The Ozzie and Harriet Syndrome
by Bill WillinghamA few days ago, in the context of pointing out some of the excesses that typify superhero comic books being published today, I posted my personal mission statement, promising to no longer take part in the superhero decadence trend.
As surely as night follows day, the comics community reacted (here, and on comics-devoted news sites and message boards, far and wide), in a more or less even mix of pro and con, support and condemnation, leavened with the usual percentage of anonymous bomb throwing that’s impossible to avoid in our wonderful Internet culture. Some arguments (on both sides) were fairly and eloquently made, while others were… (let’s be charitable and say) less so.
I’m not going to rehash those matters here. I believe my original essay speaks for itself. What I’d like to do though is call attention to one of the arguments that kept popping up time and again, in response to my essay, and which always — one might say reflexively — come up in response to anything said or written stating a desire for better values, virtues and practices than those which are currently (and dominantly) portrayed in our entertainment.
There are a thousand variations, but the core argument goes something like this: “So you want to turn back the clock to 1950’s Ozzie and Harriet style American values, even though that was also a time of segregation, paranoia, nuclear proliferation, and cultural persecution?”
I suspect I’m not the only one who’s grown weary of this nonsense. In just trying to skim the comics message boards over the past few days, trying to get a sense of how my previous essay was being discussed, I had to read some version of the Ozzie and Harriet indictment at least a dozen times over.
Like the poor rooster of the infamous post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where the sun rises because he crowed, apparently 50’s era family values are inextricably linked with, or actually caused, segregation, paranoia, nuclear proliferation and the rest. Or maybe they’re suggesting Ozzie and Harriet are the specific culprits? I never quite trusted those two.
First of all, I don’t want to turn back time, to the 50’s or any other era. (Actually that’s not entirely true. If I could travel back to medieval England, with a fully-equipped, hand-picked rifle platoon from my old Army Company, I’d do it in a second. (Any progress on that time machine, John?) I think the values lacking in our mainstream entertainment are alive and well today, just no longer much represented. But that’s a conversation for another time. Let’s stay with the Ozzie and Harriet business.
Do you folks who keep raising this argument really believe it? Honestly? It’s either that or your cynicism is even worse than I suspect. If we want those good family values back in our movies, TV programs, novels, and funny-books, we have to have the segregation and other stuff back as well? There’s no way to promote one without the other?
And, if that’s the case, is there something uniquely powerful about Ozzie, Harriet and the terrible 50’s, or are there other blights and crimes in history inextricably aligned with other virtuous qualities? If I were to express a desire for more honor or chivalry, what might your response be?
“So you want to turn back the clock to medieval era definitions of honor and chivalry, even though that was also a time of rigid class systems, murderous domination of the lower classes by the elite, constant bloody warfare, and unprovoked crusades against the Middle East inspired by rampant Western European religious intolerance?”
And what if I were to express a desire for more manly, less weepy and whiny, men in our movies and such?
“So you want to turn back the clock to the old west notion of the brooding, taciturn self-reliant man, living life on his own terms, following his own personal code, even though that was also a time of rampant gun crime, greedy robber barons exploiting the Chinese and other cheap immigrant labor for construction of their evil railroads, genocide against the Native Americans, and women treated as second class citizens kept in serf-bondage to their men and denied the vote?”
Okay, this is getting fun.
For you folks who keep repeating the Ozzie and Harriet argument, but are secretly growing as tired of it as I am, feel free to use these variations I’ve crafted. Even though I’m a professional writer who usually expects to get paid for my work, I do have a strong charitable urge. So do please feel welcome to use these for free. If nothing else, it will break up the monotony of the Ozzie and Harriet indictment with a nice mix.
Now where were we? Oh yes, how about if I ask for more depictions of real patriots?
“So you want to turn back the clock to Revolutionary War era patriotism, even though that was also a time of widespread slavery, where even our country’s so-called founding fathers owned slaves?”
And feel free to get esoteric. Show off your expensive education. If I, or some other evil Republican, were to mention a joy of hunting, you could come back with:
“So you want to turn back the clock to the intrepid hunter-gatherers of the stone age, even though that was a time when the marauding tribes of Clovis People crossed the Bering land-ice bridge, flooding down into pristine ancient America with their advanced flint spearhead technology and wiped out all thirty (or so) species of mega fauna in the space of only a few generations?”
