My Proposal for BG
Title, Subject to Revision:
An Examination of James Robinson’s Starman, and its use of the Legacy Hero concept
I hope to examine the mid-90’s Starman series by James Robinson, and it’s core themes of history and nostalgia, by focusing on the protagonist, Jack Knight, and how the author delves into the idea of a Legacy Hero, by bringing Jack into contact and conflict with the various characters who have previously held the Starman name.
Legacy Hero. It’s a term often bandied about in casual comics discussions, especially regarding DC properties, reflecting a new character or property, who takes on the “mantle”, so to speak, of a previous hero, and “live up to” or otherwise honor the original character’s “legacy”.
More successful attempts at legacy characters actually find ways to reveal traits or elements of the previous character within the new one, something Robinson does regularly in his series, by having Jack interact with his disparate antecedents, unrelated characters, created to retain the Starman trademark.
Robinson’s series is fundamentally a celebration of history, and how an awareness of it influences or deepens character. Robinson, through Jack Knight’s personal growth and examination of what it meant to be Starman, what it might have meant to his father, actually joins the heterogeneous properties that were previous Starmen, and shapes them into a legacy for Jack and beyond, with references to future Starmen, in the series, living up to their antecedents’ collected histories.
54 comments:
hmn. it seems to have eaten the tabs.
oh well. thoughts?
"hope to"?
hope to is a little lose, but not an uncommon turn on phrase in these sorts of things....
It's certainly not uncommon for people who have no balls.
"In this essay I will..."
See? Testicles.
The first paragraph probably oughtn't be one sentence.
I would hope that people assessing proposals for papers would assess and consider the technical structure of the proposal. Semicolons are your friends. Comma splices are not your friends.
But I'm not writing an essay, am I?
I'm writing a Proposal.
doubt is allready inheirent.
"characters who have previously held the Starman name"
I thought that in Starman he actually met other Starmans. Characters who were still Starman in their continuity.
If you're already doubting yourself at the proposal what hope can you have of presenting a paper?
BALLS!
Possibly correct, but Mikey's advice last night diminishes this criticism...
in that the paper is going to be spoken, not read.
I'll give you that it might be cleaner with parenthesis, but not a semicolon. There's only two parts to the sentence: focusing on Jack and how Robinson looks into a Legacy Hero.
You don't semi-colon for two objects.
Is it just me or is every paragraph in this thing one sentence?
and “live up to”
"lives up to" "attempts to live up to"
"live up to" is not correct. If you take out all the parts of that sentence which ought to be either their own sentences or in parenthesis you'll see that "live up to" is not correct.
Nope.
He mets his father, obviously, who has retired. He meets his dead brother in "Times Past" dream stories. He meets Mikaal Thomas, who others called The Starman.. as he was a groovy disco alien. He meets Prince Gayvn / Wil Payton.. who are apperently the same entity... Wil is arguably dead (he's certainly believed to be dead) and again, Prince Gavyn is called starman by others.
They aren't exactly Starman in the way Ted, dead David, or Jack Knight were. That's my point about disparate characters who, through this series, are linked to create a legacy.
A lot of which was excised, because I was beginning to write the paper, and not a proposal.
As beaten into my head by 4 professors and Mikey.
Jesus Jackrabbit Fuck!
"More successful attempts at legacy characters actually find ways to reveal traits or elements of the previous character within the new one, something Robinson does regularly in his series, by having Jack interact with his disparate antecedents, unrelated characters, created to retain the Starman trademark. "
More successful attempts at legacy characters actually find ways to reveal traits or elements of the previous character within the new one. Robinson does this regularly in his series by having Jack interact with other, unrelated, characters created to retain the Starman trademark.
neither is correct in that sense. Which is why I put it in quotes.
it's a placeholder phrase. I'm talking about plural characters, but each character singularly attempts.
you can't really say and lives up to, because it assumes they succeed. You can't..
crap.. I just re-reread it beyond my head.. and.. you're right.. the "attempts to" must have been excised in earlier cuts... becuase I was reading it there.
