Monday, October 21, 2013
Off-Topic: Some Reference For My Comic Book Reviews
You have seen my comic book reviews by now. The numbers may confuse you a bit. This post is to remove the confusion:
Storyline-
The overall story being told. The narrative of the book in general. This evaluates the individual story and it's place among whatever wider story it is a part of.
1- Not worth the paper it's printed on. The story lacks all internal sense, fails to convey any interesting message, has no moments that pique one's interest, and does not connect well with other books in the series or of similar type
1.5- There was exactly one moment in the whole story that piqued my interest.
2- Not worth the money I paid. The story may have more than one moment that piques my interest, but it makes little sense, has no real coherent message overall, and I still am not glad I spent the money I did on it.
2.5- I do not regret buying the book. But I am not exactly glad I bought it, either. The story may have its moments, and there may be some internal sense and message, but I'm not exactly enthralled by the story either.
3- I'm glad I bought the book. But I will not continue buying the book based on this story alone. The story is internally coherent, it is overall a good story, but it loses itself from time to time. There are several panels or moments that make me want to hit my head against the wall. There is a message but it is nothing powerful.
3.5- I would continue to buy the book to at least give it a few more chances, as the story has drawn me in somewhat. The story is again, overall good but not great. But there are no 'head against the wall' moments, either. One can see potential in one or two of the elements listed earlier: internal sense, interesting message, stand-out moments, and connections with other books.
4- I will be buying the book for as long as the stories are this strong. There is little coherence problem, if any. No moment stands out as particularly bad. In one of the elements listed above, it truly excels, it is better than your average comic book. There is nothing unique about the book, nothing that hasn't been done before. But its truly great, at least in parts.
4.5- This is a great comic book. I want to buy more based on the strength of this comic alone. The story has several elements that stand out as much better than your average comic book. It is still nothing unique, nothing truly original, but is overall a great book.
5- This comic book gave me something that I have rarely if ever seen before. The story stands out as truly original. I want to read this comic multiple times, and I hope for more like it.
Dialogue-
More than just dialogue, this includes monologues, and thought bubbles. Any time there is a character conveying an idea or thought or message, this applies.
1- The dialogue robs the other elements of the comic of their ability to impress. The dialogue doesn't "sound" natural, doesn't fit the character, isn't interesting or funny, and nothing is said that sticks with me in any way, shape or form.
1.5- The dialogue still robs the other elements of the comic of their ability to impress. The dialogue doesn't "sound" natural, though it might still fit the character in parts (the context just robs it of its 'flow). There might be one exchange that is memorable, or one thing said or thought that sticks with me, but that is it.
2- The dialogue detracts from the other elements ability to impress, especially the storyline. Only some of the dialogue "sounds" natural, though most does not. There may be a couple of lines that stick with me, but that is about it.
2.5- The dialogue detracts only from the storyline. About half of the dialogue "sounds" natural, and still only a a line or two sticks with me.
3- The dialogue neither detracts nor adds to any of the other elements of the comic. Most of the dialogue sounds natural, and it is overall interesting or funny, though some of what the characters say or do makes me want to bang your head against the wall.
3.5- The dialogue adds something to the other elements of the comics. Most of the dialogue sounds natural, and it is overall funny or interesting. There is no more than one 'head banging' moment.
4- The dialogue adds something significant to the story. Almost all the dialogue sounds funny or interesting, and there are no more 'head banging' moments. There is more than one exchange that sticks out, and the dialogue fits the characters.
4.5- The dialogue alone can make me come back for more. Even if the storyline isn't that good, the characters thoughts, words and speeches make me want more. There is nothing truly unique, but all the elements are done as best as they can be without being really unique. Almost everything in the book really sticks with me. I go back and re-read what some characters said several times.
5- There is something here that I've seen only rarely or never before. A character makes a speech, or gives a message, or thinks something that blows me away. It is either ridiculously funny, or deeply moving, or both.
Pacing-
For the full story on "pacing" see here: http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/off-topic-what-is-pacing.html
1- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is all over the place, and I get lost no matter how many times I read it. I cannot draw the story out because everything seems out of place, or out of order rather.
1.5- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is still all over the place, but with multiple reads you can kind of get the the whole picture of what is going on.
2- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is either too slow, or too fast, and seems to be missing too much (too much takes place off-panel). The panels don't seem out of order, but the pace of the comic makes it less enjoyable.
