Uninteresting ideas: Could Batman beat Superman? · 2:15am Jul 21st, 2016
When the Superman vs. Batman movie came out, it reminded me that I'd written a blog post in 2015 about Superman vs. Batman. I couldn't find it then. Today I found it by accident.
Writing takes various skills: grammar, style, persuasiveness, an understanding of narrative structure. It takes at least one talent: an interest in interesting things.
I've worked with many amateur writers. Skills are difficult but not impossible to learn. But the most common failure, which may be the only fatal flaw for a writer, is a constriction of curiosity.
Consider superhero comics. Many fans obsess over uninteresting questions like "Who would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman?" They're still true fans, maybe even a majority of the fanbase. It's a natural question for a little boy who is attracted to super-heroes by their strength to ask. But if they're still asking that question when they're 20, I don't think they'll become writers.
The similar question "Who would win, Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali?" could be interesting, because its answer would tell us other things about our world, like the importance of modern training techniques and drugs. The question "How could Batman beat Superman in a fight?" could be a fun question. You could play at inventing creative ways for this mere human to beat Superman (as the comic strip writers do with Lex Luthor). But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the guys who genuinely want to know who would win in a fight.
The question "Would Batman beat Superman?", first off, has no answer--there is no fact of the matter. The answer is whatever the author makes up at that moment.
But suppose that it has an answer. Suppose the authors have descriptions of the characters as precise as GURPS character sheets. It's still a relatively uninteresting question, because all it tells us is whether Batman could beat Superman. You could ask almost any other question about Superman or Batman and it would have relevance to our world. Does Lois Lane love Superman if she doesn't love Clark Kent? Is Alfred a facilitator of potential psychosis? These questions are interesting because answering them requires answering questions about what "love" means, or the mental hazards of vigilanteeism.
But questions about the relative power levels of Superman and Batman are uninteresting, because their power levels are just made-up numbers. Their powers aren't products of reality; they are deliberately scaled beyond reality. Their nature as superpowers by definition makes it impossible for them to tell us anything about the real world. So it's like saying, "Superman is a 390th-level character. Does Batman's character sheet say he's over or under 390th-level?"
You might think that it is at least asking something like, "Can brains beat brawns?" But it isn't, because both the brains and the brawns are deliberately unrealistic, and it's in the best case asking something like "Can 490th level brains beat 370th level brawns?" in a world that only has level 10 characters. You just can't learn anything from the answer. The only answer is that each of them is exactly as strong as the writer chose to make him, and the writer deliberately did this in a way that did not reflect reality. It has no further implications; it tells us nothing about our world or ourselves.
(Plus, Superman would totally kick Batman's ass.)
Good writers are interested in productive questions. Questions which raise other questions.
If you're interested in interesting things, you can learn to write, eventually. If you're not, I don't know.
this post reeks of unappealing pretension, friend. not to mention this:
really? no 'good' writer i know worth their salt would use that word as a pejorative. step off your high horse, mr. horse.
That question has already been answered repeatedly. Batman.
He does it in Red Son, the Injustice / Gods Among Us timeline, and a handful of other comics.
But you're right. It isn't really an interesting question.
The other side of that, is a matter of drive and public interest. Should an author who has Skill and an interesting idea care about their work, continue writing, if nobody cares?
A work of fiction, hell any product, is worth the extent to which the public is willing to consume it. If nobody is willing to consume, should you continue to produce?
They will be comic book writers. Or at least the type of writer Michael Bay loves
There is an episode of Film Theory on YouTube that shows scientifically how Batman could very feasibly beat Superman. It's a fairly interesting watch, even if Death Battles aren't your thing. I can't link it right now due to internet issues, but maybe just find it on the channel if it at all interests you.
Any comic about Superman v Batman will always have batman win, and there is a really simple reason why. It isn't because batman is stronger or smarter or is ready to fight all the time or that he plans everything ahead of time. It is because logically in our heads, 9999 times out of 10,000 super man is going to win. The little human guy beating the greatest mary sue of all time (baring the Biblical God of course) is so backwards to us. That is what makes it interesting. People often have this idea that stories are meant to be realistic, but if there is too much realism, you lose a lot of the narrative elements of the story. If you focus on everything at the same time, you get nothing done. Stories have to adapt to that and that makes them inherently theatrical in nature. The reason why Batman will always in the comics is because it is more interesting if it does. We don't care about the 9,999 other times, we care about the 1 time where something different actually happens.
