form it takes. Yes, I have denounced Kostco, Kawfmann, and others around this lil' blog community from time to time; I find xtians to be generally deluded and occasionally dangerous irrationalists hangin' on to a bankrupt Weltanschauung--but then so are jews and muslims and pagans of whatever stripe; and I tend to dislike literary people as a rule. Nothin' personal really, tho' if you hold to any secular ideas based loosely or formally on analytical philosophy (say verification in its various forms), you would agree theists (and really aesthetes, too) have little ground to stand on.
Additionally, I dislike blog-moderation and feel it is proper to voice my opposition to moderation/censorship/deletion--perhaps you remember the old USENET chats where nothing was ever censored, even the most rude and obscene or violent posts--and there's still something to be said for that pure libertarian perspective.

Apart from the lightweight character issue, crimefighter (you think there is something inherently mistaken in terming a non-sequitur a "sophistry du jour?"), I am sort of puzzled on which point you are referring to. You are referring to my quasi- Adorno point regarding pop-entertainment and literature as reification and intoxication, or was it soldier-as-populist icon? Or is it my later point that most philosophers don't know squat about history. When attempting a critique it helps to substantiate some points. Whatevah. I'm pretty much finished posting here.

[Adam Kotsko]

Whatevah. I'm pretty much finished posting here.

My historical sense tells me otherwise! (And I don't just mean to the extent that this particular comment will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

John, I'm saddened that you focused on his mangling of Adam's name, when he mangles mine all the time too. I mean, Adam's not even on your team.

I sense our "friend" longs for the days of warboards yore. I wonder if he'd divulge his handle from those times. I was fairly well-known, and if he was a foe of substance, I'd at least recognize his handle. I could list my own, as well as those who "fought" beside me, but I have a feeling he's invented his recollections of the Before-Time, so I doubt he'll make himself any more accountable now than he has, well, anytime ever.

There really is nothing like a failed bully who won't even own up to his words...

[jholbo]

Scott, you're right. He makes fun of your name as well, and that is just as repetitive the 10th time round.

Now you, Phrumious. "When attempting a critique it helps to substantiate some points." This may be such a utter non sequitar as to qualify as a sophistry du jour. (I couldn't say. Certainly it is a non sequitar.) You markedly favor the strident and declarative over the evidential and argumentative. One of the things that let's us know it's you, behind the newest name, is the signature manner in which you leave out the argument.

Since uttering P in a gonzo manner does not a proof of P make, you are up argument creek without a paddle most days of the week (incuding weekends). I think the historical record will bear me out on that. (This declarative exuberance is rather paradoxically balanced by your official championship of verificationist sobriety, but there is something so fundamentally HONEST about a stone drunk teetotaler that I am inclined to let it pass.) Of course, declaration is fine in comments. Very standard mode. What I was noting, above, was your strong tendency to repeat the same declarations, over and over. I didn't have in mind only your very most recent offerings, as you infer. My historical instincts are stronger than that.

Also, your notion that pure libertarianism requires one to let everyone do anything they like to a piece of your private property - i.e. your site - is, to say the least, radically revisionary, as notions of pure libertarianism go.

All the best, Phrumious, if indeed you decide to check out of our little intellectual salon scene, comics kitsch-drenched though it may be. I will always remember 'liberal sockhopper' with fondness. But as to all this pantomiming that you are on the side of argument ... pull the other one, it's got bells on. (Of all the silly kids!) We all know each other by now, more or less.

[phrumious]

First, SEK, I am not your pal, and secondly you're not intellectually fit to make any cheesy character assessments, and that isn't what this is about, either. Your writing shows you to be an arrogant, manipulative, loud-mouthed, mostly irrational moron, Scott. Lots of people know that. But there's only a few who have the spine to point it out.

* * *

You markedly favor the strident and declarative over the evidential and argumentative

Blurbs regarding comic books and Orwell are not exactly conducive to argument, and this isn't a forum for APA-format research papers, or for logic really; nor is your heavily moderated rhetoric-fest on the Valve so suited to argument or rationality of any sort. It is you that is the strident one, and indeed the aesthete: and aesthetics generally not a matter of argument but strident opinion with little factual backing. Literary works are not case studies, having little to no value as data of any type (except perhaps as showing trivial consumer preferences), and comix, pop-art even less worth as data. So really what are you arguing about? Even when you do the Wittgensteinian thing, it is generally that of the later Witt.. and mostly "pragmatics", ordinary language grind and neither, as y'all say, synthetic/empirical nor analytic/axiomatic (or purely synthetic a posteriori, if you prefer Quine)--in the immortal words of Bush I, where's the beef?: I've never seen any empirical stuff around these blogs (the meme stuff and Moretti and evo. psych., has an empirical aspect, but that is rare), nor is there much if any chat of analytical knowledge--formal logic, set theory, and foundations of mathematics, etc. But one must admit you 'n the Bellester have excellent taste in manga.

[bryan]

I too like the frame, I like how effectively Batman is framing ClayFace, a poor creature, for the theft of this money that it doesn't even need. And Robin fell for it all so easily.

But it is obvious Robin doesn't want to face the truth. Where does Bruce get his money?

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

First, SEK, I am not your pal, and secondly you're not intellectually fit to make any cheesy character assessments...

I am, however, intellectually fit to recognze sarcastic quotation marks, unlike some people. (I won't name names, er, I won't name any of the names.)

Your writing shows you to be an arrogant, manipulative, loud-mouthed, mostly irrational moron, Scott. Lots of people know that.

I am arrogant, aren't I? What with always proclaiming myself so much smarter than everyone else, ostentatiously displaying--without ever bothering to prove--my belief that my knowledge is so superior to everyone else's...wait a minute, that's not me. That's you. Sorry, "pal," got us confused for a second there.

As for the "loud-mouthed" and "mostly irrational moron," well, you've got me there. The deaf tend to yell, bloggers tend to write, and I spend most of my days calling myself far worse than "mostly irrational moron"...

But there's only a few who have the spine to point it out.

'Cause it takes spine to snipe, anonymously, at graduate students? Sorry, "buddy," but I'm not buying it. You frequent the path of least resistance, no matter how much you fancy yourself the martyr.

But if this is your last gasp in these parts, let me be the first to tell you how much I'll miss your Einstoned rhetoric:

[phrumious]

You haven't quite figured out that nobody is required to admire the LIT. business, especially the state-funded LIT. bidness, or those who "work" in the LIT. business. LIT. people fancy themselves as part of the research establishment, associating with doctors and scientists, but in effect they are ancien regime parasites and anachronisms, intentionally or not. As your posts/essay indicate, MLA style LIT. crit. is generally a type of dogma and manipulative discourse; and deletion and censorship goes along with MLA-style drivel and the priest-like character of LIT. frauds. In a true secular democracy, the state-university LIT. departments--along with ancient metaphysics and theology--would have most likely been voted out of bidness years ago. For all the cash doled out to UC LIT. slushbuckets, 100s' of computer labs could be built for one.

[Matt]

You know, the only thing I have against phrumious is that his posts are so god-damned boring. I guess that's largely John's point, too. Dissent, that's fine. But boring rambling, that we don't need.