2.5- The pacing detracts only a little bit from the overall comic book. The comic is still either too slow, or too fast, but it isn't missing too much from off-panel action. Everything is still in order, but I end the comic a little more confused than I need to be, due to the way things got rushed. Or I'm a little bored from the slow pace.
3- The pacing doesn't cause problems that detract from the other elements of the book. The pacing may still be a little too slow or too fast, but I don't end confused or bored. I am too 'aware' of the pacing, I can say it is rushed or slow, but it didn't detract from the overall experience.
3.5- The pacing doesn't cause problems. At least part of the book is perfectly paced. It may slow down or speed up too much in parts, but much of it flows seamlessly.
4- Most of the book is perfectly paced. The book may have a few parts that are too slow or quick, but they are barely noticeable.
4.5- The book is perfectly paced. Nothing about the pacing is off, and everything seems timed as it should be.
5- The pacing actually adds to the overall enjoyment of reading the book. People can do creative things with panels, that transform the way you read the comic. Ironically, this may mean that some panels don't have a clear order, and when that is done it is easily screwed up. The line between a "1" and a "5" can be very fine, and so getting creative with paneling is dangerous. But when done right it can transform a comic book into something better. A great example of this is Promethea. A "5" may also indicate that everything is timed so perfectly it doesn't even feel like panels were used.
Art-
A comic book can survive even with terrible art, as long as the other elements are present. Comic books are still story telling media. But terrible art can detract from a book, and great art can add to the overall experience. Great art can elevate our experience of a comic book in a way that almost no other element can.
1 - The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The book doesn't even look professional, and it doesn't look like a comic book.
1.5- The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The art may look like comic book art, but it doesn't look very professional.
2- The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The art looks rushed, or is missing something important. It is professional looking in parts, or maybe elements here and there. But overall it isn't very good.
2.5- The art detracts only a little bit from the overall comic book. There may be moments that 'look good' here, but that really only reminds one of how much the rest of the art really sucks. There are no moments of brilliance anywhere.
3- The art doesn't detract from the other elements of the book. The art is professional looking and all, but it is about what you would expect from any comic you pick up.
3.5- The art doesn't cause problems. There is some element or some panel that really sticks out as better than your average comic.
4- The art adds to the overall experience. The overall comic book is actually elevated by how good the art is. There are consistent elements that stick out as better than average, and moments of genuine brilliance.
4.5- I actually want to buy the comic because of the art. Even if the other elements are lacking, I would come back for more because the art is just that good.
5- I would consider a comic with this art rating to be a work of art in itself. It is something I want to put up on my wall if I could. The entire comic, every panel, is a brilliant work of art.
Overall
1- This comic is not worth the paper it is printed on. They should've saved the trees instead.
1.5- The comic is not worth the money I paid for it.
2- The comic is not something I regret buying, but I am not exactly happy you bought it either.
2.5- Still not happy I bought the comic here. But I might give it another chance if I had some external reason to think it was going to get better (like a new writer was being hired).
3- I am happy I bought the comic, but I am hesitant to buy again.
3.5- I am willing to continue to buy the comic, but I may stop if things don't get better.
4- I am going to be continuing to buy the comic. I would recommend it to some people I think might be interested. .
4.5- This is a comic I will continue to buy even in hard economic times. I would sacrifice other good comics to keep reading this one (in terms of which subscriptions to keep and which to drop). I would recommend it to almost everyone.
5- This comic is a must-read. I would recommend it to everyone.
Storyline-
The overall story being told. The narrative of the book in general. This evaluates the individual story and it's place among whatever wider story it is a part of.
1- Not worth the paper it's printed on. The story lacks all internal sense, fails to convey any interesting message, has no moments that pique one's interest, and does not connect well with other books in the series or of similar type
1.5- There was exactly one moment in the whole story that piqued my interest.
2- Not worth the money I paid. The story may have more than one moment that piques my interest, but it makes little sense, has no real coherent message overall, and I still am not glad I spent the money I did on it.
2.5- I do not regret buying the book. But I am not exactly glad I bought it, either. The story may have its moments, and there may be some internal sense and message, but I'm not exactly enthralled by the story either.
3- I'm glad I bought the book. But I will not continue buying the book based on this story alone. The story is internally coherent, it is overall a good story, but it loses itself from time to time. There are several panels or moments that make me want to hit my head against the wall. There is a message but it is nothing powerful.