But yes, it is among the many intellectually vapid things people get crazy over. Still, people can be very interested in that, and so long as people are interested then you can write. The formula has been so refined in screenwriting that it really isn't about interesting ideas anymore, which is a total shame. I was talking to somebody about Fight Club the other day, which is a brilliant movie, but when I said that the third act twist was largely unnecessary, he told me it was the only thing that made the movie good, and I wanted to slap him so hard upside the head. You have a nietzsche-ian protagonist and a Kafka-ian protagonist going head to head. Freedom v Order.
I think the thing that I like from your post that I want to reiterate, is that good writing comes from asking interesting questions. I highly recommend sitting at street corners and asking important-looking people questions like "What is Justice?" and seeing how quickly you can get yourself thrown in jail for it. Its an old greek sport or something... really should be in the Olympics. So yeah, ask questions!
In addition to "how," I would add "why would Batman want to beat Superman (or vice versa)?" as an interesting question. Or what are the consequences of one incapacitating or killing the other? Would their respective rogues galleries react the same way? The general public? Other super heroes?
So many interesting questions, all given less prominence than the one on the surface.
The problem comes because *both* Batman and Superman act below their potential during any conflict (quite unlike any RPG characters I've ever played with, who normally try to nuke the world.)
Batman doesn't kill. Superman doesn't kill. That doesn't mean *some* of their opponents wind up dead. Supes pulls his punches like *crazy* in any fight. Batman *somewhat* pulls his punches, because he doesn't mind broken bones with the thugs he normally fights. (Supes would probably send an apology card and sign their cast)
Given a few weeks to get set up, Batman would polish up the big blue boy scout and have him in a containment unit with little effort, but ONLY if needed (darned morals). Given about ten minutes to prepare, Supes could do the same, but ONLY if he could find Bats. Good luck!
it's much more interesting to ask, who would win in an epic rap battle instead
I always tuned out when friends debated who's stronger than who. my answer was always, "they'd probably be friends!" To me the big question was "why would they fight each other?" Unfortunately, with superheroes, this means the writers have to keep thinking up convoluted gimmicks for why heroes would fight each other, each one mistaking the other for a villain, so both could still look noble. otherwise they'd be selfish thugs. (Watchmen poked fun at this in the 80s, but it's still going on today.)
those kinds of fans don't want a story, they want a videogame. but nobody asks, "who would win, Ken or Chun Li," they'd just play it out.
4103937
4103937 Is it really? He is pretty much just saying that the "Who will win?" of characters is completely arbitrary and pretty stupid given how much we seem to care about it, and that maybe we should start thinking about things that are more interesting. It really isn't all that pretentious. There really aren't all too many profundities when it comes to Batman vs Superman. Its like the question of best pony. It is so arbitrary that people stop caring except for the sport of arguing. Batman v Superman shouldn't be seen as good writing, and that movie is not a good example of good screen writing.
The last line? Yeah, I'll give you that one, but I wouldn't say the whole thing reeks of pretension.
Does this guy look like he goes and antagonizes mentally disabled people? Does he look like he encourages people to antagonize mentally disabled people? Do you think he goes on crusades against them? Retard is actually a word and was a word before it was ever used to refer to people of mental disabilities, and honestly it is probably more offensive to refer to people with mental disabilities as retarded or having mental retardation. This is the brony fandom, we are all about love and tolerance and being good to each other. If you are looking to fight people on behalf of people with mental disabilities, I think it might be better to find somebody who actually causes problems for them rather than being an unpleasant human being. There are plenty of groups who actually are harmful to people with mental disabilities like the KKK and good ol' Westboro Baptist. Bronies are really contemporary folk and very openminded, they aren't causing problems. This is a new sincerity movement. Don't be an asshole because you want to be a white knight when nobody needs one. I find what you are doing to be far more pretentious than anything this guy is doing, which is pretty impressive for somebody trying to call out someone for being pretentious.
but yes, he should be more creative with his pejorative terms. I would recommend to him the term "Dickwaffle".
Hope you didn't see the movie. Would not have helped your enthusiasm. >.<
I think I can understand your frustration. I mean, there's no fair way to answer the question "who would win," usually, because as you pointed out, all factors being fictional the answer can "legitimately" be made to go in either direction. But I don't believe that makes the question meaningless or worthless, even for someone in your position.
