|
|
|
|
|
|
by bertiewhykovich
3486 days ago
|
|
|
Shlock. The writer is satisfied with the world he inhabits, is not particularly aggrieved by the powers that be, has not been particularly failed -- and therefore takes umbrage at the suggestion that the established order might not be both benevolent and competent. But guess what? This isn't the general experience! Most people are constantly, crushingly immiserated and failed -- a societal "failure mode," as he so charmingly terms it, has already come to pass. It's unclear, in fact, that we've ever /not/ been in a failure mode -- begging the question of /why/ things are so consistently fucked up. |
|
|
The author lost me the moment he introduced the "paradox" of a writer thinking the societal systems are inefficient but they would dial 911 as soon as there's trouble. So...
(1) Both things are not mutually exclusive at all. Nobody is expert in everything.
(2) What does this guy think the writer should do? Grab a kitchen knife and go be a hero? Outside the USA you can get jailed for assaulting a burglar. He should do some net reading because I suspect him of being too USA-centric.
(3) You can write about heroes while fully realizing you're not one. Takes culture and education to do, and it's very far from impossible. Example: the writers of Spiderman whom the author likes aren't superheroes themselves yet they portrayed the superhero quite well.
The whole thing is written in a way that somehow makes you feel the author is salty and strongly dislikes people who criticize the current public systems. "Be respectful for the work previous generations have put for your future, you ungrateful whippersnappers!", that's how he sounds to me.
I'll admit he makes several good points (like the horror "plots" which were probably already beaten to death as far back as the 1950s) but there are parts of his article I find to be very biased.