Bon Sequitur deconstructs the real Batman's tale:
I hope you all enjoyed part one, and are anxious to read part two of my analysis, which should be upcoming shortly.
edited 9th Sep '10 1:15:42 AM by BonSequitur
There's more, but I'll wait for your opinions before posting!
edited 6th Sep '10 7:42:59 PM by BonSequitur
Consider the above the Laconic Version. I just clicked Bon's own link to the topic which spawned this thing—that being the "pretentious artsy types" topic. Clicking the link gives a "no topic with that id exists" error, which I assume means its been deleted. Well, here's a quick recap. The topic was started by me and I made three basic points: 1. Analyzing works of fiction is basically a game up making shit up with only a very loose connection to the actual content of said story, sort of like seeing shapes in a cloud. 2. Despite being basically a game, people tend to take it too seriously to the point of seeing it as an actual, useful skill even though there's not one thing in real life you could apply it to. 3. In the worst cases it can come back around and ruin fiction, either because of authors who were these kinds of people writing their own fiction and trying to deliberately insert themes and symbolism (whereas most authors are just trying to tell a good story and most of that stuff is read into it by analysts), or else because a certain interpretation is so prevalent that it becomes pretty much attached to the story. To be fair, #3 rarely happens outside of high school and college. As for #2 and #1 though, Bon himself is and has provided an example. I can't talk much about #2, but examples of #1 are in this very analysis. Early on in my story, Batman says "let's order a pizza!" Bon apparently reads this as a commentary on American society. But "let's order a pizza" is an everyday phrase, like "what's going on?" or "I'll see you later" or "I need groceries." There is nothing inherently deep in it, and there's nothing in the context of the story to justify the analyst's extrapolation. He pulled it out of thin air, and he continues to do this for much of the analysis. For that matter, Bon seems to constantly read it as a commentary on society at large, even though even a literal bat can see that the story is not concerned with society, but rather concerns itself with one person—Bruce Wayne—as told through the eyes of the one who knew him best. Moreover, Bon sees the story as confirming a rather dark world view, when the story given is actually more idealistic than the comics that inspired it. Consider for example that Batman's parents are "alive and well and living in Minnesota" rather than having been shot dead in some filthy alley in a corrupt city. Bon claims that living in Minnesota is practically as bad as being dead, but that's a subjective statement and warrants no further response. One mistake bothers me: He mentions police cars "ignoring" a rape attempt. But they didn't "ignore" it so much as they simply weren't aware it was happening—and why would they be? Nobody involved in the incident actually called them, and depending on how deep in the park this was they might not have been able to see it from the road. Bon nevertheless uses this as a springboard for a series of "deep" questions—a technique that is maintained throughout his analysis. And yet, is it really even much of an analysis at all if the analyzer just keeps asking questions, rather than providing answers? Part two also contains this little nugget:
edited 10th Oct '10 12:31:54 PM by Edmond_Dantes
edited 11th Oct '10 6:48:45 AM by Edmond_Dantes