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

Aldarc

Legend
What primarily drives a book to be put in YA genre is the age of the protagonist.
It seems like what primarily drives a book to be put in YA genre is the contemporary capitalist desire to maximize publishing and retail profits through the marketing, branding, and targeting of market audiences, i.e., the commodification of pre-adult identity. /shrug
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I

Immortal Sun

Guest
It seems like what primarily drives a book to be put in YA genre is the contemporary capitalist desire to maximize publishing and retail profits through the marketing, branding, and targeting of market audiences, i.e., the commodification of pre-adult identity. /shrug

In the words of metalheads everywhere: Brutal.
 

Hussar

Legend
It seems like what primarily drives a book to be put in YA genre is the contemporary capitalist desire to maximize publishing and retail profits through the marketing, branding, and targeting of market audiences, i.e., the commodification of pre-adult identity. /shrug

I certainly can't argue with that.

Something to remember about older movies too is that the ratings systems back then were far less codified. Now, an R rating is pretty much the kiss of death as far as making money goes. Outside of a couple of outliers anyway. So, everything has to get that all important PG rating if they want to make money.

Getting an R rating today is not difficult. Show people smoking. Which means that virtually every movie made before 1975 would, by today's standard, get an R rating.
 

Zhaleskra

Adventurer
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.

Yes and no. There are things any person, hopefully has scheduled to do, those time slots are filled. In this case, reading is not a priority. The time is still there, the person just isn't interested in using it that way. We have a lot more empty time than we think, especially when we drop "I don't have time" thinking. Basically we're exchanging "ease of access" for "having time". Of course, different people learn different ways and enjoy different things.
 


Hussar

Legend
Justin Bieber's hometown owes its existence to those adults.

And yes, this means that Shakespeare is to blame for Justin Bieber's existence.

Heh. I grew up a short distance from Stratford, Ontario. Pretty town. FANTASTIC Shakespeare festival. Attended by thousands of people every year. Absolutely fantastic. Been going on for decades.

And even decades ago, when people were more "adult" and not interested in childish things, the number of attendees was dwarfed by the average Disney cartoon.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Yes and no. There are things any person, hopefully has scheduled to do, those time slots are filled. In this case, reading is not a priority. The time is still there, the person just isn't interested in using it that way. We have a lot more empty time than we think, especially when we drop "I don't have time" thinking. Basically we're exchanging "ease of access" for "having time". Of course, different people learn different ways and enjoy different things.

Certainly we can find time to do things we like. But there are now many more ways to spend our time, and fewer of them require reading of any kind, much less familiarity with literature (of any given level of quality). Our leisure time has become more Balkanized.

I mean, just looking at myself, I have more pastimes than I can easily indulge in simultaneously, so my involvement in any given one goes in cycles. Some I haven’t participated in in years...but might re-engage with at any time, if the right conditions existed.

So declining reading time as a factor of time pressure makes more sense than:

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.

...when we consider that earlier in time- IOW, closer to our evolutionary origins and the advent of reading- we read more hours per capita. If Shasarak’s assertion were true, we should expect an increase in reading as time passed.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
So declining reading time as a factor of time pressure makes more sense than:

...when we consider that earlier in time- IOW, closer to our evolutionary origins and the advent of reading- we read more hours per capita. If Shasarak’s assertion were true, we should expect an increase in reading as time passed.

You, you do know how long it takes to evolve, right?

Cause I am not getting that impression from what you are saying.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Yes, I do. And it is nonlinear. There will be dips and peaks, sometimes at variance with the overall trend. Dead ends, even.

But I didn’t make the evolutionary assertion. And the obvious counterpoint to your proposal is that a decline in non-mandatory reading would be against the expected trend. Is it a momentary dip? Don’t know.

Humans as a species have been reading for thousands of years. Most of the reasons why literacy was not commonplace were societal- the costs of educating the masses, the belief that certain people should not be educated, the belief that society NEEDS an uneducated underclass, etc.- not limitations of the human animals themselves. Over those centuries, the general trend has been towards marginal increases in readers per capita.

Then Gutenberg dropped the cost of making books exponentially cheaper. Societal and pseudoscientific barriers to literacy have been eroding.

So why a decline now?
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Yes, I do. And it is nonlinear. There will be dips and peaks, sometimes at variance with the overall trend. Dead ends, even.

But I didn’t make the evolutionary assertion. And the obvious counterpoint to your proposal is that a decline in non-mandatory reading would be against the expected trend. Is it a momentary dip? Don’t know.

Humans as a species have been reading for thousands of years. Most of the reasons why literacy was not commonplace were societal- the costs of educating the masses, the belief that certain people should not be educated, the belief that society NEEDS an uneducated underclass, etc.- not limitations of the human animals themselves. Over those centuries, the general trend has been towards marginal increases in readers per capita.

Then Gutenberg dropped the cost of making books exponentially cheaper. Societal and pseudoscientific barriers to literacy have been eroding.

If you are not talking about evolution then why mention evolution?

In any case, if this data is to believed, then by the early 1800's there were only 12% of the population who were literate, so for the four and a half thousand years that humans have been writing, not many of them have been doing it. We did not even break the 50% mark until the 1950s. That is not a very long time to evolve something, especially if there is no environmental pressure to select for it, unlike the pressure on Elephants for example.

In comparision 100% of humans have been seeing and listening for over 300 thousand years. So it is no wonder that we are better at it.

So why a decline now?

Yes, why would there be a decline now when it is easier then ever to watch or listen to something else rather then read?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top