3.5- I would continue to buy the book to at least give it a few more chances, as the story has drawn me in somewhat. The story is again, overall good but not great. But there are no 'head against the wall' moments, either. One can see potential in one or two of the elements listed earlier: internal sense, interesting message, stand-out moments, and connections with other books.
4- I will be buying the book for as long as the stories are this strong. There is little coherence problem, if any. No moment stands out as particularly bad. In one of the elements listed above, it truly excels, it is better than your average comic book. There is nothing unique about the book, nothing that hasn't been done before. But its truly great, at least in parts.
4.5- This is a great comic book. I want to buy more based on the strength of this comic alone. The story has several elements that stand out as much better than your average comic book. It is still nothing unique, nothing truly original, but is overall a great book.
5- This comic book gave me something that I have rarely if ever seen before. The story stands out as truly original. I want to read this comic multiple times, and I hope for more like it.
Dialogue-
More than just dialogue, this includes monologues, and thought bubbles. Any time there is a character conveying an idea or thought or message, this applies.
1- The dialogue robs the other elements of the comic of their ability to impress. The dialogue doesn't "sound" natural, doesn't fit the character, isn't interesting or funny, and nothing is said that sticks with me in any way, shape or form.
1.5- The dialogue still robs the other elements of the comic of their ability to impress. The dialogue doesn't "sound" natural, though it might still fit the character in parts (the context just robs it of its 'flow). There might be one exchange that is memorable, or one thing said or thought that sticks with me, but that is it.
2- The dialogue detracts from the other elements ability to impress, especially the storyline. Only some of the dialogue "sounds" natural, though most does not. There may be a couple of lines that stick with me, but that is about it.
2.5- The dialogue detracts only from the storyline. About half of the dialogue "sounds" natural, and still only a a line or two sticks with me.
3- The dialogue neither detracts nor adds to any of the other elements of the comic. Most of the dialogue sounds natural, and it is overall interesting or funny, though some of what the characters say or do makes me want to bang your head against the wall.
3.5- The dialogue adds something to the other elements of the comics. Most of the dialogue sounds natural, and it is overall funny or interesting. There is no more than one 'head banging' moment.
4- The dialogue adds something significant to the story. Almost all the dialogue sounds funny or interesting, and there are no more 'head banging' moments. There is more than one exchange that sticks out, and the dialogue fits the characters.
4.5- The dialogue alone can make me come back for more. Even if the storyline isn't that good, the characters thoughts, words and speeches make me want more. There is nothing truly unique, but all the elements are done as best as they can be without being really unique. Almost everything in the book really sticks with me. I go back and re-read what some characters said several times.
5- There is something here that I've seen only rarely or never before. A character makes a speech, or gives a message, or thinks something that blows me away. It is either ridiculously funny, or deeply moving, or both.
Pacing-
For the full story on "pacing" see here: http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/07/off-topic-what-is-pacing.html
1- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is all over the place, and I get lost no matter how many times I read it. I cannot draw the story out because everything seems out of place, or out of order rather.
1.5- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is still all over the place, but with multiple reads you can kind of get the the whole picture of what is going on.
2- The pacing detracts from the other elements of the comic. The comic is either too slow, or too fast, and seems to be missing too much (too much takes place off-panel). The panels don't seem out of order, but the pace of the comic makes it less enjoyable.
2.5- The pacing detracts only a little bit from the overall comic book. The comic is still either too slow, or too fast, but it isn't missing too much from off-panel action. Everything is still in order, but I end the comic a little more confused than I need to be, due to the way things got rushed. Or I'm a little bored from the slow pace.
3- The pacing doesn't cause problems that detract from the other elements of the book. The pacing may still be a little too slow or too fast, but I don't end confused or bored. I am too 'aware' of the pacing, I can say it is rushed or slow, but it didn't detract from the overall experience.
3.5- The pacing doesn't cause problems. At least part of the book is perfectly paced. It may slow down or speed up too much in parts, but much of it flows seamlessly.
4- Most of the book is perfectly paced. The book may have a few parts that are too slow or quick, but they are barely noticeable.
4.5- The book is perfectly paced. Nothing about the pacing is off, and everything seems timed as it should be.
