The Battle Continues Over "Childish Things"

The recent kerfuffle between Bill Maher and comic fans mourning Stan Lee's passing has illustrated an ugly truth that geeks everywhere continue to face: geekdom is still viewed by some as a sign that society has failed to "grow up."

The recent kerfuffle between Bill Maher and comic fans mourning Stan Lee's passing has illustrated an ugly truth that geeks everywhere continue to face: geekdom is still viewed by some as a sign that society has failed to "grow up."

View attachment 104454
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​
[h=3]It Started with Stan[/h]The death of comics legend Stan Lee prompted an outpouring of grief and comedian Bill Maher took his passing as an opportunity to take a shot at fandom with an essay titled "Adulting":

"...the assumption everyone had back then, both the adults and the kids, was that comics were for kids, and when you grew up you moved on to big-boy books without the pictures. But then twenty years or so ago, something happened – adults decided they didn’t have to give up kid stuff. And so they pretended comic books were actually sophisticated literature."

The response was swift. Maher admitted the lost 40,000 Twitter followers after his post and that he's still followed by paparazzi asking him about "the Stan Lee thing." In response, Maher doubled down in a scathing attack on geekdom everywhere with a video titled, "New Rule: Grow Up":

"...the point of my blog is that I'm not glad Stan Lee is dead I'm sad you're alive...my shot wasn't at Stan Lee it was at, you know, grown men who still dress like kids...I'm sorry but if you are an adult playing with superhero dolls--I'm sorry, I mean collectible action figures!--why not go all the way and drive to work on a big wheel? Grown-ups these days, they cling so desperately to their childhood that when they do attempt to act their age they have a special word for it now, 'adulting'."

If those statements make your blood boil, you're not alone. The comic book industry's condemnation of Maher's comments were swift and wide-reaching. Stan Lee's estate responded directly to Maher:

Mr. Maher: Comic books, like all literature, are storytelling devices. When written well by great creators such as Stan Lee, they make us feel, make us think and teach us lessons that hopefully make us better human beings. One lesson Stan taught so many of us was tolerance and respect, and thanks to that message, we are grateful that we can say you have a right to your opinion that comics are childish and unsophisticated. Many said the same about Dickens, Steinbeck, Melville and even Shakespeare. But to say that Stan merely inspired people to “watch a movie” is in our opinion frankly disgusting. Countless people can attest to how Stan inspired them to read, taught them that the world is not made up of absolutes, that heroes can have flaws and even villains can show humanity within their souls.

The same criticism has been leveled at all things geeky, including role-playing games.
[h=3]Are Role-Playing Games Childish?[/h]Maher's attack on comics is essentially an attack on geekdom itself; the defense from Stan Lee's estate is an argument for the kind of imaginative storytelling that is at the heart of role-playing games.

In a lengthy response to a Quora question if D&D is "too immature and childish," Jake Harris explained:

D&D is a great game that brings people of all kinds together, for those willing to actually try and enjoy it. It's far from childish. Same with other forms of science fiction and fantasy. I strongly believe that these are lowkey pillars of society, which endure when pop culture constantly waxes and wanes with new trends and interpretations of “pop”. Dungeons & Dragons might have 6 Editions (I'm counting 3rd and 3.5 Editions) and Pathfinder, but its playerbase and rules remain largely the same: sit around a table, and travel to far-off lands, doing what no one else in the world is able to. Maybe you think that's childish. Maybe you could even argue that it is. Fine. I submit that maybe our world needs a little childishness. Maybe if we learn to fight less and play more we might actually get somewhere. If we choose to let the children inside of us inspire ourselves and those around us, we might not be stuck with all the problems we have.

Comedian and actor Patton Oswalt doesn't see a difference between pop culture and geek culture:

...I've got news for you—pop culture is nerd culture. The fans of Real Housewives of Hoboken watch, discuss, and absorb their show the same way a geek watched Dark Shadows or obsessed over his eighth-level half-elf ranger character in Dungeons & Dragons. It's the method of consumption, not what's on the plate.

