Look, it didn't and doesn't matter one way or the other to me which way you meant. I was responding to the way you worded it in the question I quoted from you, but didn't then nor do I now feel particularly confused about it. I assumed you meant MOKF overall/on average/the majority of issues, but even if you meant only 1 issue or 1 story arc, it would still have to be better than all American MA movies to be on top of that particular heap (in other words, my answer is unaffected as I had already considered that the comic was a serialized adventure with multiple storylines). Given how bad such movies are, MOKF might just be better than all of them, but to hell if I'm going to sit through all of them or a representative sample to make such an evaluation.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of associations that aren't random. You yourself have used examples of nonrandom associations in this thread: books which contain similar ideas are associated by those ideas, stories which are of the same genre are associated by certain narrative elements, etc.. That's why we state random association when we mean an association that's random. If you were that confused about what association means, you should've just asked: "Did you mean random by not stating 'random'?"

An association based on sharing features isn't random, so maybe it's the definition of 'random' with which you're having difficulty. A random association would be where STAGECOACH is just as likely to be associated with ULTRAMAN as with THE SEARCHERS. (Or if you really want to get particular about 'random', substitute 'one cell organism living on a tree in Africa' for 'ULTRAMAN'.)

I don't follow. What does that have to do with anything said here? I don't believe you hold such a view, nor do any of my opinions here rest on your holding such a view. Quite the opposite, in fact; I was arguing against your narrow -- not wide -- view of what sort of comparisons were needed to make for good criticism.

The emotive theory of art is pretty much dead, but here 's a brief overview.

"it would still have to be better than all American MA movies to be on top of that particular heap (in other words, my answer is unaffected as I had already considered that the comic was a serialized adventure with multiple storylines)."

The above makes no sense whatsoever. In a parallel argument you validated the use of statistics in order that your hypothetical critic could say that "X motif" (say, the climactic gunfight) was typical of the western but not necessarily present in every western. If you validate statistics in that regard, then how do you get around validating them in regard to the existential (not "essential") superiority of the comics-medium to the film-medium in this one arena? I see no way around it: if by critical consensus MOKF has 30 superior stories and AMAF as a whole boast only ten, then MOKF wins the "contest."

That stats can be effectively used in determining the features of a genre has nothing to do with whether some comic book is better than some film belonging to the same genre. There's no conflict here. Yeah. [I'm assuming here that you mean that the 30 and the 10 examples are of equal quality. If the 10 has even 1 member that is clearly superior to all of the 30, I would no longer agree.]

"The very notion of an "association game" implies randomness, [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't. There are plenty of associations that aren't random. You yourself have used examples of nonrandom associations in this thread: books which contain similar ideas are associated by those ideas, stories which are of the same genre are associated by certain narrative elements, etc.. That's why we state random association when we mean an association that's random. If you were that confused about what association means, you should've just asked: "Did you mean random by not stating 'random'?"


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]implying that the person is just naming off "like concepts" without analytical thought as to how one example might play off another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An association based on sharing features isn't random, so maybe it's the definition of 'random' with which you're having difficulty. A random association would be where STAGECOACH is just as likely to be associated with ULTRAMAN as with THE SEARCHERS. (Or if you really want to get particular about 'random', substitute 'one cell organism living on a tree in Africa' for 'ULTRAMAN'.)"

"Blah, blah, blah," to quote you. This hair-splitting blather has nothing to do with the issue you inadvertently raised when you chose to dismiss some form of criticism (STILL never identified by any example-- so much for your emulating the 'close argumentation' recommended in your link) as a "fanboyish association game."
I don't care if this game you imagine is as purely random as Brownian motion: it's certainly random in comparison to whatever kind of criticism you're imagining to be more rigorous. You suggested that the supposed critic was just idly naming off anything that shares similar content, which is (big surprise) a blatant missatement of what I said the comparative critic was doing. Once again you manage to stigmatize a type of criticism by using vague generalities. The disciplies of Jung would be proud of you.