5- The pacing actually adds to the overall enjoyment of reading the book. People can do creative things with panels, that transform the way you read the comic. Ironically, this may mean that some panels don't have a clear order, and when that is done it is easily screwed up. The line between a "1" and a "5" can be very fine, and so getting creative with paneling is dangerous. But when done right it can transform a comic book into something better. A great example of this is Promethea. A "5" may also indicate that everything is timed so perfectly it doesn't even feel like panels were used.
Art-
A comic book can survive even with terrible art, as long as the other elements are present. Comic books are still story telling media. But terrible art can detract from a book, and great art can add to the overall experience. Great art can elevate our experience of a comic book in a way that almost no other element can.
1 - The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The book doesn't even look professional, and it doesn't look like a comic book.
1.5- The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The art may look like comic book art, but it doesn't look very professional.
2- The art detracts from the other elements of the comic. The art looks rushed, or is missing something important. It is professional looking in parts, or maybe elements here and there. But overall it isn't very good.
2.5- The art detracts only a little bit from the overall comic book. There may be moments that 'look good' here, but that really only reminds one of how much the rest of the art really sucks. There are no moments of brilliance anywhere.
3- The art doesn't detract from the other elements of the book. The art is professional looking and all, but it is about what you would expect from any comic you pick up.
3.5- The art doesn't cause problems. There is some element or some panel that really sticks out as better than your average comic.
4- The art adds to the overall experience. The overall comic book is actually elevated by how good the art is. There are consistent elements that stick out as better than average, and moments of genuine brilliance.
4.5- I actually want to buy the comic because of the art. Even if the other elements are lacking, I would come back for more because the art is just that good.
5- I would consider a comic with this art rating to be a work of art in itself. It is something I want to put up on my wall if I could. The entire comic, every panel, is a brilliant work of art.
Overall
1- This comic is not worth the paper it is printed on. They should've saved the trees instead.
1.5- The comic is not worth the money I paid for it.
2- The comic is not something I regret buying, but I am not exactly happy you bought it either.
2.5- Still not happy I bought the comic here. But I might give it another chance if I had some external reason to think it was going to get better (like a new writer was being hired).
3- I am happy I bought the comic, but I am hesitant to buy again.
3.5- I am willing to continue to buy the comic, but I may stop if things don't get better.
4- I am going to be continuing to buy the comic. I would recommend it to some people I think might be interested. .
4.5- This is a comic I will continue to buy even in hard economic times. I would sacrifice other good comics to keep reading this one (in terms of which subscriptions to keep and which to drop). I would recommend it to almost everyone.
5- This comic is a must-read. I would recommend it to everyone.
Off-Topic: Comic Book Reviews
Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY #7
The storyline here was a little strange. I mean, it didn't feel like it really 'went anywhere'. The idea of some place called Heven that thinks that Earth is a myth was interesting, but really, I felt like I wasn't being taken anywhere. This is the second issue with this problem. GOTG is one of my favorite Marvel books, but it better get it in gear with the actual stories or there is a risk I will drop it soon. On the plus side, the dialogue was absolutely hilarious and engaging, and if that continues so will my interest.
Storyline: 2.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 5 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #6
I'm really digging this book. The Grimm-style take on Peter Pan was very interesting. It is funny, Peter Pan keeps getting re-imagined in fiction as a villain. Why is this a trend right now? Well, Grimm's approach to this idea is so far better than the television show ONCE UPON A TIME. If the new season of GRIMM on television is half as good as the comic has been, we're in for some good stuff in November.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's TRINITY OF SIN: PANDORA #4
Directly following the events of JUSTICE LEAGUE #23 and paralleling FOREVER EVIL, this book seemed a little disjointed at first. I didn't get the first part of the book with her foray into the world of Earth-3. But the book soon evened out, and I liked the encounter with Vandal Savage. I don't know how much longer I'll be collecting this book, though. There is just better stuff out there.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
Zenescope's ROBYN HOOD: WANTED #5 (of 5)
I really like this book, because it isn't getting drawn into all the crossover BS over at Zenescope. DC is having this problem too: every character gets crossed over until everything is so big and complicated nobody can follow anything. Robyn Hood's story is nice and self-contained. This last issue of the limited series had some dark stuff in it, and it ended on a very down note. However, I rather liked the story, and I think this book is very engaging.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA #8
We finally get some glimpses of what happened to the various Justice Leagues after JUSTICE LEAGUE #23. There is this whole strange prison that Martian Manhunter is trying to escape, and help others escape. But there was a bit too much going on. I really felt like this whole book was more filler than action. Nothing moved...it was a similar problem to the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY book this week. Not terrible, but not great either
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Marvel's HUNGER #4 (of 4)
I said that issue three of this limited series was not very good. But then with this one they went and totally redeemed themselves. Awesome book, very awesome book. I liked the fusion of the new Rick Jones and Captain Marvel. The whole battle with the combined Galactus/Gah-Lak-Tus being was awesome. There is this whole apocalyptic feel going on at Marvel and DC now, though, this whole pessimistic streak that really isn't doing it for me. I hope it ends soon.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marvel's NEW AVENGERS #11
I picked up this book because the cover looked cool and because it crossed over to INFINITY. I can't give it a good review, because I haven't been keeping up with the rest of the NEW AVENGERS books. I was lost through most of it. What I did get I liked. I won't be giving a detailed review because I think it would be unfair.
