"Big time literary artist P might be more respected in terms of elitist academia, but he never created a myth on the level of Superman, did he, Mr. Snob?"

This is a particularly silly straw-man argument. I've been consistent in saying that both high and low literature participate possess their mythic aspects, and that both can also lack mythicity if the symbolic discourse doesn't add up to much. SUPERMAN is, structurally, a myth, but so is MOBY DICK, for all that one is an unending conglomeration of stories, structurally like the Hercules tales, while MOBY is a literary effort using mythic concepts, best compared to THE ILIAD or the EPIC OF GILGAMESH.

So, since I'm stressing the limitations of comparing standards (though as others have said, certainly one *can* compare anything), I would be less likely to say, "DAVID BORING may be well-thought-of in the artcomics community, but it's not a myth like SUPERMAN!" Since I see DB as aspiring to the ranks of canonical, "writerly" literature, any deficiencies of symbolic discourse I might see in DB might be explicated with reference to another "writerly" product, though, in all likelihood, not MOBY DICK.

For instance, I'm not sure Clowes is an admirer of Alfred Hitchcock or not. (I did read Clowes' TCJ interview long ago so I may have some memories of that, but they're not conscious ones.) He does seem to approach storytelling with an eye to symbolic texture similar to that of Hitchcock. This is more than one can say of most of the artcomics-practitioners who preceded him-- particularly the Lords of the Underground Comics, many of whom are pretty unsubtle. But I might not think that Clowes has managed to use his symbols as adroitly as Hitchcock, or as Godard, with whom I compared him earlier. OTOH, I might toss a counter-example of someone whom I did think got clearer to the mark, like Jason Lutes.

But no, I don't think I'd need to invoke Superman.

I agree that the whole situation is one of seeing how many angels can dance on the head of a split hair. It's been said that Henry James's works belong to a prominent genre of his time, which the critic called the "silver spoon rich-boy" genre. But we don't see most of the products of James' time who wrote in this generic mode, and so James (in addition to a few other notables) may seem to be sui generis.

Still, as shown in that Wiki excerpt, there's no question that, colloquially at least, a lot of people use "genre fiction" as a contrast to "literary fiction." I think a lot of the preferences (or prejudices) can also be explained by not only the readerly/writerly dichotomy, but also with reference to literary history. I'm thinking specifically of the birth of the Romantic notion of the artist as one who goes his own way and produces fascinating new ideas of his own rather than following the herd and giving the readers just what they want.

Without my subscribing to Charles' commodification theories, I have no problem in stating that often genres are created by producers who witness a given product make money, and then seek to make more products with similar characteristics so as to make more money. This often means that many works are created to woo reader-expectations: "If you loved PSYCHO, you'll love HOMICIDAL too!" The action by which producers seek to market assorted works by genre is structurally different from the older mode handed down from primitive times, in which storytellers sought to curry favor (be it with kings or villages) by giving the people what they already expected in terms of long-established forms.

For instance, it's been argued that before the cinematic sound era we didn't have a real genre of "horror films." There had been spooky stories around since forever, and even in silents you can see how certain producers tried to exploit the appeal of horror-elements by repeatedly casting certain actors in horrific roles: Paul Wegener and Conrad Veidt, for two. But only with the success of the 1931 DRACULA did a distinct genre of "horror films," marketed as such, take shape in the US, and in that shape it went on to influence how other countries conceived of the genre, though arguably the influence was pretty free-flowing. (Not evidence of a "culture industry," in other words.)

Both producers and audiences encouraged creators to create certain works according to generic specifications. As is often the case, some creators produced gold and others dross. However, not a few critical schools overlooked that the world of would-be "literary fiction" often has its share of dross, and essentially disavowed the existence of the gold and viewed all (or almost all) genre as dross. This is, I still say, an essentially elitist view even if one is emotionally or even creatively engaged with a given genre. Plainly Ursula LeGuin was a salutary creator of what we call "sci-fi," but in her critical writings she was a rank elitist.

I guess if one wanted to create some more useless neologisms, one could distinguish between "hard genre" and "soft genre." "Soft genre works" would be those modes of communication that aren't especially constrained by genre-expectations, while "hard genre works" might be those which are seen as those that are passionately engaged by those expectations. But that takes us back to my old Philip Dick/Isaac Asimov argument from some months back, so that's maybe a place to stop.

I guess you're right, Gene, everything you say is full of shit. Is that what you're wanting to hear? I pretty much agreed (hence my double negative phrasing) with what you said. There wasn't anything there that I disagreed with enough to make a point about. Looking at repeated tropes in the work of a not particularly good but enjoyable writer like Fox is one approach for finding/understanding the good in his work. Another way is to look at is a reflection of its context (social, historical, economical, etc.). I don't disagree about any of that. None of that is a mythic process, so, there is no connection to what I don't agree with in what you've said before and what you said in the passage to which I was agreeing other than you said both things. In your mind, myth might necessarily mean tropes and other things outside of the quality of writing style and narration, but it doesn't in mine. So if all you were really saying was that what's to be enjoyed regarding Fox's writing is mythicity, then, I take it back, I don't agree.

I'm not sure I'm following that: I'd predict, based on my Gene-model, that you'd say Superman is a more significant and better creation than David Boring -- despite Clowes being a better writer and cartoonist than just about any Superman writer and/or artist in the character's history -- because Superman makes a better myth. It's debatable regarding Supes vs. the whale, though. Is that what you're saying? That's pretty much the view I was criticizing if it is. This is the point in these discussions where I usually say something like: any set of critical standards which would rank something like Superman up there in the realm of Moby Dick, but dismiss Clowes isn't all that significant or worth having. Did Boring encounter a whale? No. Could he lift a whale? No. Well, Clowes just can't use his symbolism as adroitly as these mythic works.

