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

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
So then how can we accept the conparison of Stan Lee with the great writers of history? It would be like comparing Bill Gates with Newton, Einstein and Hawking because he has a honorary degree.

How silly is that? Let me count the ways.

1) There really is no objective standard for literary quality.
2) all literary awards are subjective. Arguably, all awards that don’t involve head to head competitions are subjective. (And even some of those are, too.)
3) Bill Gates may not be a scientist, but his contributions- as well as those of other tech icons- to modern society have been far-reaching and pervasive.
4) Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to do what he has done. It’s pretty likely he’s smart enough to get a degree and succeed the sciences. Maybe even excel.* But it wasn’t a necessary step in his path. Is he a lesser man because of his choice?





* Well, he did Excel...and Word, PowerPoint, and...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
How silly is that? Let me count the ways.

1) There really is no objective standard for literary quality.
2) all literary awards are subjective. Arguably, all awards that don’t involve head to head competitions are subjective. (And even some of those are, too.)
3) Bill Gates may not be a scientist, but his contributions- as well as those of other tech icons- to modern society have been far-reaching and pervasive.
4) Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to do what he has done. It’s pretty likely he’s smart enough to get a degree and succeed the sciences. Maybe even excel.* But it wasn’t a necessary step in his path. Is he a lesser man because of his choice?





* Well, he did Excel...and Word, PowerPoint, and...

Exactly right, you just can not compare them in any persuasive way.
 

Azirahael

First Post
I think I fit into the 'elder statesman' category of gamer, having starting playing DnD probably around 1980, and so I remember - and probably still have social reflexes related to - the stigmatization of gaming in general, and RPGs in particular. It's equal parts refreshing, validating, and surprising that DnD is as close to mainstream as it is today.

And yet...I think this is much ado about nothing. I care nothing about what Bill Maher thinks about anything, and my hobbies are my business. The time and resources they take are in part my family's business, and so if to anyone in this life, it would be to them that I am in some way answerable at all.

Regardless, this is not worth getting worked up over.

Pfft. Noob. :p
 

Hussar

Legend
I find Dickens (and other authors of the same general period) a bit convoluted in their style. And there can be a tendency to melodrama. But I've read a lot of Stan Lee and Stan Lee-inspired comics, and not too many of them are going to stand up against Great Expectations.

(I'm not sure why you contrast "adults" and "masses" - the masses for whom Dickens wrote were primarily adults, I think, although given the demographic profile of that time and place probably younger than a contemporary British adult demographic profile.)

You missed my point. The only people who read Great Expectations are high school students and it's been that way for the better part of a century. So, how is Dickens not YA fiction today? Sure, it might have been read by adults back in the day, but, that's because adults back in the day were, compared to current young people, barely literate.

The average young person today has written thousands up thousands upon more thousands of words more than the average Boomer has written in his or her entire lifetime. You could poll 1000 people over the age of 60 about when they read Great Expectations and they'd still have read it in high school.

IOW, the works that were considered "adult" of yesteryear are fodder for 15 year olds today.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
[MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]
Pursuasive? Maybe or maybe not. Depends on how open or closed minded someone is, and what particular assertions are made to them.

Objectively, definitely not. Because creative fields are always subjective.

I know some very educated people who think James Joyce has no business being taught as literature.

There are others who decry that Mondrian, Pollack, DuChamp, Warhol and almost any major figure in modern art is called a Master in any context.

Only time will tell if Bill Laswell, David Bowie, Jaco Pastorius, Johnny Cash or anyone else in the history of recorded music will be immortalized like Bach, Mozart, Debussy and the like have been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
You missed my point. The only people who read Great Expectations are high school students and it's been that way for the better part of a century. So, how is Dickens not YA fiction today? Sure, it might have been read by adults back in the day, but, that's because adults back in the day were, compared to current young people, barely literate.

The average young person today has written thousands up thousands upon more thousands of words more than the average Boomer has written in his or her entire lifetime. You could poll 1000 people over the age of 60 about when they read Great Expectations and they'd still have read it in high school.

IOW, the works that were considered "adult" of yesteryear are fodder for 15 year olds today.

Not only that, it’s personally alarming to me how few adults actually read books...and the subjective quality thereof.

When I was in law school, I stuck to my usual reading while dining habits when eating solo. I got stared at by my schoolmates for reading books FOR FUN. The guy who was generally considered “The Man” read no books at all beyond those required for class, just newspapers and news magazines.

I had to explain professors’ classical references like “Sword of Damocles” to my classmates.

And for the record, this was in a top 10 institution.

When I did see others with novels, almost without exception, it was a “summer read”. Not Kafka, etc.