DC's BATMAN 1966 #4
I saved the best for last. I am simply loving this book. With all of the negativity at DC with FOREVER EVIL and at Marvel with the AGE OF ULTRON aftermath and INFINITY stuff, I really enjoyed sitting down to something fun and funny. I laughed, yes, but I also simply loved the creative twists and turns. This is absurdism at its finest, and with a sense of the DC universe that it is toying with. The retro art is simply superb, the story lines are funny but engaging, the dialogue is hilarious but has an internal logic, and the pacing is better than most comics. I cannot recommend this highly enough
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 5 Stars
The storyline here was a little strange. I mean, it didn't feel like it really 'went anywhere'. The idea of some place called Heven that thinks that Earth is a myth was interesting, but really, I felt like I wasn't being taken anywhere. This is the second issue with this problem. GOTG is one of my favorite Marvel books, but it better get it in gear with the actual stories or there is a risk I will drop it soon. On the plus side, the dialogue was absolutely hilarious and engaging, and if that continues so will my interest.
Storyline: 2.5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 5 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Dynamite's GRIMM #6
I'm really digging this book. The Grimm-style take on Peter Pan was very interesting. It is funny, Peter Pan keeps getting re-imagined in fiction as a villain. Why is this a trend right now? Well, Grimm's approach to this idea is so far better than the television show ONCE UPON A TIME. If the new season of GRIMM on television is half as good as the comic has been, we're in for some good stuff in November.
Storyline: 4 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 2.5 Stars
Overall: 4 Stars
DC's TRINITY OF SIN: PANDORA #4
Directly following the events of JUSTICE LEAGUE #23 and paralleling FOREVER EVIL, this book seemed a little disjointed at first. I didn't get the first part of the book with her foray into the world of Earth-3. But the book soon evened out, and I liked the encounter with Vandal Savage. I don't know how much longer I'll be collecting this book, though. There is just better stuff out there.
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3 Stars
Pacing: 3 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 3 Stars
Zenescope's ROBYN HOOD: WANTED #5 (of 5)
I really like this book, because it isn't getting drawn into all the crossover BS over at Zenescope. DC is having this problem too: every character gets crossed over until everything is so big and complicated nobody can follow anything. Robyn Hood's story is nice and self-contained. This last issue of the limited series had some dark stuff in it, and it ended on a very down note. However, I rather liked the story, and I think this book is very engaging.
Storyline: 4.5 Stars
Dialogue: 4 Stars
Pacing: 4.5 Stars
Art: 3 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
DC's JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA #8
We finally get some glimpses of what happened to the various Justice Leagues after JUSTICE LEAGUE #23. There is this whole strange prison that Martian Manhunter is trying to escape, and help others escape. But there was a bit too much going on. I really felt like this whole book was more filler than action. Nothing moved...it was a similar problem to the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY book this week. Not terrible, but not great either
Storyline: 3.5 Stars
Dialogue: 3.5 Stars
Pacing: 4 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 3.5 Stars
Marvel's HUNGER #4 (of 4)
I said that issue three of this limited series was not very good. But then with this one they went and totally redeemed themselves. Awesome book, very awesome book. I liked the fusion of the new Rick Jones and Captain Marvel. The whole battle with the combined Galactus/Gah-Lak-Tus being was awesome. There is this whole apocalyptic feel going on at Marvel and DC now, though, this whole pessimistic streak that really isn't doing it for me. I hope it ends soon.