The possibilities are endless. If your knowledge of history is lacking, due to a public education, you could always stay more topical. No need to dredge up the ages when much more recent examples are handy. If someone were to express a wistful desire for more national unity, you could zing him with:
“So you want to turn back the clock to the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when our country was briefly united, even though it was in service to an evil cause where jingoism swept the nation like a cancer, prejudice and hate crimes against Muslims skyrocketed, Republicans were stealing presidential elections so they could launch illegal wars-for-oil (which they lied to get us into), black communities were targeted with natural disasters, and no one was yet allowed to vote for Barack Obama?”
See? It’s easy. You could craft a million variations of the Ozzie and Harriet argument and save us all from a lifetime of dull repetition. I’ll even provide a handy template to make your task even simpler:
Just fill in the blanks as directed: “So you want to turn back the clock to (insert past era here)’s style (insert desired value, virtue, social or cultural practice here), even though that was also a time of (insert list of terrible qualities, conditions, laws or cultural norms, common to the above-listed era here — note that the longer the list the better your argument, and extra points for any use of the word “jingoism”)?”
Try it out for yourself in the comments section below. It’s easy, it’s safe, and it’s fun for the whole family. I’ll even present Ozzie and Harriet were the Heart of Evil awards to the most clever new variations.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
35 Comments
I don’t remember Ozzie and Harriet being segregationists.
I want to turn back the clock so that Ricky sings every week and James Burton throws in a killer guitar solo, but this time I’m leaving that idiot Wally completely out of the picture.
Why don’t we do this in reverse – make shows that take the old paradigms and update them into a modern context? For example, the hijinks that ensue when a some theater folk from South Central get jiggy with it in West Hollywood – Amos and Randy. Oh, the prejudice!
In a lot of ways, the pushback on your original essay (which I damn near applauded as I read it, much to my coworkers’ amusement and concern) sounds too much like “I want everyone to read what I read, even if it’s crap, so the companies will produce more crap for me to read. Thus, let’s just not diversify the comics field, okay?” Perhaps part of the decline in comic sales since the ’90s speculator boom could be attributed partially to narrowing the type of comics offered. Those who wanted to read characters with a strong moral point of view had nothing to buy. Even the writers of said characters couldn’t often figure out how to portray moral characters without subliminal angst (Spider-Man) or overwhelming saccarin (Captain Marvel at his goshwowiest).
But what do you expect in a medium where selling one’s soul to Mephisto is preferable to filing for divorce?
I would recommend that anyone who believes today’s America is better to do some research on how we rank today with happiness, education and infant mortality with the rest of the world. American’s who do not want to embrace the excellence of the psst while leaving the worst behind are those that can not reach to achieve standards. Americans just keep lowwring the standards in everything instead of working to achieve higher standards. Let’s all work to get to the lowest common denominator.
Ive always despised the word jingoism – but this is a fun game, especially since I might have a chance to use it against the Leftards in their own twisted mind manipulations of history. Seems to me the Leftards are pretty jingoistic when it comes to Islamofacism…
Hey, I’m just a simple working stiff here. Seems as though i have to use the dictionary just to read some of the blogs. Maybe in the future some of you could tone down the overly-literate references, it makes reading them less enjoyable and often makes the poster seem pretentious. Ironically, that is exactly the same impression your every day person, such as myself, gets from the leftist-commie-libs who make the very arguments mentioned in this blog. That said, I completely agree with Quiller. I can no longer enjoy movies and television because I have heard or read the comments of so many actors that I do not wish to contribute to their personal wealth or popularity by viewing their work or even listening to their music. It has become so blatantly clear that the Hollywierd crowd despises my lifestyle, or at least a huge portion of it, that I find myself shopping for music by trying to remember if I’ve heard the artist demean anyone I happen to agree with.
This is my first visit to your site, I will definately return often. Thank you for your bravery in the face of what must be a venomous assault on you personally.
Overheard at a Northeast corridor cocktail party in 2017:
“So you want to turn back the clock to the pre-Obama style conservative rule of Bush/Cheney/Gingrich, even though that was also a time when healthcare was obtainable… you could still register a gasoline-powered vehicle… income taxes were below 75%… terrorists were in retreat and New York City still had some tall buildings… you could ride a train or bus without going through security… there were still a few heterosexual characters in movies and TV… churches could still display crosses outside… you could still hear things other than public service announcements and government propaganda on AM radio… military recruitment was sufficient to not require the draft… the Baltic States, Ukraine and Israel still existed… you could still set your own thermostat… the Presidential Seal still had an eagle instead of that goofy rainbow thingie… illegal immigrants couldn’t vote in U.S. elections… and the 22nd amendment would’ve deprived us of Obama’s third term as President.”