"Robinson’s series is fundamentally a celebration of history, and how an awareness of it influences or deepens character. "
Robinson’s series addresses the manner in which an awareness of history can influence and add depth to a character.
"you're right"
GASP!
:P
thinking on taht one.
and.. I don't think breaking it into two sentences says the same thing.
Especially when you cut the disparate antecedents. You're fundamnetally changing the meaning, in the edit.
Somebody's trying to kill me.
"Robinson, through Jack Knight’s personal growth and examination of what it meant to be Starman, what it might have meant to his father, actually joins the heterogeneous properties that were previous Starmen, and shapes them into a legacy for Jack and beyond, with references to future Starmen, in the series, living up to their antecedents’ collected histories."
By examining Jack Knight's own personal growth through his interraction with other Starman characters Robinson combines the heterogeneous properties into one legacy for Jack. Robinson effectively combines past, present, and future Starmans into one coherent legacy.
"Especially when you cut the disparate antecedents"
I think you just like that phrase.
"Robinson’s series is fundamentally a celebration of history, and how an awareness of it influences or deepens character. "
Robinson’s series addresses the manner in which an awareness of history can influence and add depth to a character.
No real difference here, and you're actively removing the selling aspect of the proposal.
This isn't the paper, and honestly, the series doesn't address the manner, it celebrates doing it. Not looking at how to do it, but does it and throws a party.
A lot of the edits you're offering don't actually do anything but change preferential styles of presenting the information. They aren't adressing issues with the information.
As for the single sentence paragraphs.. yeah.. I think you're right.. another thing I likely missed in excising over half of my original proposal draft.
"A lot of the edits you're offering don't actually do anything but change preferential styles of presenting the information."
That's the point. I'm not changing the content. I'm making them not comma splices.
No, not really.
I kinda hate it. But it is important. The characters linked are antecedents, but they aren't direct forerunners of the role.
they're a hodge-podge of random characters, which become linked by Robinson. It's one of the major themes of the story, and one of the big historical focuses. "There are other "starmen", besides Dad..."
It counterpoints/connects the differences between publishing and story-context histories.
If you take out the comma splices I think it is a reasonable proposal for a paper.
Just take out the comma splices and get some balls at the beginning.
"It counterpoints/connects the differences between publishing and story-context histories."
Is that something you need to address in the proposal?
You can just say "I will address the difference between publishing histories and story/content histories."
The prosal needs to be a clear statement of what you will do in the paper, what you "propose" to do. The prosal is not a minature version of the paper.
If you say something like "disparate antecedents" in the proposal without fleshing out the idea fully? It can sound like you're just high-value SAT words together to impress the reader.
In the prosal you say what you're going to do in the paper. In the paper you what you said you'd do.
Except you ARE changing the content's presentation.
Not just removing comma splices.
This is what I'm getting at.
you're Someone's Trying To Kill me comment.
You move the focus off of Robinson's linking of the characters into a legacy, to his examination of Jack Knight's maturation. Further, you state things based on assumption. There's no coherrence to the Starman legacy. It involves time travel twice, reincarnation once, and dries up for a moment, before introducing a semi-corrput vilianous future Starman.
You don't really know the material, and it's leading you to make assumptions that I'm simply being verbose, when I'm attempting to be precise.
The prosal needs to be a clear statement of what you will do in the paper, what you "propose" to do. The prosal is not a minature version of the paper.
This is great. Becuase you're actually making changes to what I propose to do, with your edits.
I had a massive set up explaining, further in depth, what a Legacy Hero is.. Everyone told me to cut it, precisely for the reason you're telling to I ought to define Antecedent characters.
in Murphy's words? These are comic book people. I can assume some familiarity. One of the topics directly mentioned on the proposal site is antecedants..
so.. I have to ask.. is it just that you don't like disparate?
Becuase they are. they're also heterogenous.. you haven't taken potshots at taht..