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 4.5 Stars
Pacing: 3.5 Stars
Art: 3.5 Stars
Overall: 4.5 Stars
Marvel's NEW AVENGERS #11
I picked up this book because the cover looked cool and because it crossed over to INFINITY. I can't give it a good review, because I haven't been keeping up with the rest of the NEW AVENGERS books. I was lost through most of it. What I did get I liked. I won't be giving a detailed review because I think it would be unfair.
DC's BATMAN 1966 #4
I saved the best for last. I am simply loving this book. With all of the negativity at DC with FOREVER EVIL and at Marvel with the AGE OF ULTRON aftermath and INFINITY stuff, I really enjoyed sitting down to something fun and funny. I laughed, yes, but I also simply loved the creative twists and turns. This is absurdism at its finest, and with a sense of the DC universe that it is toying with. The retro art is simply superb, the story lines are funny but engaging, the dialogue is hilarious but has an internal logic, and the pacing is better than most comics. I cannot recommend this highly enough
Storyline: 5 Stars
Dialogue: 5 Stars
Pacing: 5 Stars
Art: 4.5 Stars
Overall: 5 Stars
Sunday, October 20, 2013
*Warning: Serious Subject Matter* My Comments On A Scientific American Article
Article found here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=disgust-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder
This article was about shame and disgust, especially as those emotions affect people who are the subject of sexual crime. It is also about morality, and our moral judgments. The central thesis is that while certain behaviors can have certain psychological consequences for the victims of those behaviors, and those consequences should be taken seriously, morality is not something that exists outside the human condition, i.e, there is no moral order in the universe. All moral judgments are culturally relative.
I think this conclusion is wrong, and in fact even evil. I am going to use this post to explain why. Now some of the subject matter dealt with in the article is going to be disturbing to some people, but I think that ideas like this must be engaged and shown to be the crap that they are, lest the air of authority granted by science help morally blind people like this writer infect others.
The writer explicitly states that there is no external moral order, and that morality is relative in the article. See here:
Commenting on our disgust at sexual abuse of children, the writer says, "Although such powerful symbolic disgust responses are all too real in the damage they can do to a person's well-being, you may be surprised to learn that their precise parameters have no basis in a moral reality."
Here's the final paragraph: "Morality is not out there in the world; it is a way of seeing, and it is constantly evolving. The emotional atmosphere of our own culture has undergone radical social climate changes. To assume we are now finally glimpsing a clear moral reality that previous generations did not would be stupendously foolish of us."
I'm going to come back to that final paragraph shortly. But I want to systematically show how a lack of philosophical acumen can retard the thinking of even the most scientifically minded, and this article is a great vehicle to accomplish this. Whitehead said that philosophy, science and religion all need each other, that without all of them, the whole picture of the truth is incomplete. This writer, while he may be scientifically gifted, by leaving out the philosophical and the religious is spreading falsehoods... he cannot see the truth. Let me lay out the truth for you.
I will proceed with my analysis by showing the following: first, I will show that the writer's main evidence is rather flimsy, and open to interpretations that leave open clear possible conclusions that contradict his. Second, I will show how the writer's own analysis of the consequences of certain behaviors within certain cultures presupposes an objective moral standard of the kind whose existence he rejects. Third, I will show that his argument entails conclusions that are clearly false, when applied equally across all fields of inquiry, both empirical and affective (ad absurdum). When I am done, it will be clear that the writer lacks philosophical acumen and therefore, is incapable of reasoning properly on the subject he is writing about. I will show he is wrong, and what it is about the way he thinks about the world that has led him down this wrong-headed path.
The thrust of his argument can be found here. I warn you these details are pretty rough to read, but they must be engaged if I am to make a full run on what he says.
Here is the argument that morality is relative:
"Avoiding such a morally aversive person gets far more complicated, however, when the primary source of your symbolic disgust is you. After all, there are only three ways to escape the self—depressive sleep, drugs and suicide. Needless to say, none of these options is healthy.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=disgust-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder
This article was about shame and disgust, especially as those emotions affect people who are the subject of sexual crime. It is also about morality, and our moral judgments. The central thesis is that while certain behaviors can have certain psychological consequences for the victims of those behaviors, and those consequences should be taken seriously, morality is not something that exists outside the human condition, i.e, there is no moral order in the universe. All moral judgments are culturally relative.
I think this conclusion is wrong, and in fact even evil. I am going to use this post to explain why. Now some of the subject matter dealt with in the article is going to be disturbing to some people, but I think that ideas like this must be engaged and shown to be the crap that they are, lest the air of authority granted by science help morally blind people like this writer infect others.
