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

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.

People who read books for school should be taken out of the equation altogether. They're not picking books they want to read, so those books have no bearing on their taste or their preferences.

And believe it or not, there are adults who read Dickens and Melville. And who willingly read/attend Shakespeare. Some people genuinely do love the language, the characters, the subtlety. The nuanced insights into human nature. They seek out challenging literature and drama as adults - works they wouldn't have understood when they were 15 - because they enjoy it. Find it rewarding. Just as there are people who start entering Spartan competitions and marathons in their 30s. Just because a great many people never run a lap or shoot a basket once they graduate high school doesn't mean running and sports are activities only for teenagers.

Setting aside the intractable issue of low culture vs high culture, isn't there something troubling about stagnation? About the notion that all of the maturation and life experiences you have after you're 15 years old have no influence on the kinds of stories you seek out when you're 35 or 50? That love and loss and marriage and childrearing and all the complex human drama you witness around you doesn't render many of the stories you loved when you were 15 facile and simplistic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
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.

Most likely it is because reading is evolutionarily very new to humans and comparatively hard to do compared to listening to someone speak or watching someone.

Which is why movies are so much more attractive and popular then the book that the movie is based off. Maybe the audio book market will be successful in making books more accessible?
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
More likely that adults are time pressured, and its easier to watch a movie adaptation of a classic- Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Romeo Must Die, Forbidden Planet etc.- than to sit and read it.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
People who read books for school should be taken out of the equation altogether. They're not picking books they want to read, so those books have no bearing on their taste or their preferences.

Have people forgotten what it was like to be a 15 year old?

How the heck would a 15 year old know what was worth while reading if no one told them what to read? Do we expect it to randomly fall off the shelf into their lap or hope that one of their other 15 year old friends tells them about that cool book that they read?
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
More likely that adults are time pressured, and its easier to watch a movie adaptation of a classic- Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Romeo Must Die, Forbidden Planet etc.- than to sit and read it.

No I dont think so. People will spend the whole day going to a sports event so time pressure does not affect what you prioritise.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
People who read books for school should be taken out of the equation altogether. They're not picking books they want to read, so those books have no bearing on their taste or their preferences.

And believe it or not, there are adults who read Dickens and Melville. And who willingly read/attend Shakespeare. Some people genuinely do love the language, the characters, the subtlety. The nuanced insights into human nature. They seek out challenging literature and drama as adults - works they wouldn't have understood when they were 15 - because they enjoy it. Find it rewarding. Just as there are people who start entering Spartan competitions and marathons in their 30s. Just because a great many people never run a lap or shoot a basket once they graduate high school doesn't mean running and sports are activities only for teenagers.

Setting aside the intractable issue of low culture vs high culture, isn't there something troubling about stagnation? About the notion that all of the maturation and life experiences you have after you're 15 years old have no influence on the kinds of stories you seek out when you're 35 or 50? That love and loss and marriage and childrearing and all the complex human drama you witness around you doesn't render many of the stories you loved when you were 15 facile and simplistic?

Aren't you assuming a lot with that summation? That the person in question has not developed any new tastes or interests while also maintaining some of their old ones? That the kind of material in question hasn't changed or grown or improved in the interim period? Or that a specific work can't be enjoyed on different levels when revisited at a later time? That the same metric doesn't apply to almost every facet of life? That the interests of nearly everyone that's achieved greatness in some field would by your standard be considered stagnant?

It just seems an unnecessarily limiting and pessimistic way to look at things.

Honestly, I know a good deal of comic book readers, and as a group, they are arguably the most well read group that I know. They read all kinds of material in addition to comics. In my experience, there are people who read, and then, as has been pointed out in this thread, many that don't read much at all.

Edited to add: At some point, every art form has been considered to be unworthy of attention or discussion. Movies, television, novels, stand up comedy.....all of it. And with time, each of them has been accepted as actual art. I feel like anyone willing to dismiss an entire art form as being beneath attention has failed to learn the lessons of the past. I'm not sure why it seems to be the case, especially when those who resist seem to otherwise be very thoughtful, educated, and/or experienced. Perhaps they identify so strongly with a specific media or art form that they feel the need to resist newer methods? It's hard to imagine that it will ever change if it hasn't by now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shasarak

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

This is probably a good example to use.

If people can not read a 500 word OP on a forum about a subject that they like, how can we expect them to read anything else more substantive. For a subset of the population everything just needs to be written in 140 characters or less.
 

Have people forgotten what it was like to be a 15 year old?

How the heck would a 15 year old know what was worth while reading if no one told them what to read? Do we expect it to randomly fall off the shelf into their lap or hope that one of their other 15 year old friends tells them about that cool book that they read?

I didn't suggest we should stop assigning those sorts of books to teenagers. I was countering a suggestion that we should consider Shakespeare YA material because school curriculums mean most of the people who read Shakespeare are 15 years old.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
This is probably a good example to use.

If people can not read a 500 word OP on a forum about a subject that they like, how can we expect them to read anything else more substantive. For a subset of the population everything just needs to be written in 140 characters or less.

Nah, we all read the entire OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top