Hell, I think Hollywood would be fine with it if all the pederasty came back.
“You want us to talk to our enemies and understand them, huh? So you want to turn back the clock to Chamberlain’s style of negotiation, even though that was also a time of rising antisemitism, conquest, and jingoistic nationalism?”
“You want us to be more understanding of different lifestyles, huh? So you want to turn back the clock to the 60’s style of free love, even though that was also a time of riots in the streets and university campuses, a time when the domestic terrorists were killing police officers and security guards, and the only war we’ve lost in this country.”
The arguments may need some refining, but I think I’m getting the hang of this…
I write often about “vintage TV” for DVDTalk.com, and I find the Nelsons utterly fascinating (and wonderful). Here are two of my articles:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/27788/best-of-the-adventures-of-ozzie-and-harriet-the/
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/34697/adventures-of-ozzie-and-harriet-christmas-with-the-nelsons-the/
Needless to say, I find most of the criticism of them misguided, at best, and downright duplicitous at worst.
MAX S,
Glad to see that you too have gotten the hang of making completely irrelevant points that don’t involve Ozzie and Harriet.
Don’t worry Jack Bauer, famed conservative Pat Buchanan did publish that book that portrayed Hitler as the innocent party in WWII.
The criticisms of the Nelsons by liberals are totally misinformed. I doubt they watched a single show. If they had, they’d indeed point to Ozzie and Harriet as a socially conscious, giving, warm-hearted, modest, and FUN set of parents. Ozzie always hinted at an offbeat, out-there, sometimes surrealistic humor that I think served as a template for the humor of the 60s. There are a dozen shows where I can only think, ‘what was this guy smoking?’. Though he was extremely polite and respectful of other people’s feelings, he never hesitated to follow his own dreams. This is bad?
Ozzie never worked. Never a mention of a job. Yet, echoing his real-life activity as a Boy Scout leader, he was continually involved with civic projects; getting a street light installed, painting a broken down gazebo, etc.
This is bad?
And Ozzie never lectured. He conversed with his sons. They worked out their problems, and with a smile. This is bad?
Ozzie frequently had hispanic actors, children and adult, on his show, too, in very respectable, normal roles, with no notice taken of race. This is bad?
Nor was Ozzie a victorian prude. He was subtle, though, not playing down to the coarse. An example is when, at the end of a show, he and Harriet are in bed, reading. Harriet says, “Well, I think I’ve gotten to know you pretty well.” Then, Dave and Rick show up at the bedroom door in their pajames to say goodnight. They’re tall and handsome. They leave. Ozzie turns to Harriet and says, “Yeah, I guess have at that.” ’nuff said.
I enjoyed the post, but felt I should mention the Crusades were a *response* by the West to the Islamic wars of religious aggression that had swept the Mideast, pushing out and slaughtering Christians and Jews, and roved north as far as the gates of Vienna.
There seems to be a common belief that the nobility of Europe were just sitting around one day and said, “Hey, let’s go kick the crap out of some ragheads.” Not exactly true, to say the least.
This is the truth. Modern-day liberals don’t want to go back to the past – not even to Woodstock. So they come up with any excuse they can to denigrate any given chunk of the past as horrible and ugly, and not worth the resurrection.
They want to push on endlessly into the future, it seems. They call it “hope” and “change” now… but back in the day, their buzzword for this philosophy was Progress. They called themselves Progressives, for God’s sake – before they decided that it was smarter to just go on co-opting terms and began using the word “liberal”. Endless Progress is their aim – ever onward, ever upward, each day better than the last, bigger and better technology, bigger and better government, bigger and better society, Excelsior!
Of course, if you want to know where that mindset leads in the end, read C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man. Or if you’re the kind of person who’s more easily convinced by literature than by undiluted philosophy, read his Space Trilogy. In the former, he merely tells it; in the latter, he sells it – in the most fantastic yet completely believeable way.
“Dunno why they like Castro so much, though.” – Lefties admire Castro because he has power and control over his people. In their minds, Communism can be made to work if the right people (namely themselves) are put in charge, and given absolute control.
There’s that “Family Values proponents are hypocrites because they (fill in the blank with their own atrocities here)” again.