The writer explicitly states that there is no external moral order, and that morality is relative in the article. See here:
Commenting on our disgust at sexual abuse of children, the writer says, "Although such powerful symbolic disgust responses are all too real in the damage they can do to a person's well-being, you may be surprised to learn that their precise parameters have no basis in a moral reality."
Here's the final paragraph: "Morality is not out there in the world; it is a way of seeing, and it is constantly evolving. The emotional atmosphere of our own culture has undergone radical social climate changes. To assume we are now finally glimpsing a clear moral reality that previous generations did not would be stupendously foolish of us."
I'm going to come back to that final paragraph shortly. But I want to systematically show how a lack of philosophical acumen can retard the thinking of even the most scientifically minded, and this article is a great vehicle to accomplish this. Whitehead said that philosophy, science and religion all need each other, that without all of them, the whole picture of the truth is incomplete. This writer, while he may be scientifically gifted, by leaving out the philosophical and the religious is spreading falsehoods... he cannot see the truth. Let me lay out the truth for you.
I will proceed with my analysis by showing the following: first, I will show that the writer's main evidence is rather flimsy, and open to interpretations that leave open clear possible conclusions that contradict his. Second, I will show how the writer's own analysis of the consequences of certain behaviors within certain cultures presupposes an objective moral standard of the kind whose existence he rejects. Third, I will show that his argument entails conclusions that are clearly false, when applied equally across all fields of inquiry, both empirical and affective (ad absurdum). When I am done, it will be clear that the writer lacks philosophical acumen and therefore, is incapable of reasoning properly on the subject he is writing about. I will show he is wrong, and what it is about the way he thinks about the world that has led him down this wrong-headed path.
The thrust of his argument can be found here. I warn you these details are pretty rough to read, but they must be engaged if I am to make a full run on what he says.
Here is the argument that morality is relative:
"Although such powerful symbolic disgust responses are all too real in the damage they can do to a person's well-being, you may be surprised to learn that their precise parameters have no basis in a moral reality.
Anthropologists have long known just how easy it is to make Western moral compasses spin out of control by describing other so-called exotic cultural traditions, especially those involving sex. Consider one elaborate ritual in Papua New Guinea, described by anthropologist Gilbert Herdt, now at San Francisco State University. In the tribe he called the Sambia, boys close to their eighth or ninth birthday are banished to a bachelor's hut filled with older males whom they must fellate. The Sambia believe that the ritual transforms their youths into mighty soldiers. In our society, this ritual would be unspeakable, causing irreparable harm and condemning these boys to lifelong issues with their sexuality. In contrast, Sambia adults and older teenagers who participate are seen as altruistic. The Sambia perceive harm in denying boys participation in the ritual because doing so would permanently brand these children as weaklings who would be judged unworthy of defending the community as adult warriors.
The notion of abnormal sexuality is as much a matter of straying from our culture's script as it is one of violating the laws of reproductive biology. This is not to excuse or downplay the violence done to victims of abuse but to note that the concept of perversion or going against what is right is a phantom of the moralizing human mind."
So, the writer thinks that since the Sambia do not feel like what happened to them is bad or harmful, it therefore was not harmful. One can infer, and only infer, from the article that these young men do not grow up with particular issues of shame or disgust, or some kind of discernible mental health issues that lead to suicide or self-harm (more on this later), and so what we should gather from this is that what happened to them is not inherently wrong.
There is a lot to disagree with here, but let me tease out only one point for brevity's sake: how does the writer KNOW that these young men have suffered no negative effects from what happened to them? For instance, is every person in this tribe indescribably happy and well-adjusted (whatever that could mean for this particular writer). What I mean is, the writer is setting up a counterfactual-type problem that he doesn't seem to be aware of. By claiming that NO harm was done to these people he is claiming to know something he can't possibly know. What if we imagine for the moment a culture exactly like this one, all things equal EXCEPT this practice of (what any sane person can see is) abuse. Can this writer claim, with any certainty, to KNOW that people in that imagined society would not be happier, with less tertiary psychological issues, than the Sambia? The writer picks out a few very narrow types of harm, says he sees no sign of them, and then says that the practice does no harm. Cultural practices have wide consequences, not all of them easily discernible. It is not clear that there is no harm done by these practices, at least not from this article. In truth the claim that any practice is 'harmless' or 'harmful' requires a level of knowledge about the whole of a society that a scientist just doesn't have.
