'""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 take this as your tacit admission that I did not claim that the critic should cite "every example," and that you simply made it up for a weak rhetorical point. Thanks for clearing that up.

CR: "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."

You will have to cite something more sophisticated than the Holcombe piece to prove that, as many of his views are not supportable, and also prove that at no time has any literary theory "come back from the dead," as it were. The example of John Gardner and his neo-Victorian moralizing would be one prominent example of such a recrudescence.

"I use them as needed."

Certainly not when requested, anyway.

Dumas,
I think that some of the early quasi-literary attempts at using the comics-form could be seen in a spectrum with some of the altcomics of today, which aren't purely represented by the "day in the life" approach you describe above. I could see some points in common between the etchings of William Hogarth and SOME of the American undergrounds,

We do agree that that a lot of the stuff to which, say, Art Spiegelman gives his imprimatur (e.g., IN THE SHADOW OF NO TOWERS) is simply mainstream stuff of its time. To pick examples from a later and better-known period, I don't see anything in THE KATZENJAMMER KIDS that makes it greater "Art" than BATMAN, except in the sense that both are great "pop art."

"(b) a preponderance of good stories in medium x does not make it superior in any way to medium y, which cannot boast the same number of good stories."

I never said anything of the sort as it makes no sense. "Despite x's being better than y, it is no way superior to y" is just dumb.

""I take this as your tacit admission that I did not claim that the critic should cite "every example,""

It wasn't tacit, because, as I was saying, you manufactured the comment.

You know what would make this a cool thread? No Charles Reece.

I'll let the first part lie because I have no idea what you're saying.

I'll let the second part lie because you don't know what you said.

Someone stick a fork in the thread; I think it's done.

1. Translation: you're making things up.
2. Here's what I said: 3. Yep.

You know what would make this a cool thread? No Charles Reece.

Jesus Christ, grow up and stop being such a little bitch.

You know what would make this a cool thread? No Les McClaine.