All humans are fragile, equally so. The difference between those who want to promote Family Values and those who scoff at it is this: Family Values is an ideal, just as trying to live the perfect life all the while knowing you’ll fail. On the other hand, those that do not promote Family Values think that abhorrent behavior is excusable in the name of diversity.
Family Values is a very Christian ideal. One can never be perfect but at least it’s okay to try.
Can someone explain the difference between The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet & The Cosby Show? Does that mean the era of The Cosby Show is just as socially bankrupt?
BTW-You would think secular liberals would love Ozzie & Harriet; weren’t they the first TV family that never went to church?
I have guest in from out of town over the weekend, so the Ozzie and Harriet are the Heart of Evil awards will be handed out in this very comments section on Monday, with all appropriate pomp and ceremony. There are some fine examples so far.
And to Wakefield Tolbert above, I think the Ozzie and Harriet Syndrome is the perfect term for this, well… syndrome.
I’ll repeat what I wrote on that other post: The higher values you spoke of from the older comics, and the same for the 50s era TV and movies, are to inspire us to our better selves.
Gritty reality was a good change when the repetition of those values became stale and thus didn’t help, perhaps, nudge us (society) to be better, but it is past high time for us to get back to some nobler values in our art – because we’ve been awash in the reality of our weaknesses for a long, long time now.
The United States has failed miserably at times to live up to its “core values” — those values that each generation is (or was) taught to parrot in pre-school.
But, history has proven that those high-minded values are what gave us the ability and incentive to change for the better. That has been the lesson from the history of democracy we kick started.
Comic books and other venues that highlight these values should help the society continue to strive to live up to them – not used as a scorecard telling us the game is over and we’ve failed – or that the values are shams.
Lets see Ozzie was a real sqaure, he not only produced the TV show, he invented
the first Rock’Roll videos.He looked after Rickys music career got him on Imperial Records whose labelmate was Fats Dominoe, but having been a musician
in his own right was influencial in Rickys career. We couldnt wait till the
end of the TV show to see Ricky and his hot band,James Burton and his badass
Telecaster licks, Joe Osborn and his heavy Bass(later ABC Dunhill session man,Mamas and the Pappas Johnny Rivers etc.) These guys were hot. Check out the box set of Ricky Nelson–Legacy on Crapitol Records, among many other compilation sets. Ozzie had a big hand in those early recording sessions. In
fact a good bio movie could be made from the book by Joel Selvin called- Ricky
Nelson-Idol For A Generation, one of the best Rock’Roll bios I ever read,It is a mind blower.
As for family values regarding the Nelsons, it wasnt phony, I saw Rickys
Stone Canyon Band at the Troubador in Hollywood in about 1970 with The Kinks,
and into the middle of Ricks set someone we were with made what they thought was a joke “Hey I wonder if Ozzie and Harriet are here? I turned around and lo and behold three tables over from us was not only Ozzie and Harriet but Wally
from the Tv show and Ricks brother David, they were sittin there diggin on the music,totally proud parents! Its too bad liberals have no sense of humor and to
enjoy the fifties, the culture, the music( black and white), the movies the Tv shows etc. A time when the cars had chrome and the women had curves!
MovieBob – January 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Lights out son, work on your poly sci homework on the bus. Nite
Moviebob – apparently your America hatred is slanting your life and it must suck to be you. The Real Americans know that America is not perfect, but on the overall basis, as was the 50’s and all it stands for, America still stands as the best and brightest in history and does more good for everyone than any others EVER!
Those that can get beyond the self hatred of failure can see and appreciate the innocence and effort given by the vast majority of Americans for the greater good with the best of intentions. Like the dropping of the atom bombs to end WW2 and the American life of the 50’s, it was Americans doing the best they knew and we are smart enough see it for what it is, not sad soul of people like you.
mb – people such as you do not want even reasonable restrictions, as required for the common good and morals, to be in place for judgement of your weakness and shortcomings – and this is your problems, not the Americans of the 50’s or those of similar philosphy.
[...] “Like the poor rooster of the infamous post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where the sun rises because he crowed, apparently 50’s era family values are inextricably linked with, or actually caused, segregation, paranoia, nuclear proliferation and the rest. Or maybe they’re suggesting Ozzie and Harriet are the specific culprits? I never quite trusted those two.” – Bill Willingham [...]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
IT’S JUST LIKE ANN COULTER SAID
IF LIBERALS HAD EATEN ANY BRAINS THEY’D BE REPUBLICANS
YOU TELL EM BILL
So you want to turn back the clock to (insert past era here)’s style (insert desired value, virtue, social or cultural practice here), even though that was also a time of (insert list of terrible qualities, conditions, laws or cultural norms, common to the above-listed era here — note that the longer the list the better your argument, and extra points for any use of the word “jingoism”)?