I will examine the mid-90’s Starman series by James Robinson, and it’s core themes of history and nostalgia, by focusing on the protagonist, Jack Knight, and how the author delves into the idea of a Legacy Hero, by bringing Jack into contact and conflict with the various characters who have previously held the Starman name.
Legacy Hero. It’s a term often bandied about in casual comics discussions, especially regarding DC properties, reflecting a new character or property, who takes on the “mantle”, so to speak, of a previous hero, and attempts to “live up to” or otherwise honor the original character’s “legacy”.
More successful attempts at legacy characters actually find ways to reveal traits or elements of the previous character within the new one. Robinson does this regularly in his series by having Jack interact with other, unrelated, characters created to retain the Starman trademark.
Robinson’s series addresses the manner in which an awareness of history can influence and add depth to a character. By examining Jack Knight's own personal growth through his interraction with other Starman characters Robinson combines the heterogeneous properties into one legacy for Jack. Robinson effectively combines past, present, and future Starmans into one coherent legacy.
the bolded excerpts are Jay's edits.
do me a favor, read both, side by side, and tell me if the say the same thing. I assert that they do not.
"You don't really know the material, and it's leading you to make assumptions that I'm simply being verbose, when I'm attempting to be precise."
Dude, if you don't want feedback don't ask for it.
I'm trying to help make the proposal more clear and more precise. You need to break down the paragraph long sentences. You need to more adeptly navigate your reader through your goals.
It's pretty obvious that the proposal came from an attempt at starting to write the paper, or in writing the proposal the paper was begun:
"Legacy Hero. It’s a term often bandied about in casual comics discussions, especially regarding DC properties, reflecting a new character or property,"
That doesn't need to be in the proposal. That's the sort of thing you say in the paper.
If you can use jargon such as "Legacy Character" you can assume people know what that means. If you can't assume people know what that means? Then don't use the jargon. Craft the sentences to present the concept of "legacy character" without saying that. And don't get into a nuanced, deep, argumentative presentation of the concept. Just talk about "Starman meets four or five other Starmans".
the first substantial edit makes it sound as if the other charaters Jack interacts with are any generic, off the rack characters, unrelated, if you will.
Jack could be interacting with Batman, Space Cabbie, and Scalphunter, for all that says. and somehow creating the Starman legacy that way.
(aside. Jack interacts with all of those in the series.. just not for the legacy)
You're right on the Legacy Hero bit.
thing is, taht's been substantively cut down. I'm not cutting further, because I'm not convinced everyone knows, or even agrees on what a Legacy hero is.
I'm not disapproving of the feedback, but I AM disapproving of the tone and the fact that you're acctually making the thing imprecsise.
You don't get to take the high ground and act snotty, when your advice actively and substantively changes the statement, and removes meaning.
"the first substantial edit makes it sound as if the other charaters Jack interacts with are any generic, off the rack characters, unrelated, if you will."
So fix it. We're not having an argument. We're having a conversation.
"Robinson does this regularly in his series by having Jack interact with other, unrelated, characters created to retain the Starman trademark."
So put in "incarnations of the Starman character". Huzzah. Fixed.
Ass.
we're also talking way past each other here, trying to respond to one thing, while bringing up somethign new.
which is infuriating, becuase all the discussion elements fall aside and it becomes an issue of insultive tones.
"thing is, taht's been substantively cut down. I'm not cutting further, because I'm not convinced everyone knows, or even agrees on what a Legacy hero is.
So say that in the paper you will address the concept of a Legacy Hero and present your understanding of what a "Legacy Hero" is through the Starman series.
The proposal is not the place to make the argument. The proposal is where you say what the argument will be.
"which is infuriating, becuase all the discussion elements fall aside and it becomes an issue of insultive tones."
Aww...
You are my friend. I am insulting your ideas, not you.
I have a cookie. Would you like half? Giving you half will mean that I do not have a full cookie, but if we both have half then we can both enjoy the cookie.
They are neither, though. that's the thing Jay.
They are antecedent characters. They are not incarnations of the Starman character, becuase they are entirely seperate characters.
