|
|
Do you want to start a Head Shop topic on whether a writers intention for a story is more important than the readers intepretation because I really don't have the time right now but I think it might be interesting. I was only saying that really to counter your claim that Transmet was 'about nothing'
I don't think it's an either/or deal. I think they're just two lenses one can view a story from. The success/failure of Transmet or any other series would vary depending on which lens we use, and which theme we choose to trace. If you think it's worthy of a Head Shop let's go for it, but I'm not sure it needs one.
If we're looking at Transmet as being "about death," I think it's a failure because it's not ... well, concise is the best word I can think of, but it's not really what I mean. There are too many detours into other things, too many lost opportunities, too many thematically unrelated meanderings. I doubt Ellis meant for it to be "about death," and so these meanderings can be excused somewhat.
Transmet could have been a brilliant, savage 12 or even 24 issue satiric series tackling journalism and politics, but oddly through its 60 issues it hasn't really been "about" either, nor explored either with much depth. It's a sign of Ellis' deficiencies as a writer that Transmet pales in comparison to the real-life US political scene that occurred during its publication. It could have been savage, relevant and worthy of the Thompson mantle Ellis' obviously hoped to appropriate. I'm happy to criticize Transmet for what it is, but in this one case I think it's wholly appropriate to criticize it for what it isn't. |
|
|