If you look at the question in one particular way, I think this is true. But if we shift our angle: what about asking why people ask it or even care? Is it just because they're stupid or narrow minded? I don't think it's ever that simple, but maybe. What about their answer: why do they pick Batman or Superman as the winner? If our claim is true that all "evidence" in favor of either hero amounts to fictional dither dather--i.e. it's actually ultimately baseless--then there must be something else motivating a fan one direction or another, even if they don't realize it consciously. What might that be?
I think these are quite interesting questions, personally.
4103937
Pretentious (adj): attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.
Merely by posting a story or a blog post, I'm pretending to have something worth other people's time. It's pretentious if it isn't worth other people's time.
I try to figure out writing tips that other people haven't already made. It's hard. I run a high risk of being wrong. It would be easier & safer to post something uncontroversial instead, like a lesson on the grammar of 'lay' versus 'lie', or the importance of opening and closing sentences. But that would actually be more pretentious--I would be pretending to have special knowledge when all I was offering was common knowledge.
TL;DR: I can't do this if I worry about being pretentious. I deleted the last sentence for you. Hope that helps a little.
Re. 'retarded', I have a rant about the "euphemism treadmill", and about trying to prevent writers from using certain arbitrarily-chosen anthropomorphic terms, but I'll spare you that rant right now. The term 'retarded', while it can be used as an insult, is a technical term with a precise meaning when applied to humans. We use terms about humans when describing objects. If you ban 'retarded', I would just pick something else like 'stupid' or 'primitive', either of which would be less accurate, and which also have their own enemies agitating against their use. The only result of throwing out words every 20 years is that parents inevitably try to ban books more than 40 years old from schools just because the language that was ordinary then is "offensive" now. It destroys literature.
4103937
I thought this was one of those sarcastic comments people post on their friends' blogs that is joking about how much they hate the person that is super obviously their friend.
And then I realized it wasn't and felt super weird.
4103909
Mmmm. Mmm. Absolutely.
I really, really appreciate Max Landis for what he is: A screenwriting geek-nerd with far more public accountability than anyone else in his position. A fanboy who got smuggled in to the big leagues by means of being just good enough at just the right time and just having the right parents who got him just the right friends.
It means that while he has genuinely amazing thoughts and ideas, he's been pushed on too high of a pedestal too quickly, and I think he gets treated far too harshly for it. I've never seen a man with such genuine enthusiasm for everything he does.
My answer to the blog post itself is in the form of a joke:
Who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman, if Batman didn't have kryptonite?
Batman. Because he has kryptonite. He always has kryptonite.
Sure, or vice versa. Depends on the story you want to tell. Since Lex Luthor killed Superman back in the '60s*, it's clearly not impossible for him to lose, just really really unlikely and unlikely things happen all the time in fiction. What matters is how it fits the tale you're telling. Batman wins in The Dark Knight Returns and loses in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, because that's what the plot demands in both cases.
If I appear to be largely ignoring your main point, it's because I've heard it before. On the other hand, I wonder if any two people will agree entirely on which questions are "productive"?
*And by the way, if you haven't read Superman #149, you should, at least if you're a fan of either Superman or Luthor. It was reprinted in "The Greatest Lex Luthor Stories Ever Told", I think.
4104138 the fact that you posted a whole big paragraph arguing about your use of 'retarded' shows you don't even remotely understand why it's offensive. if you grow up your entire life being called 'retarded', and then stumble on this blog post, where Bad Horse, one of the site's smartest and best writers, calls Google, one of the best pieces of technology ever conceived, 'retarded', you might feel like your life has no meaning. i feel that way all the time, luckily, so i wasn't triggered, but trigger-warnings are a real thing--if you want to be sensitive to people's feelings anyway.
'pretentious' used to be a buzz-word for me, because it means exactly that--'pretending at meaning that is not there'. but what have you really told us in this post? that everyone who writes superhero comics, fiction, reads them, enjoys the duel of fates and superpowers, enjoys the ethical conundrums faced by immortals, is 'stupid'? that they're 'bad writers', and can never become good writers?