Who am I to rewrite a famous writer’s words?
What the hell are you guys on?
- Grant
Weren’t we just talking about funny books? How does everything turn into a fight between the left and right. I think it’s pretty sad to go through life saying “I have to do this, or I hate this” because of your political party. But it seems many people do and that leads the the problems I see here. For some reason, when you identify your entire life with some belief, whether its political, religious, moral… there seems to be a point when you only see the word in black and white. If you take the part, then you have to take the whole. For example, I’m going to use I LOVE LUCY, because i am tired of hearing Ozzie and Harriet bandied about like a JOE THE PLUMBER and because I love lucy. Lets say you take the ideals from I love lucy. Lets see there’s multiculturalism, a nuclear family, a successful husband who provides for his family instead of a dead beat dad, a mom who is not only allowed to be shown pregnant but also can (although ridiculously) be employed. Now I’m sure there are more values to dig up, but I think i’ve reached the point where I say, but what about all the bad things during that time? Well heres the problem. Just cause you yearn for a stable family, with parents that both (try to) work it doesn’t mean you have to accept everything that time period had to offer. In some ways you can have your cake and eat it too. Up top, above countless renditions of accused hypocrisy and down right stupidity, I read somebody’s view that while republicans say they value marriage, they seem to have a lot of divorces. Well for one, I have a feeling that if you took a true survey of both sides of the aisle that the numbers would show to be comparable. Thats the way life goes, you know, because we’re Human. The bigger problem is the very black and white view that if you hold a certain value, then that value will never err or waver. Just because you value nuclear families and a long lasting marriage, doesn’t mean that you and your wife will never get a divorce. But it does help. And to be fair, I’m sure there are values that democrats hold that the other side says, “You, hypocrite.” I mean do people really think that just because Blue States are prejudiced against Red States,(and don’t try to tell me you aren’t or we wouldn’t have so many yokels portrayed in the media) that they hate america? Well thats what I’ve heard on republican talk shows. Just because you hold one belief, moral or value doesn’t mean you have to throw all your eggs into one basket. If you haven’t been able to tell from now, I think it would be great for Superhero comics to show some moral backbone. I think a reader should have a reasonable certainty that their favorite spandex clad hero will not decapitate their enemy by the end of the book. Going back to the eggs in a basket, does that mean that all comics have to hold up to these super-ethics. Definitely not, variety is the spice of life. You can still have room for “decadent’ stories, humorous stories, love stories Etc. The question is what should the story of the hero contain? Let alone the SUPER-HERO. And in the end just remember its all funny books.
Jingoism… Point!
Thanks for your points Bill.
“…50’s family values are inextricably linked with, or actually caused, segregation, paranoia, nuclear proliferation and the rest.”
????
Just because certain elements of a time period were occurring at the same time does not denote a causal relationship. Though there were elements of all that MAY have weaved together, it would require a tremendous amount of research to back even that much up.
This is a faulty opinion written to sound like a fact to cover it’s tenuousness. I have no doubt the person believes to be true. But clicking your ruby red heels together and believing don’t make it true.
If the sentence had started with, “I believe that 50’s family values…” we’d be onto a fine start to a discussion.
Whoever argued that would have been sent back to rewrite their term paper and come up with some solid examples, statistics, and proofs before getting a passing grade.
“So you want to turn back the clock to Assinine liberal 90’s style Political Correctness ruled the White House, even though that was also a time of heavy abortion, sexual irresponsibility, desintigrating families, drug addiction, destroyed families leading to generation of new chauvinists and alcohol babies, unchecked terrorism culminating in 911, blowjobs covered up by missile attacks on medical depots is Sudan, poverty, and ethnic and religion genicide of Africans who were abandoned by the UN and Bill Clinton while white people at home lost jobs if they told the wrong joke and reverse racial and religious jigoism resulting in societal amorality and suffering fall all under a corrupt leadership that sold us all out to terrorist and the rising Chinese Empire.