Isn't 'pageturner' one of those apologetic terms, like 'guilty pleasure,' that ironically excuses your reading what you're enjoying reading? Even taking it seriously as an evaluative criterion, BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is more of a "pageturner" than LORD OF THE RINGS (at least, to me), but so what? Let's say the term suggests a clarity and economy of writing style. That would, without a doubt, make THE STRANGER more of a pageturner than Claremont's X-MEN. But it doesn't take much of a guess which would be considered a better example of writing by your supposed elitists.

"Still, as shown in that Wiki excerpt, there's no question that, colloquially at least, a lot of people use "genre fiction" as a contrast to "literary fiction."

People believe in/use lots of things that aren't accurate or helpful - and this is one of them, for the reasons I said above.

"Since I see DB as aspiring to the ranks of canonical, "writerly" literature, any deficiencies of symbolic discourse I might see in DB might be explicated with reference to another "writerly" product, though, in all likelihood, not MOBY DICK."

Ahab is to Moby-Dick as David Boring is to Wanda's fat ass. [The literal/symbolic quest aspect of the adventure narrative/epic is key to both.]

Moby Dick is an adventure novel that uses conventions we associate with that genre.
David Boring is an adventure novel that uses conventions we associate with that genre.
There; everything is a genre work.

And while David Boring may be a work of 'literary fiction,' it is deeply indebted to all kinds of pulp fictions - and these debts are not hidden.

David Boring is a "crime novel" - an "adventure novel" - a "detective fiction" -

"I guess you're right, Gene, everything you say is full of shit. Is that what you're wanting to hear?"

Nah, I was going for, "You're right, Gene, I guess it's not crazy to look for positive value in crude kids comics after all, however much I may disagree with your terms."

" None of that [tropes & social influences & stuff] is a mythic process"

When professional mythographers study what information we have about the cultural tropes and sociohistorical background of those societies that created the kind of myths you do consider myths-- the kind in which people believed-- these professionals seem to think that they are studying the symbolic content of myths. However, as I understand your statement, the mythographers must be incorrect, if indeed these factors (tropes and background) are not factors germane to the creation of myths.

So even real myths aren't a part of any mythic process, it seems.

"I'd predict, based on my Gene-model, that you'd say Superman is a more significant and better creation than David Boring -- despite Clowes being a better writer and cartoonist than just about any Superman writer and/or artist in the character's history -- because Superman makes a better myth."

Thanks for confirming my earlier opinion that you hadn't really ever understood my argument.

As I said on a recent thread that didn't go anywhere, "Unpopular Myths," I don't deem it necessary that a myth be widely known to have mythic qualities. Even in archaic times, there were "real myths" that were confined to small enclaves or sub-societies, so widespread popularity is not my sole criterion. Both "readerly" Superman and "writerly" Moby Dick are iconic enough to be familiar to the Community At Large, so they do have that widespread appeal. DAVID BORING is iconic only within the coterie of comic-book enthusiasts, but to the extent that it has a symbolic discourse, it could be evaluated for mythic patterns (which is my main definition, as elaborated on the "Trademarked Products" thread). However, one can also practice the same sort of symbolic evaluation on an assortment of genre-stories that are also known only within the coterie of fandom and which aren't tied to a famed franchise-character or format. (By format I mean something like an anthology-title that has become famous in its own right, like TALES FROM THE CRYPT.) I can think of assorted horror-stories, affiliated with no famous anthology, that could also be analyzed for mythic patterns.

So fame by itself is not a criterion, which seems to be the implication of your "Superman makes a better myth." The same evaluative process would obtain within the "writerly" divisions. Maybe I think Jason Lutes' symbolic discourse is more satisfying than Daniel Clowes, even though Lutes is not as well-known in the coterie as Clowes.

"despite Clowes being a better writer and cartoonist"

Again, I've made the point before that technical excellence is not the point. I'm happy to admit that on a technical, writerly level Clowes is probably better than any Superman writer, with the possible exception of Grant Morrison. But Grant Morrison couldn't do the type of discourse that Clowes does, and Clowes couldn't do what Morrison does. So that still leaves us many miles away from defining all the manifold ways in which "the good" can be defined in creative works.

"Isn't 'pageturner' one of those apologetic terms, like 'guilty pleasure,' that ironically excuses your reading what you're enjoying reading? Even taking it seriously as an evaluative criterion, BROTHERS KARAMAZOV is more of a "pageturner" than LORD OF THE RINGS (at least, to me), but so what?"

I think you're the one who needs to answer the question, "So what," since your vague framing of the "vice versa" aside is what started this line of thought.

I really don't think readers who want pageturners are guilty about that desire. I'm sure that some or all of them get exposed to the notion that one should read only "the better literature" which supposedly will challenge them, but from the popularity of the romance genre alone-- which accounts for the majority of paperback sales in the US-- it would seem to me that any guilt those readers feel is pretty superficial. I imagine that the readers who make ANGELA'S ASHES a best-seller are the ones who are looking for something more (apparently) high-toned, so maybe THOSE readers have internalized the idea of feeling guilty over their literary tastes.

So, no, I don't think "pageturner" has a negative connotation in the minds of people who want pageturners.

"David Boring is a "crime novel" - an "adventure novel" - a "detective fiction" - "

So maybe it's an example of a soft-genre, if you got my point about that. Did you?

"DAVID BORING is iconic only within the coterie of comic-book enthusiasts"

DB is a featured character for the Hong Kong clothing line Chocoolate.

I can't seen to find a way to just link to the image, but if you go to
https://www.chocoolate.hk/en/main.cfm?lang=1

put the cursor over home
click on news and promotion, then Hon Kong
then put the cursor over club bonus, and you will see our boy, a fashion icon . . .