That times have changed is perhaps best exemplified by the Collins online dictionary, which signified a shift away from Maher's perspective:

Once a slur reserved for eggheads and an insult aimed at lovers of computer programming, geek has been deemed the word of the year by the Collins online dictionary. Less brazen than selfie – which topped the Oxford Dictionaries poll last month – geek was chosen as a reminder of how an insult can be transformed into a badge of honour, according to Collins. In September the dictionary changed the main definition of geek from someone preoccupied with computing to "a person who is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about a specific subject'', adding geekery, geek chic and geekdom to the fold.

Part of geekdom is maintaining the passion for things we enjoyed as children into adulthood, but it does not necessarily mean that we aren't effectively "adulting." Although geekdom seems to have taken over popular culture, comedians like Maher are there to remind us that not everyone is okay with the takeover.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

I also think that what's happened now is that parents back in those days mostly didn't take their kids to more adult movies. There have been a lot of changes in parenting over time, but one was a much clearer separation between "adult world" and "kid world" in a lot of ways. Getting babysitters was a lot easier back in the '60s, just as an example, and expectations were quite a bit different.

I think it's fair to say parents of young children used to go a lot more movies without the kids. How else to explain the fact that Kramer vs Kramer, a drama about divorce, was the top grossing movie of 1979. That would be unthinkable today.

But it's also true that parents didn't have a problem taking/sending kids to 'adult' movies. I remember going to see Gandhi for a friend's birthday when we were 12, and to On Golden Pond for another friends' birthday when we were about the same age. Again, pretty tough to imagine that happening today.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
On the contrary, I'm more than willing - if it is necessary - to look at what Maher actually said. If you can quote Maher in a way that makes it look like I have indeed missed his point, then by all means do so. But my distinct impression is that you have a desire to defend Maher's "point" with no reference to what he actually said, but rather by making up what you might have wished he said. You might have wished he was telling a joke, but the evidence of his actual words suggests he wasn't. You might have wished he was making a point about people being too thin skinned, but there is no evidence of that in the text. You might have wished that he was not equating admiration for Stan Lee with immaturity, but what you wish he had said has nothing to do with what he actually said.

If you really think Maher's words are being treated unfairly or taken out of context, by all means demonstrate that.

Look I could walk you through the whole skit and break it down joke for joke to you and on the other hand 20% of the population have no sense of humour so I am not going to do that. You are just going to frame it in the worst possible light so that you can take offense.

I mean you literally gaslighted the guy, trying to insinuate that there is something wrong about having a 30 year old girlfriend and the hairy eyed mods just let you get away with it. Is that not exactly the same as saying that there is something wrong with him because he has a boyfriend?

Again, I see no sign that he was joking about anything. And, for that matter, if we was simply providing some corrective but sharp criticism aimed comic book nerds, I would I think be man enough to take it, even if it was completely lacking in good humor or even good intentions. The problem though is that not only is he speaking without good humor, or good will, or any sort of charity, he's just simply wrong.

But he is not wrong, you just think he is wrong. Which is fine, you dont have to agree with everyone. If you watch the clip you can see a lot of people laughing at his 'jokes' so making sweeping statements about 'speaking without good humour' is just factually incorrect.

I have endured far more insulting descriptions than this, especially 30 years ago. But I do not call such gibes 'jokes'.

If you have endured worse then show it.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I'm not so sure about that. I recently re-read The Eagle of the Ninth, a historical novel written by Rosemary Sutcliff in 1954.

I am familiar with it. I'm not saying that there weren't good books for kids and young adults written 'back in the day'. I've also put 'The Hobbit' and 'The Egypt Game' and other classics from then in front of my kids. But I do know that what was available to me in terms of range and number of titles pales in comparison to what I can offer my children. I know that the high quality works were much more easily exhausted then, especially in genre fiction like fantasy and sci fi.

But IMHO it's not nearly as rich in language or as sophisticated dramatically as comparable books from the 50s to the 70s.

I don't know that I'd go that far. That starts to get to 'get off my lawn' and 'kids these days' complaints.