I think the definition and notion of ‘hero’ differs based on the reading demographic. When i was young, batman and superman were the good guys, they always won, good and bad were clear distinct lines. As i grew older, ive learnt to look at batman differently, since reading Frank Miller’s TDKR. For an older crowd, sometimes a clear cut polarity may seem too unreal or idealisitc an idea.
I agree that the ozzie harriet syndrome does not make sense, but i think it is also important to notice the difference in America’s perception and stance. For the rest of the decade after WWII, America singlehandly recreated the world, and thus its power and influence is undeniable. Yet in the 21st century, there has been more widespread dissatisfaction with America(whether this is justified is another issue), and America has had to deal with what some may see as ‘mistakes’, such as the Iraq war. To have superheros fully and wholeheartedly proclaiming the ‘American Way’ thus appears to be vapid, and its understandable why this ‘decadence’ trend has begun to be more obvious.
I can’t believe how this argument has shifted from the essay so that it’s all about left vs right, as opposed to the actual content of the essay. For what it’s worth Bill, I agree with a lot of what you say in your original essay. There is a genuine need and demand for big, bright Silver Age heroes and stories. Give us the Billy Batson Captain Marvel (only better characterized than he’s been for virtually all of his DC tenure, save in the pages of JSA), give us something like Darwyn Cooke’s New Frontier, etc. But that stuff is out there….maybe not as prominent as some people would like it to be, but it’s there.
Problem is, you’ve latched onto the weakest argument given by opposing viewpoints (”Ozzie and Harriet”), and have ignored the criticisms that cut to the core of your essay. I shouldn’t have to point out that that’s the “straw man” argument since that’s been mentioned multiple times on this comment page, but it is what it is. Your position would have a lot more weight if you weren’t referring to a 7-year old Captain America storyline which is pretty maligned by fans, a “Captain America” from the Ultimate universe which some of us don’t consider to a fraction of a hero that the REAL Steve Rogers is, and a Superman movie that ignored typical characterization in the comics in favor of some strange, slavish adherence to Richard Donner’s (very outdated) aesthetic. I can understand if you don’t care for the likes of Foolkiller, Daredevil, Moon Knight, etc…..that’s your individual opinion. But your argument basically ignores all the great stuff that’s been published recently that I would characterize as big, bright, and idealistic. JSA, consistently great for the past 9 or so years? Superman’s Camelot Falls? Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes? Ed Brubaker’s Captain America? Citing outdated/irrelevant examples instead of the actual characterization being utilized tosses the likes of Kurt Busiek and Geoff Johns under the bus needlessly, when they are telling great, faithful stories with these characters. Not to mention the fact that you’ve been citing these examples for a while, at least as far back as that AV Club interview you did almost two years ago. That’s akin to the old curmudgeon in the neighborhood constantly complaining about “those damn kids”.
All that aside, I am looking forward to your tenure on Justice Society, and hope that the book continues to be as great as it’s been under Geoff Johns. But the position you offered reads like a conspiracy theory, instead of a strongly supported, valid point. What’s wrong with leading by example and continuing Justice Society of America’s reign as not only one of the best, but brightest books available?
Hey, Chuck, you the man, i’m still pissed that they kicked you of Bat and Outsiders, but i will be picking up your gi joe. but on topic, why can’t we have virtuous heroes, who either earn redemption from past mistakes, or anti heroes who grow, heck can we have wolverine fully embrace his samarai ideal but not always fall back into the inner beast. i think there is a ballance hear, especially if Grant Morrison is kept away from Marvel and the X-men, who used to be heroes, but are now a hard core rights group willing to use biological warfare (x-men secret invasion) that have pissed on Prof. X’s ideals of the good shepherd (so when is Magneto going to assume control of that group???? looks like he’s already in Cyclops’ head)
I just came across this one after coming to the site through a link someone sent, and then recognizing your name (I used to be an avid comic reader back in the days when Elementals was out) in a sidebar link. I'm glad to see this article since that "turn back the clock" gambit has always made me roll my eyes. In the future maybe I will just reply with this stylecheck and move on…
“So you want to turn back the clock to (insert past era here)’s style (insert desired value, virtue, social or cultural practice here), even though that was also a time of (insert list of terrible qualities, conditions, laws or cultural norms, common to the above-listed era here — note that the longer the list the better your argument, and extra points for any use of the word “jingoism”)?”
Regardless of someone's political views, using "jedi mind trick" moves like that in an argument is lame. After all, the person he is performing the trick on is himself… a handwave to make the opposing argument disappear.
its a amazing show
You must be logged in to post a comment.