|
Narrative
|
Prfnoff: Removed The Handmaid's Tale, an example which I added. Sure, it may be Anvilicious and have a Writer On Board, but I'm not sure it really qualifies as one of these.
Frank75: Why is Quentin Tarantino on that list? His movies may be anything, but not very political. Does it have to do with his foot fetish?
Kizor: Wiki schizophrenia. Text that argues with itself is useless until fixed. Could you, please?
Why the flying FUCK are Scientology ads allowed on this site!?!?!?!? Rann: Wow. Okay, the vehemence about Lewis and whether or not the parable was intended from the start added nothing, not even humor, so it was removed. It's his stated intent, thus informing about it is adding knowledge. Yelling that he was fucking lying is pointless. If you think he was, fine, but just sit there and think it.
Austin: Which Shortpacked strips are considered unfair? Any strip I can think of show fanboys complaining about little things, and other strips give reasons as to why they're whining. I'm okay with it being here, I'd just like some examples of viewpoints Willis doesn't cover fairly. Austin: Probably not worth putting in the article, but I wanted to say that one "Boondocks" strip had the message "The opinions expressed by Aaron Mc Gruder are not necessarily those of Aaron Mc Gruder." Though, that followed a statement by Huey that all art should be in the public domain, and may not cover his other political statements. foxley: Moved this
Horrid Red Things: Is a work an Author Tract just because the premise is religious? For instance, the Left Behind series? Rann: People, conversation on the main page is one thing, just going off on random rants about how white authors are afraid of big black dick is yet another. c.c arromdee: I think that the Martha Washington stories pretty much are a counterexample against the Frank-Miller rant, at least with respect to having white male heroes. I took the whole section out; perhaps someone else can rewrite it in a saner manner. theorc Changed back the Empire example to its previous form. If it's truly like what the previous edit said, it doesn't belong here. If it isn't (and if it makes that comparison I think it is no matter what you believe) then it should stay this way. Silent Hunter: What about The Third World War? Hackett actually admits its a plea for increased conventional defence spending in an afterword. Austin: "And then lampshades it in Cartoon Wars. Repeatedly. Let it never be said that, whatever their views, Parker and Stone are not self-aware" I question this. I wonder whether they did it because they felt so, or because people kept criticizing the show for doing so. And if afterwards, they kept inserting author tracts, it becomes an example of acknowledging flaws without doing anything to fix them, which is not something anyone should ever be praised for. Real Slim Shadowen: Took this out.
Twin Bird: Removed,
PuppetChaos: In a recent, post-series interview, Kawamori stated that he deliberately left the "love triangle" unresolved because he doesn't believe that human relationships can't be solved by a single, neat choice. Then he went and said that he didn't believe in monogamy, either. Is it wrong that I want to say 'haha oh wow' to this? Joss Whedon touches on his existentialist views in the the Firefly episode "Objects In Space", through Jubal Early. Joss goes into much deeper detail in the episode commentary. Does it count when the bad guy is the mouthpiece? |