"Quite the opposite, in fact; I was arguing against your narrow -- not wide -- view of what sort of comparisons were needed to make for good criticism."

I would be amused to see where you proved that your criteria for criticism were wider than mine.

"The emotive theory of art is pretty much dead, but here's a brief overview."

In another thirty years I imagine the next generation will be laughing at the psuedo-scientific posturings of Bordwell, so forgive me if I find your funerary observances premature. But I wasn't really asking posters about emotiveness as the foundation of an aesthetic theory, but more in the experential arena which Madget addressed.

Saying "I disagree with the criterion you're using" isn't the same, nor does it entail "You're behaving randomly," nor "Your behavior is more random than that which is based on a criterion I agree with."

I didn't say 'random' and didn't mean it. I don't see why continue with an argument about something you've completely conjured up out of your own disregard for dictionaries. We'll just chalk this up to yet another word you're willing to make up meanings for in lieu of admitting a mistake. Dumas agrees with you, or thinks he does, at least.

It's also funny how someone so fond of Jung keeps trying to tar me by association with Jung. Jung you, too!

And Madget is right in rejecting emotivism and is in good company. That's all I was saying. It's good to see that you've replaced 'Adorno' with 'Bordwell' in your meaningless asides. Maybe you'll get real clever and start conjoining their names followed by 'axis' in the future.

"So, talking about whether a given story is a good example of a genre doesn't require a ton of examples, only good relevant ones. Good criticism addresses evidence relevant to the thesis at hand, and there is no hard and fast rule as to what has to be included in every critical essay in order to make it "good." That's my position. If you agree, we can leave it at that."

If you really believe this, how come you almost never use any kind of concrete examples, good or bad, in your posts here?

In other words, I'm still waiting for a concrete example of the "fanboyish association game." I guess if you can't produce one, it may be said to exist in the ether, like Jung's archetypes.

Randomness is also implicit, not only in the words "association game," but also "every example:"

CR: "I suspect you have in mind that good criticism has to play some sort of fanboyish association game, like mentioning every example of alternate history fiction which appeared before whatever alternate history story the critic is currently considering."

Please show me where I said that the good critic should cite "every example." That's some nice sewing on your straw man, though I think in places it's coming apart at the seams.

I'm not using the real Jung or his works as an insult; only comparing your mistaken concept of him with the totalizing critics you seem to admire.

I haven't read Bordwell and don't dislike him as I dislike Adorno. I simply gave you an imagined situation in which the Charles Reece of the 22-and-a-1/2 Century was amused to think that anyone ever took Bordwell seriously, just as the Charles Reece of today thinks that the "emotive theory of literature" has had its day. For all I know he may or may not be "psuedo-scientific," but I can easily imagine a future movement finding him no more relevant than the modern age finds Northrop Frye. I would read Bordwell and offer you a more detailed critique, if you would first give me a detailed critique of these "fanboy associationists" I suspect you've conjured up.

It might be elitist to point out those origins as a slam, especially to modern adults whose reasons for reading in the genre are not necessarily covalent with those of long-ago children.

I'm not following... who's the "purist" again?

"If you really believe this, how come you almost never use any kind of concrete examples, good or bad, in your posts here?"

I use them as needed.

""Please show me where I said that the good critic should cite "every example.""

It was in your post immediately preceding mine where I claimed that you said such a thing. In the ether.

"I simply gave you an imagined situation in which the Charles Reece of the 22-and-a-1/2 Century was amused to think that anyone ever took Bordwell seriously, just as the Charles Reece of today thinks that the "emotive theory of literature" has had its day."

The emotivist theory of art has had its day. It simply doesn't account for what's art or even what's valuable in art. It says many things worth considering, that are right, but it's not any where close to being the best theory of art, much less a sufficiently encompassing theory. This is a pretty standard view of the theory, hardly controversial. It's closest analogy these days is the evolutionary theory, which I have all kinds of problems with, but you didn't ask about that.