It gets into a blurred meaning discussion, where Starman refers to 4 different threads of character continuities, 5+ different characters, AND the series. it's why I use Jack Knight, the Starman role, and bolded Starman for the title.
These characters are previous characters to use the name. But they are not previous Starmen (within the story).. does taht make sense?
disparate antecedent states that clearly, as does heterogeneous collection. It does so fairly elegantly as well.
Ah, but I am insulting you. probably becuase you are my friend, and I never learned to love or share.
Seriously, though.. you've been there. you're in the middle of trying to respond to a thing that you have an investment in, only to see the next thing, and the next thing.
So say that in the paper you will address the concept of a Legacy Hero and present your understanding of what a "Legacy Hero" is through the Starman series.
Thing is.. the first paragraph SAYS that.
I think the phrase replacement comments irked me the most, becuase they're comments that need to be delivered in person, almost.
Offered as suggestions. Here it comes across as "this is better"
Whereas in person, it would be more of a "saying this, perhaps? It fixes that..."
only multiplied by a ton, becuase it's not a replacement of a word, but essentially an entire concept with similar, but not nec. equivalent, concepts.
"Thing is.. the first paragraph SAYS that."
And my point is that the paragraph does not say that.
I'm coming at the proposal with only a basic knowledge of Starman and Legacy Hero and the other concepts about which you will discuss. And to me? The proposal is unclear and poorly constructed due to its being unclear.
And that's my point. You know what you say. To you? The proposal makes sense.
But you are writing the proposal for people who are not you. You are writing the proposal for an audience less familiar with your particular argument than I am.
Which is why I'm saying that you need to restructure it and simplify it. Make the points more obvious. Take out the parts that belong in the paper and concentrate on articulating an outline for your paper.
"I will define and critique the idea of 'Legacy Character' as used in Robinson's Starman."
"I will address the appeals to history and its impact on the characters."
"I will address the disparate antecedents of the heterogeneous collection."
It's not that you need to say those things but rather you need to articulate them in that manner. It needs to be stated explicitly.
.. okay.. I understand what you're saying..
and yet..
Earlier, before anyone else here was likely awake, I handed it to a secretary in front of me. Who had no trouble understanding it.
Becuase I needed a pair of eyes that were entirely divorced from paper writing to make sure it made sense.
My point here, is that you're trained to disect and analyze things.
We both are, which is why I basically started writing my paper, in the original 600+ word draft of this. And I'm sure you're picking up on rememnants of that.
But I'm of the mind that such training is getting us into trouble here.
If it's clear to someone who's regularly reading legal briefs, then it's understandable.
Also.. I gather that it's not exactly supposed to be an outline, either. Else my paragraph about what a legacy hero IS, would have been in here.
.. I guess what I'm saying here Jay, is that we're actually both arguing about this as if it was the paper in the first place. As if it operated the same way as a paper, which it doesn't. You're saying I need to make things more obvious, which is essentially approaching a paper, and saying it's points need to be clear.
But it's not a paper, and it's not an outline for one.. It's an attempt to say this is what I'm looking at, this is where I'm looking, and this is why.
A side note, apperently a lot of these proposals/abstracts get copied verbatim into programs, so it also acts as a sort of flyer for the talk.
In other news, I appreicate all this, even as it makes me LOATHE you and want to delete your WoW account in vindictive glee.
Because.. for all the other advice I get from people, your's is the advice that hones what I want the most. For all the reasonable similarities, for all the world, we should seem to see things similarly.. but you and I process things so differently that it forces me to confront what I'm looking for, looking at, and what I see in that.
Also, before I leave, I think I'm going to vandalize your mailbox... unless you leave first.. then I'll shake my fist to the sky.
We both know that paper writing / reading is subjective. It has to do with style and tone and presentation all of which appeal differently to different people.
That's why when I have to write bullshit like this I tend to error on the side of being explicit. That way I'm minimizing the degree to which someone can confuse what I'm trying to get at.
We can confuse them in the paper. The proposal needs to be user friendly. So I use "I" statements and simple sentences and clearly structure everything.