So yeah- most of the world’s great literature* is force fed to people between 14-20 years of age. If it doesn’t happen then, odds are good it just doesn’t happen.




* the stuff that’s recognized by consensus, not necessarily the newer stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
You missed my point. The only people who read Great Expectations are high school students and it's been that way for the better part of a century. So, how is Dickens not YA fiction today? Sure, it might have been read by adults back in the day, but, that's because adults back in the day were, compared to current young people, barely literate.

The average young person today has written thousands up thousands upon more thousands of words more than the average Boomer has written in his or her entire lifetime. You could poll 1000 people over the age of 60 about when they read Great Expectations and they'd still have read it in high school.

IOW, the works that were considered "adult" of yesteryear are fodder for 15 year olds today.
I'm not sure what the connection is that you're drawing between the high school literature curriculum and the amount of words students write; nor how you're relating that to nineteenth century reading habits. Nineteenth century British adults didn't read Dickens because they were too illiterate to read anything else; and the fact that a work is set for high school students isn't really the basis on which it would be classified as "young adult" as best I'm aware of both library and bookshop practices.

The fact that a vast majority of people in predominantly English-speaking countries don't engage with serious literature once they finish their compulsory education is an interesting one. It may even be alarming (as [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] suggests). But I don't think it follows that Dickens is young adult writing whereas (say) contemporary Marvel comics (or whatever it is that adults are reading) is serious adult stuff!
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm not sure what the connection is that you're drawing between the high school literature curriculum and the amount of words students write; nor how you're relating that to nineteenth century reading habits. Nineteenth century British adults didn't read Dickens because they were too illiterate to read anything else; and the fact that a work is set for high school students isn't really the basis on which it would be classified as "young adult" as best I'm aware of both library and bookshop practices.

The fact that a vast majority of people in predominantly English-speaking countries don't engage with serious literature once they finish their compulsory education is an interesting one. It may even be alarming (as [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] suggests). But I don't think it follows that Dickens is young adult writing whereas (say) contemporary Marvel comics (or whatever it is that adults are reading) is serious adult stuff!

If an author is predominantly read by teenagers, wouldn't that likely place that author in the YA bracket? Whatever age bracket you generally place a work into is, by and large, determined by who actually reads the work.

So, pretending that Shakespeare or Melville is somehow an "adult" author, when adults almost never read them, and the only people who generally do read them are between 15 and 25, seems a bit off. I mean, we apparently place comics as for kids because it's kids who read them right? And the criticism is that people are somehow less "adult" for reading kids stuff.

Only thing is, most of the stuff that's "adult stuff" isn't read by adults either.

I mean, upthread, someone made a big deal that Kramer Vs Kramer was the top grossing movie of the year. Sure. one year out of the last hundred sees an "adult" movie on top. Never minding the other 99 years where it was typical pop culture, big tent pole fodder. Even the idea that "back in the day" you could take your kids to "adult" movies ignores a LOT of movies. I'm not really sure I want a 10 year old watching Sam Peckinpaw movies after all.

But, I guess my point is, if adults aren't reading Shakespeare and kids are, then doesn't that place Shakespeare largely in the same reading bracket as comic books? After all, it's not like kids can't understand Romeo and Juliet or get the nuances of A Merchant of Venice. It's not like these are really all that subtle.
 

pemerton

Legend
I guess my point is, if adults aren't reading Shakespeare and kids are, then doesn't that place Shakespeare largely in the same reading bracket as comic books?
No. I've read Romeo and Juliet, and seen multiple movie versions of it; and I've read plenty of Avengers and Spidie, and seen multiple movie versions of these. The contrast is reasonably marked.

it's not like kids can't understand Romeo and Juliet or get the nuances of A Merchant of Venice. It's not like these are really all that subtle.
Compared to the Avengers movie, Romeo and Juliet is almost infintely subtle! I enjoyed that movie mostly because of the engaging back-and-forth between Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo (both good actors) - but the last third (? quarter?) where the superheroes beat up the aliens has bascially no literary merit. Whereas the last third of Romeo and Juliet I would rate as fairly high-quality literature.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
@Hussar I guess my point is, if adults aren't reading Shakespeare and kids are, then doesn't that place Shakespeare largely in the same reading bracket as comic books? After all, it's not like kids can't understand Romeo and Juliet or get the nuances of A Merchant of Venice. It's not like these are really all that subtle. ...
No. Because great adults of the school critic a lum, have proclaim Shakespeare and Melville are GREAT LITERATURE. And we must force it down you rugrats throats so you can be educated. Other wise you will start thinking Avengers are literature. And then we have trouble right here in River City.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top