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."

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.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I'm saying that he is wrong about the genre. Not just "mostly misses the mark" but "is completely ignorant regarding the thing of which he speaks, and is speaking entirely out of his butthole".

Spider-man and MJ aren't, to my knowledge, back together. Pete isn't a teenager again. Gwen Stacy is never coming back (outside of alternate universes).

Damien Wayne might come back to life again, if he hasn't already, or he might not. Even if he does, it won't be a retcon or a "return to the status quo", because even his arrival was a change to the status quo, and barring a new reboot, they aren't that prone to ignoring events like a character dying. They tend to continue to inform that character's ongoing story. The older Robins will never be Robin again. Jason Todd will never be a character who hasn't been brutally murdered and then resurrected by a sociopath who believes he is necessary to the development of humanity, a piece of Jason's humanity lost in the resurrection.

Regardless of any "status quo", the very fact that you can point to stories within these universes that are award worthy literature makes Maher's "criticism" complete nonsense, as close to objectively false as one can get about art.

I agree that he's mostly ignorant of what he's speaking about. Again, I think his actual point was confused right from the start. Comics as a medium are no less or more mature than any other medium.

Superheroes as a genre, though, can be said to be childish. Just as myth and fairy tales can be said to be childish. Do I think that such a statement is absolute? Of course not. But, having read plenty of superhero comics as an adult, there have been times where I've wondered myself if some of them are worth my time. I read less and less superhero books the older I get. So in that sense, I can understand his point.

However, I think it's been made pretty clear that the same is true of any genre. There are examples of incredible quality in a genre, and then there's the vast majority of mediocre stuff, and then there's the crap.

As for the instances of specific comic stories...there's no way to predict exactly what DC or Marvel will do in the future. So instead, all we can do is look at what they've done in the past. If you don't see the overwhelming examples of returning to the status quo in the genre, then I don't expect I'll convince you about it. And that's fine. I'm not condemning super hero fiction...I enjoy plenty of it myself. But I do recognize that it can be childish. It can also be brilliant....but that's far less often.

 

[Immortal Sun]

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.

Uh, no.

Shakespeare is an example of work whose primary demographic has shifted over time. This is not uncommon with media as changing views begin see the work as higher or lower quality than it was at some point in the past. It's actually partly the subject of this thread, comics are being more widely seen as acceptable to read when older than 14 and people like Maher are struggling against the inexorable tide of changing culture to maintain their own biased and jaded views.

Anyway...

The YA section of a store (a section in which you will not find Shakespeare unless it's the YA rewrite, seriously, go to your local book store or library and look) includes books that were written for a modern YA audience, usually "tweens". These books aren't necessarily harder or easier to read, but they contain material aimed at a certain demographic based on cultural norms. They range from essentially being "comic books without pictures" to "well written books with themes society considers childish" (like supers). They will often be populated with YA romance novels (translation: fade-to-black romance) or pretty much anything you'd see in a daytime soap in text format.

Keep in mind that for all this threads last few pages of talk about "kids reading Shakespeare" they're doing it because they're ordered to do it, not because they want to do it. Even the young adults that read it in college are more likely to be doing so because their Classical Lit 102 professor told them to go buy a copy, not because they actually thought "Hey, Shakespeare! I want to read that!"

TLDR: the YA section is not based on what YAs read but literature written at a certain level, in a certain style, containing certain themes and intended to be purchased by persons ages 12-22.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Comics are not very sophisticated on a literary spectrum; people who think they are, are the equivalent of Iowans who think that Des Moines is a cosmopolitan, hip city. It most certainly is, for them. Quite frankly, there's very little to be done about this: rubes will stay rubes or completely transform into something entirely different by, say, moving to London. And it doesn't matter. London, well, Londons. Proust keeps on Prousting.

You are making the same mistake as Maher, conflating the medium and the genre.

And as for Des Moines being cosmopolitan, it's all about perspective, isn't it? Clearly someone as erudite as yourself would recognize it for the backwater it is, but to oh, I don't know, probably something like 80% of the rest of the world, it would in fact be quite cosmopolitan.

Good thing we have folks like you to point out how wrong everyone else is. The fact that you managed such an air of superiority while totally botching simple forum post formatting is quite impressive!

 

[Aldarc]

This is a silly debate. Regarding what Bill Maher said: Who cares? So what?

 

[Arilyn]

People haven't mysteriously changed over the last few decades, becoming more childish and lazy. Before superhero comics and movies there were pulps, penny dreadfuls, gothic romance, newspaper serials...
You can bet they were consumed more avidly than good literature, even amongst the wealthy who could afford books. We have unfortunately lost much of ancient Greek plays, but I'm thinking a lot of it was shallow too.
A lot of modern sitcom plots were in Greek comedies.

Through merit and luck a small percentage of works remain in print or are continued to be watched, and are considered high quality. They can pop out of any genre. Shane from westerns, Gone with the Wind from romance, Lord of the Rings from fantasy, Three Musketeers from adventure, Charlotte's Web from children's literature, Poe and Lovecraft from horror, Jane Eyre from gothic, etc.

Can't predict the future but Gaiman's Sandman enduring many more decades wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Eltab]

Is childishness in adults a good thing? The author of Yes, Virginia, There Really Is A Santa Claus saw a positive place for it.
The "Rule of the Golden Mean" also applies here.

 

[Eltab]

...if adults aren't reading Shakespeare and kids are...

All you other adults must be weird. Or maybe I am (but I doubt that).

Over the summer I picked up a trio of Shakespeare plays I missed during previous go-rounds of wanting to read Shakespeare. I'm called old enough to be called "Dad" by those kids puzzling through Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet in their high school English classes.

 

[billd91]

You are making the same mistake as Maher, conflating the medium and the genre.

And as for Des Moines being cosmopolitan, it's all about perspective, isn't it? Clearly someone as erudite as yourself would recognize it for the backwater it is, but to oh, I don't know, probably something like 80% of the rest of the world, it would in fact be quite cosmopolitan.

Good thing we have folks like you to point out how wrong everyone else is. The fact that you managed such an air of superiority while totally botching simple forum post formatting is quite impressive!

Meanwhile, the Iowan "rubes" in Des Moines will continue to patronize their opera and ballet companies, visiting their art center with a wing designed by I.M. Pei, gong to their annual Latino Heritage fest, and undoubtedly sobbing that they aren't... Londoning, or whatever it is people in London do.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Would I compare Justice League of America #175 to Finnegan’s Wake? No.

Would I denigrate comic fans as immature/hicks while conveniently ignoring exemplars within that genre that have been recognized by the same organizations that consider a wide variety of the other literary genres out there? Also no.

Pulitzer, Hugo, Newbery, Caldecott, Michael L. Printz, Coretta Scott King and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights boards have all granted literary awards to comics and graphic novels. Which begs the question: are THEY the equivalent of Iowans who think that Des Moines is a cosmopolitan, hip city?

(If your answer is “Yes.”, then your ivory tower is showing, and you should really tuck that away.)

It's false "ivory tower" to begin with. A person wholly ignorant of the subject matter chiming in as if their uninformed opinion has merit!

Anyone who thinks that Gaiman's Sandman can't be meaningfully compared with literally any of the "classics" hasn't read it, or is too indoctrinated into a narrow mindset for anyone to take their opinions on art seriously.

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.

Those goalposts just keep moving! Man future-soccer is wild!

 

[Shasarak]

[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.

That is true, who knows what we will be teaching our kids in 500 years. Even 100 years is impossible to predict.