THIS is the pretension:
look at those sentences. 'good writers'. who are you to say who's a 'good writer', Mr. Horse? Are you the best writer? Are you the arbiter of all that is good and bad in the world? Or are you merely ranting because there's a superhero vein running thru every bit of popular media and you can't just write "magic pony A beats up magic pony B" and get a million readers?
getting readers is something i learned a long time ago isn't worth doing. if people like your content, they'll read it. if people don't like your content, writing it to trick them into reading it will only make you feel like a tool at the end of the day--at least in my experience. look at all the porn, and what it did to me! and now look, i write simple stories about simple ponies with real problems. people read superhero mythos to escape their problems, because normal people don't enjoy thinking about germ theory or poverty or their own unemployment. They take some of their hard-earned money and go to a comic store and buy hope, and it has nice pictures and fun dialogue and a story that is easy to follow and that is part of their life. and what i sense in this blog post is nothing but judgement. and judgement is a tool of the insecure, because they are incapable of saying that anything other than their own purview of interests has value. is that you, Mr. Horse? is everyone out there writing below your standard a 'bad writer'? or do you simply have incredibly picky tastes? do you simply hate every other writer in existence for the ease with which they draw fans, while you've spent the better part of your time on fimfic trying to force people to read your stories, only to have to resort to mathematics and emotional manipulation to do so. and so have i. that's how this site works, of course, and you and i both figured it out.
this post isn't meant to shame or attack you, but it is meant to share my feelings on your blog. i'm allowed to do that, since this is a public site. i used to cry when people yelled at me and downvoted my comments, but now i don't care because they're just people. anyway.
hello. thank you. etc. <3
4103954 I found the Imaginary Access one to be more interesting.
4104248
It's a trick question. Batman always has Kryptonite!- Blue Beetle 2010(or so.)
4104399
Now, I'm not going to argue with you- but I will warn you that you're going to catch a lot of hate for that rant. Brace yourself.
4104478 i catch hate for everything i do, it's nothing new. i bathe in downvotes, for they are my blood, and the autism of the internet is my own sickness reflected back at me. i accept every arrow and sling with open arms, and then lie down and shit myself because that's all that happens ever anyway
4104497
You do realize that you don't have to, right?
4104507 Have you considered that part of your emotional turmoil could be because you immerse yourself in other people' cruelty?
smbc-comics.com/comics/20071027.gif
Of course the Batman vs. Superman question is in itself worthless. But the reason that fans will ask questions like that is because they're invested in the characters; and writers who want their readers to care about X vs. Y questions will need to raise a bunch of other questions about those characters in order to get those readers invested. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here about good writing vs. bad writing.
Writers are interested in making their readers ask questions. They put underlying meanings in a story because that makes readers ask questions, which keeps it engaging. Why is it important that these questions are 'productive' questions?
4104399
You might want to think about picking your battles. Your first post here was a brief statement of dissension without any attempt to persuade others or simply explain where your opinion came from. It didn't do much. This second post is a rant, you know it's a rant, and it's also unlikely to get people to see your view. And while you say you don't meant to attack Bad Horse, that is what your second post comes off as: An attack on BH's character. If you're trying to convince BH to not act pretentious, this isn't the way to do it.
4104523 well, i guess i fucked up then. sorry.
4104399
...this is one of those, "did we even read the same blog?" comments.
Bad Horse specifically said that there were plenty of interesting questions in superheroes. He pointed out a few. He simply identified one, specific question as uninteresting: who would win in a fight?
And most people I know already agreed on this, it's why the song "Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny" exists as a parody of the idea.
Bad Horse was proposing that people who think this would be an interesting question to write a story about are not thinking like writers.
To draw an apt comparison, it's like the question "can Batman give Superman an orgasm?"
You and I both know there are a lot of interesting questions to be asked and answered in erotic fiction, a lot of ways it can be a metaphor, or bring up ethical or psychological issues, or draw character studies. But even though the answer to "will he orgasm" can be offered through action rising to a climax there's no meat there.
...moving on!
There will always be plenty of readers of erotic fiction for whom that's the primary question they want answered in the fic, and they will be perfectly happy to find out via a series of events that's utterly predictable and interchangeable with a million other stories, videos, and activities. And there are some people who will give them that. But the "good" writers, the writers who think about interesting things, will be thinking of -- and actually writing about -- other questions. They can do that and throw in a cum shot for the fanwankers.
...no, I'm really done now.
As to the question of "good writing" and advice, I had a very long debate with someone about this a while ago, and after wading through it GhostOfHeraclitus had some wise and relevant thoughts.