Harm cannot be easily and neatly defined. At best all the writer can show is that responses to harm look different in different cultures, NOT that these young Sambia males are not harmed by what happened to them. He cannot with any certainty say that this society is not harmed by what happens to these young men.
I suppose in cultures where ritual murder of children was practiced, or where slavery was common, no discernible negative effects of the kind the writer lists here might have been noted. Perhaps shame and disgust was no problem there either, maybe suicide rates were no higher in these cultures. But would one say that these people were doing no harm?
And that brings me to the second point. The writer clearly thinks that we should help people in our own culture who are victims of sexual abuse, and it is important to note the reasons why:
"Avoiding such a morally aversive person gets far more complicated, however, when the primary source of your symbolic disgust is you. After all, there are only three ways to escape the self—depressive sleep, drugs and suicide. Needless to say, none of these options is healthy.
Once a person feels tainted in this way by an act judged to be especially unacceptable by his or her own society, either as the victim of the act or as the offender who feels genuine shame and remorse, these rankling feelings of symbolic disgust can quickly metastasize into malignant self-hatred. Sexually abused children, for example, are far more likely than their peers to develop an exhaustive suite of psychopathologies later in life. Suicide rates skyrocket, and correlations have been found with everything from chronic depression to self-harm (such as cutting), substance abuse, eating disorders, paranoia, hostility and psychoticism."
The writer deems certain practices as 'unhealthy', but one must wonder what his standard of judgment is. Much of what is listed above is perfectly acceptable in some cultures around the world, including suicide. It is not seen as 'unhealthy' as he says here. You see, even the ability to analyze the health of practices within a culture is lost, in a purely morally relativistic framework. "Health", "harm", these words are value-laden, and just as subject to cultural contextualization as 'good' and 'bad'. In the end the writer gives us no reason why we should care about the victims of abuse at all. For if all our moral judgments are culturally relative, so are our judgments of health and a lack thereof. All there is, is nature...blind, indifferent, and without standards.
The writer cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot, on the one hand, remove from us our ability to base our morally judge cultural practices and yet retain softer moral judgments closer to home.
But even if we granted all of the writer his judgments (though how we could do that without attributing to him self-contradiction is beyond me) and even if we granted that his judgment of the Sambia tribe is correct (there is no harm there), then that still doesn't mean that morality is not grounded in a reality beyond us. We are not forced to that conclusion. Nothing follows from the fact that the Sambia are not harmed by these practices... it tells us absolutely nothing about whether those practices are, in fact, evil or not. There is no argument here.
To show an analogy, there are tribes that have no words to distinguish green and blue. And many of these tribes can't see certain shades of certain colors. Their culture influences their ability to perceive color. Does that mean that these colors can't be so distinguished, or that somehow there is no fact of the matter about color? Hardly. Colors pick out real features of the world, features like photon wavelength and such. It is stupid to think that one culture's inability to perceive certain colors means those colors don't exist.
In point of fact the foolish one is NOT the one who thinks that our culture is not glimpsing moral truth, as the writer suggests in his last paragraph. The fool is the one who suggests that such thinking is foolish. In point of fact, increases in education, and awareness of other cultural norms, tend some societies in the direction of cultural norms like those found in the west, regarding issues like this one. The very fact that, given the choice, and cleansed of superstition, individuals and cultures move this direction is a sign that there are, in fact, moral truths that some cultures teach their members to perceive, as William Talbott brilliantly argued in his book WHICH RIGHTS SHOULD BE UNIVERSAL?
The most this writer can argue, from a purely scientific standpoint, is that some cultures don't SEEM harmed by practices that are more harmful than other cultures. This difference can be as much attributed to a difference in the ability to perceive moral truth as the lack of an existence of moral truth. Such arguments are settled not on scientific, but philosophical grounds. That is why they call it metaphysics...because it is beyond physics.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Preview
I've been very busy the last couple of days with no net access, so I have been posting sparingly. Tomorrow I promise my readers something juicy. I read SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN today, and one of the writers argued that morality is not grounded in anything outside of us, and that all values are culturally relative. I plan on tearing him a new one tomorrow.
Bible Trivia Answer
What is the name of the first priest in the Bible? Why did that figure become important for Christians?
Answer: Melchizedek, and his priestly class is the one to which all Christians belong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)