No. But that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong in this case.

Reading between the lines you probably should be able to tell that I don't necessarily think the claim that some elements of society have become infantilized is wrong. I just think that he is wrong in this case. The general complaint that society is infantilized and that adults are less capable as adults than they were in prior generations I have some agreement with, albeit where I'd go with that has nothing at all to do with RPGs, comic books, or what have you and thus isn't a suitable topic for EnWorld.
 

What it chiefly says to me is that a parent in the 1960's could generally take his kids to see a movie aimed at an adult audience without fear that it would be inappropriate viewing for them. They might not catch all the nuance, but there is hardly anything in the 'top films of the 1960's' that I wouldn't have let me kids watch if they wanted to. Indeed, 'Lawrence of Arabia' contains so very serious subject matter - rape, sodomy, torture, murder, suicide, etc. - but it's handled generally tastefully and without gratuitous obsessing over the matter, so that I do remember watching (and enjoying) 'Lawrence' when I was like 9 or 10 even when I might not have gotten exactly what was going on in every scene. By contrast, it's a rare films these days that is aimed at an adult audience that doesn't show a juvenile obsession with depicting sexual acts and graphic violence.

If by "these days" you mean from roughly the 1960's to the present I might be inclined to agree, with the caveat that genuinely salacious and/or violent films tend to be easier for all audiences to find thanks to the internet now, and you don't see them get theatrical release as often. Most graphic films these days pale in comparison to the heydays of exploitation films in the seventies, for example, but the main difference is that you can often watch a film today with graphic content that is a technically better and more well produced film than any of the equivalent back in the day, which was mostly delegated to grindhouse theaters.

I guess I'm not disagreeing or anything, just pointing out that this is not a recent trend, and the only difference between then and now is that the ubiquity of films thanks to streaming services makes movies once reserved for an 18 and up crowd trivially easy for people of any age to find if they try.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I understand that there's a tendency to blind oneself to the flaws of one's side or the virtues of one's opponent, and there's considerable room for subjectivity, particularly within the middle ground. That said, I struggle to think of a person who better exemplifies the vernacular "troll" objectively better than Maher. Maybe Morgan? But anyway, trolling is Maher's shtick. . Whether one agrees with him or not is irrelevant; in fact I would question the subjectivity of anybody who'd actually try to argue the point that he's not a professional troll at this point. I mean, say what you will about Religulous, for instance, but if somebody earnestly asked "What do you mean by trolling?", "Have you seen Religulous?" would not be a terrible way to answer it.

I am half way through watching Religulous and, to be perfectly honest, I dont think that Maher is the troll here. When you have people that make a 'historically accurate' dinosaur complete with human riding saddle how can you say that the person interviewing them is the troll. When you have US Senators telling you that there is no IQ test requirement to be a US Senator, is the person interviewing them the troll? Is the Minister dressed in the $2000 suit and all his gold rings that he brought from the donations of his parishioners while preaching the word of Jesus the troll or the comedian interviewing him?

I am just up to Buddy Jesus now so it will be interesting to see what kind of treatment the other religions get.
 


It shows that the consumer market has changed dramatically over time, shifting away from an adult themed audience to a broader, more popular and younger audience. The adults who enjoy sophisticated films are still there, but those films don't cost millions in CGI effects to produce, while garnering (I bet) the same proportionate crowds they once did long ago. This isn't a case of the market leaving something behind (mature films), it's a case of the mature films remaining present while an entirely new market (sophisticated and expensive but high-return movies aimed at a general or young audience) has risen to absorb a demand previously unmet.

I find that hard to believe. The most watched film in 1979 was a drama about divorce. Not even a romantic comedy or thriller. A straight character drama. Yes, there are still straight character dramas being made and watched today. But they don't crack the top 30, let alone top the box office. That's why there's so much handwringing in Hollywood about the Oscar's - the best picture nominees today are often completely unknown to 95 per cent of Americans.

It's not that a new market has opened and people are going to more movies today. They're not. In fact, movie attendance has been dropping for decades. In the 50s, the average American went to something like 40 movies a year. These days it's four.