4104555 i'm sorry but i think i disagree with everything you said. if the question of 'who, between these two archetypes of perfection and beyond human perfection, would emerge victorious in a duel to the death?' isn't interesting to you, you're probably not an interesting person. and if you saw one song one time and you thot 'oh yeah definitely Mr. Rogers' then you're a memelord and you don't have any original ideas in your head. you just have memes. because that's all we all have. thanks, post-modernism.
uninteresting ideas: could world hunger be solved?
oh, wait, i have a better one:
could a purple unicorn make friends with a blue pegasus?
is 'fanfiction' an interesting idea? it's just taking someone else's original fiction and creativity and mixing it around a bit. it's hardly even writing.
ulysses is no longer my favorite book. it's just an Odyssey fanfiction. who cares about whether or not the guy gets home or not? i have important questions to ask about mortality and human nature that aren't at all contained in every play or piece of fiction ever written by mankind since the turn of the most recent century. :x
4104572
It's really not interesting to me, mostly because, while both archetypes have some restrictions based on established character, the genre conventions really give them no restrictions on power, the deciding factor in a fight. What they're capable of is essentially author fiat, especially in Batman's case. Of course Batman would win, he would <something something> kryptonite. All that says is that if you write a story, you can make things happen how you want.
Why they might fight, the limits of their personal ethics, the opposition of their ideologies... Those are interesting questions. I enjoyed Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Over in Marvel I liked the idea of the Civil War arc, though I will be eternally pissed off that the X-Men didn't play a larger role since the questions involved are basically their entire deal.
But who can imaginary punch or technobabble best? I don't see a lot to think about there. The answer is "whoever I want," which is a boring answer to me.
4104363
I tried to spell that out in the post. "productive" = "produces more knowledge". The Batman vs. Superman question is a pretty clear case where the set-up isolates the question from the real world, so that its "answer" has no real-world antecedents or consequences.
4104603
this is true of all fiction. Superman and Batman are simply known entities--this is true of every piece of writing ever. that is fiction.
all you're saying is that you're seeing things at an incredibly surface level. you saw 'batman vs. superman' and needed someone to put it in big words and complicated phrases to explain the subtext. the subtext is there whether you notice it or not, and all the things you said--contexts, fragments of who teh characters are as 'people', rather than devices, are fascinating. if you're a bad writer, you wouldn't think of those things given that prompt, i guess.
4104631
Totally true, which is why it's almost never what's happening that's interesting, it's how or why it's happening. I write romance, this is the basis of that genre. But my point was that the genre conventions of comic books make it so that even "how" isn't that interesting, because people are happy to accept the rules of reality strained to the breaking point.
Which leaves us with "why," and the parts of "how" that are more immutable in the comics genre (character's ethics and personality.) But people are perfectly capable of exploring "who would win" without those things, and usually do in my experience.
I'm not going to argue the parts where you keep openly implying I'm a bad writer. As far as I know you've never read anything of mine, so maybe you would think I'm a bad writer.
Okay, but who would win between Twilight and Tirek...?
4104646 i'm implying a bad writer because you're here discussing writing like you know what you're talking about and are clearly not understanding one iota of what make superhero fiction interesting or meaningful. and if you missed a point that big then i can only speculate on what else you've missed. i don't care if you're a good writer or not--but Bad Horse seems to think he's one, and he's the one who posted this blog in the first place.
4104654
Okay. I mean, I've just been applying a general understanding of story construction to comic books, like they're a form of fiction, and thus suceptable to the same dangers and considerations of any story. In fiction, basing a story on a question that isn't particularly meaningful in itself and not consciously considering the other related questions that make it meaningful and will be, to readers, your subtext is a dangerous path to a good story.
Clearly I'm missing the point; what makes comics meaningful and interesting, so that this is no longer a valuable way to look at story construction?
4104721
new sincerity, mostly. it's a concept named by David Foster Wallace that means every configuration of experiences, thots, metaphors, symbols, subtexts, etc., is unique, and now that we're past the post-modern, it's the burden of every reader and writer to undestand and examine that reality.
90% of pony fanfiction is still stuck in modernism--there's a story about a pony, they have an epiphany, the audience has one, and their lives are changed. post-modernism said "this won't change your life, but you might l ike reading how miserable you are." post-post-modernism says "yeah, we know superheroes, but what does THIS person think about them?" that all configuration of thot and metaphor is unique, and every human being is possessed of that gift, not just a select few 'writers' ordained by the gods w/ romantic powers.
superhero comics are the common mythos. theya re what every human being wants to be--a person who has magic powers to solv ehteir issues. and in superhero comics, they still can't do shit--evrery strugle is a metaphor for real life, every suffering is hours, and the superhero is us--because even with their magic powers, the world is still an unconquerable, monstrous force that we must understand thru them, despite our differences.
that's my take on it, anyway.