In the paper I fuck with the reader. In the proposal I do my best to ensure that the majority of people could understand what I'm getting at.
Also, you cannot have half of my cookie. Because these cookies are delicious.
Toobad.
You accepted the heretical doctrine of the "Sometimes Food".
Nowtimes is not Cookietimes.
Spit. It. Out. Unbeliever.
I get what you're saying. But i've been walking around with the original, and asking folks around here to read it. They're making sense of it, without questions. So I'm thinking we're a bit too far from the pier.
(to bring back the love, a post from a forum)
That's said, there's a fairly decent jumping-on point (for Marvel's Hercules comic) betwen #116 and 117, where the Secret Invasion stuff starts. If you don't want to have to read all the issues, 117 is a good start, although if you do, you'll miss the Anti-Godzilla Helicarrier, Black Widow drop-kicking a kid and his dog, the only in-continuity reference to the Champions of Los Angeles in the last decade, Iron Man getting his armor defecation and breathing systems reversed, and Hercules using Ares as a baseball bat against incoming missiles.
God, I love comics.
That's sort of why I hate comics.
No joy in your soul.
It's also why you're a sometimes food initiate.
It's mostly the chaotic organization of the whole thing. Lots of comics, to me, are "Why the fuck not?"
It's a part of what you're talking about in the paper. People can really do anything they want with a comic storyline. If we want Starman A to meet Starman B why the fuck not? Do it, come up with a reason for how it happens, and yey.
Then people do that for a long time and things break, so they resort everything and come up with one big "why the fuck not" to encapsulate and control all the little "why the fuck not" stories.
It's just this gigantic amalgamation of dumb that is subject to nothing because those things to which it might be subject keep changing.
So, yes, we can allow people creative freedom to take characters and put them in situations. But there's no real rule to it. There's just this arbitrary guideline which is subject to...nothing, really.
Comics have a very odd sense of "definition" to where it's all just a big orgy of "Why the fuck not?!"
Like how Batman can fly in Dark Knight. He can't fly but he can sort of glide sometimes when the scene calls for it. Except gliding that way wouldn't fucking work. But since it is almost realistic enough to be somewhat believeable we'll go with it when we need it.
Suspend realism over here. Embrace realism over there. Dumb dumb stupid crap fuck.
Here's the thing.
That Hercules bit? It's all in-world sensible.
Every bit of it. Better, it does it by continually refering back to bits of similar Greek Hercules stories.
Ares goads Herc into a lunatic rage. How do they bring him out of it? By refering to the earier Champions story.. which itself refers to a Classical rage. Wherein Herc was set on Fire.
so Black Widow, who was on the Champions.. Sets Herc on Fire. For the Second Time.
Ah. Taht's the problem.
You're thinking a coherent sensibility is being suspended with that little Hercules synopsis.
As I said. It All Fits Together, and is consistent.
The current story? Athena gathers various "gods", as defined in marvel characters.. to send them against the Skrull(alien green shapeshifting men, who are currently invading for religious reasons) God.
Hercules is leading them, and it turns out his original plan? To show up and punch the god into submission. Cue a series of Hercules recalling all the shapeshifting gods he's punched.
"As I said. It All Fits Together, and is consistent."
Of course it is. "Consistent" is constantly redefined to accomodate whatever happens.
........ not true.
it's only those things that can be sold to the reader.
I mean.. you'd hate Elf with a Gun, certainly.
But the Godzilla hunting helicarier? fit perfectly, considering the Godzilla comic was S.H.E.I.L.D. huting Godzilla. Of course they're going to use a helicarrier.
And then that gets abandoned. But it's still there.
It's a logical progression, not a throw it against the wall and make it stick.
That way lies two things: Bad Comics and Steve Gerber Brilliance.
Versus the Inconsistent, which is Scarlet Witch never knew Chaos Magic, she just was a mutant who constantly warped reality to suit her whims, unconsciously.
Which, of course, is why she summoned demons to steal her children. Subconcsiously.
Post a Comment