It says that sometimes people grow up enjoying things for arbitrary reasons, and the Gen X parents (of which I am one) were strongly indoctrinated into a new culture of consumer-driven culture, which has allowed us to assimilate a wide range of hobbies and interests that once were considered childish after a certain age, but are now regarded as normal and mainstream. At least part of this is the phenomenon of a culture literally drowning in entertainment of such a bewildering array of flavors and varieties that yes, it can mean that more sophisticated and thoughtful elements are more easily drowned out. So what it says about our society is: we have a competition for our attention, and it turns out certain types of media are extremely efficient at capturing it.

Agreed. But isn't there something stagnant about liking the same things at 15 and at 25 and at 35 and at 45? Can't nostalgia and the effort to re-capture or hang onto childhood be unhealthy?

Is this good or bad? It depends heavily on whether those 15 year olds were taught not merely to seek the easy entertainment when they were fifteen, but also to value more intellectual or challenging forms of entertainment (and note that the latter is critical, because for a lot of people from my ignored Gen X generation, it was often quite clear that the "entertainment" allowed to adults back in the day was actually not entertaining at all).

Our culture is, for better or worse depending on your point of view, moving away from the concept that being an adult means that entertainment (at least on the surface, as a matter of appearance) must not actually appear to be entertaining. This was always there in the past, it just wasn't allowed as a socially perceptible norm.

I disagree with your entertaining vs not-entertaining dichotomy. I see it as easy vs challenging entertainment. You can challenge and stretch yourself to enjoy things at 35 that you weren't capable of appreciating at 15. It's not effortless. But it can be rewarding. Just as going on hikes can be more rewarding than lying on a beach.

It's also worth noting that taking up hiking doesn't mean you can never go to the beach too. It just means you have more options.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
I am half way through watching Religulous and, to be perfectly honest, I dont think that Maher is the troll here. When you have people that make a 'historically accurate' dinosaur complete with human riding saddle how can you say that the person interviewing them is the troll. When you have US Senators telling you that there is no IQ test requirement to be a US Senator, is the person interviewing them the troll? Is the Minister dressed in the $2000 suit and all his gold rings that he brought from the donations of his parishioners while preaching the word of Jesus the troll or the comedian interviewing him?

Oooh, a lightning round!

1) Because he is.
2) Yes. (And don't even get me started on that BS can of worms)
3) The comedian interviewing him.

Again, I don't think you understand what we mean by "trolling", which I'll toss out a basic if probably incomplete definition, is basically taking the piss out of a particular subject in a condescending tone, usually for the primary cathartic benefit of an audience that already agrees with you.

Again, I suggest that your hesitance to admit Maher is a troll is that you agree with him, or believe that his targets, in this case anyway, are actually worthy of the scorn he's heaping. I'll admit, I don't disagree on these myself for the most part. But I can still see that he's trolling the people he's studying. See also: Cohen, Sacha Baron (thanks for reminding me about him, by the way,) who has done some interesting work with the technique.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I mean, blood sports used to be considered "adult entertainment." In Call of Duty, it's all fake.

Actually blood sports used to be an occasion that the whole family can enjoy it is only in the last few decades that we find out children can not handle violence.

Besides I think the main difference between your Granny playing card games and someone playing Call of Duty is that one of those people plays their card games only after finishing a whole day of 'Adulting' and the other is a Call of Duty player.
 

If you have endured worse then show it.

Really? Seriously? Surely you haven't had such a comfortable life.

I'm not the guy you responded to, but here's one from 1978: my family fled our mountain home in southern Arizona to a safe location (a family property 150 miles away) after my parents, who were artists working in silver jewelry at the time were accused of witchcraft by a local fundamentalist christian cult. The call that evening was from a friend who was at the event where it was decided that "action must be taken" followed by suggestions they set our house on fire.

So in 1978 I and my family were called witches and threatened with being killed. We left at 2 in the morning and the next time my folks returned it was to vandalized property to work out the sale of said property.

Good enough for you?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top