| |
|
Byrne might have more of a point if he weren't talking about ironic writing done during a period in our culture where much that incorporates precedent is done so in an ironic fashion. There are many different definitions of what constitutes "fun," and I find it fun when some of the hokey tropes of yesteryear are paraded around as what they are. That doesn't mean you can't have a soft spot for them, too, but at least acknowledge that you're an adult with the capacity for far more nuanced stories than the ones the Byrne-Agains seem capable of handling.
Our post-9/11 world has been referred to as a "post-ironic" culture, but really it's just that the stale contexts have been replaced with fresher meanings, allowing for new types of stories, ie "Identity Crisis," "Avengers Disassembled," "Coup D'Etat," etc. (Yes, I'm only citing superhero stories; I have a feeling that if this "debate" were to involve anything but there'd be a long group "duhhhhh" from the JB Jaycees.) At this time, these stories are free to wear their metaphors on their sleeves and paint in bold strokes. When the metaphors again become dated, then they too will be subject to the same camp Byrneketeers loathe.
/+, |
|
|