4104631
Now you're moving your goalposts. Bad Horse's original post was that this surface level was uninteresting in this case and you jumped to take offense. You've even said that anyone who thinks that "who would win in a fight between these two characters" isn't interesting isn't an interesting person. Now you're arguing for subtext always existing, rather than that the surface level is enough.
And no, such does not always exist. Marvel VS DC had lots of fights where the sole motivation was "Because two godlike beings made them fight", which didn't really add anything to the fights themselves.
imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6065/LDAD100Z/posters/danny-shanahan-finally-we-realized-where-all-that-anger-was-coming-from-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
4105179 it's your assertion that subtext doesn't exist. i assert that it does. welcome to prescriptivism!
4105387 also if you went to a lit prof and said 'there's no subtext in [anything]' they might laugh in your face. i won't do that, but i'll apply a cross-cultural understanding of 'subtext' to mean 'subconscious meaning', and to say there is no subconscious meaning in a conscious creation is to completely misunderstand the entirety of human psychology. imo.
4104812
What reference can you give me for information on post-post-modernism?
I dont' take DFW as having said all that, though I hardly remember his article now. I prefer to interpret New Sincerity as simple sincerity--replacing Make it New! with Make it Good! The attempt, once again, to succeed at art, rather than to presume failure and to dread above all else being caught taking oneself seriously or trying sincerely. The return of enjoying things honestly, without irony.
That is an interesting point of view, and yet the superheroes win and restore the social order, unlike in real life.
I would say superhero comics are propaganda. They are of the genre of fiction that, rather than seeking to question the social order, seeks to reinforce it. The action begins when some evil smart person forms a plan to change things. The superhero must prevent change and restore the one rightful social order, even while obeying all of the social rules, which it is assumed that everyone knows. There is no moral uncertainty; society already knows the one perfect true morality. Problems come only from evil people who fail to follow the rules. Good people must follow the rules and force everyone else to follow the rules, and they should expect no personal gain for doing so. That's why the superhero never becomes rich or has an easy time getting the girl.
In modern times, such fiction is often reactionary--a conservative call for a return to a stronger, more repressive government that will stomp out the gays and the adulterers and the gamblers and the expression of lust and greed, as for instance in the fiction of Raymond Chandler or Frank Miller.
4105392
A lit prof today is someone who claims there's no difference between 1 and limit (n -> infinity) 1 / n, because they're both non-zero.
4105387
I'm arguing specific subtext (the subtext that you were saying was interesting) doesn't exist (hence "such ") not 'there's no subtext at all in the story".
And I really don't care what your hypothetical person in your vague attempt to appeal to authority would say.
4105477
this is pure projection, and if you don't recognize it, you have some serious psychoanalysis of yourself to do.
DFW coined 'new sincerity in E Unubus Plurum, his essay about mass-media culture diluting all possible truth. all alt-lit, realistic literary fiction, and basically anything written after 2002 is post-post modern. it's incredibly hard to explain.
4105559 i thot we were talking about writing? if you're going to QED every claim of mine with "but your authority doesn't know math!" then you're pointless to discuss anything with--as i've been gathering the sense over these days anyway. you're only interested in semantics and a point of superiority via whatever context you've given yourself to be right in. i don't give a fuck about being right anymore. i'm done with this argument, and done with arguing on the internet forever. it's the stupidest waste of time i've ever accidentally spent, and i wish you good luck in spending your time more productively.
4105750 if you didn't care then why did you respond to my comment you stupid fuckface. eat shit and die.
4105750 oh wait, your name is 'for spite'. go figure. well, for spite, go fuck yourself right into someone's asshole, you fucking waste of space.
4105888
Honestly, the fact you accuse other people of being 'pretentious' and of 'projecting' is the funniest thing in this whole conversation, since it's been entirely about you over-reacting to people's statements and reading more of an attack into them then was offered.
Certainly, nothing in the blog post says that comic writers are bad, but that's the first thought that leapt into your mind and you stuck with it, because you clearly are looking for reasons to take offense.
4105885
4105889
The fact one of these comments indicates you don't know what a metaphor is makes the other one pretty funny, too, though.