A hard life if you don't weaken

The redoubtable Jim Henley recently did a post on Heroes where he was generous enough to link back to my previous post regarding race and gender roles in said show.

This sent some traffic my way, for which I am deeply grateful to Mr. Henley.

It also touched off a spirited debate in Mr. Henley's comment threads, which my regular readers may enjoy.

This is reproduced pretty much exactly. In the original thread, though, you'd see that "John Doe" is actually a live link, and foolishly thinking I might find out something about my newest fan, I clicked on said link. However, it only leads to the main page at blogger dot com. So, clearly, whoever this is, he or she prefers to admire me from afar.

Long distance being the next best thing to being here, etc, etc.

For all I know, there's still more to come. Mr. (or Ms.) Doe doesn't strike me as the sort of person who is capable of allowing someone else to have the last word. But this is what we've got so far:

1. Comment by John Doe —

January 30, 2007 @ 11:33 am

My goodness, though, what a tedious post complaining about “race and gender issues.” Nearly 4,000 words straining to construe every action by every female or minority as somehow subordinate to the white males. One could just as easily write an exhaustive and tedious blog post explaining that every action by Claire’s father is just a “reaction” to what Claire does.

I.e.:

1. He has to scramble to dig up fake parents when Claire wants to meet her real parents.

2. He has to scramble around erasing people’s memories when Claire demonstrates her abilities to her friend.

3. He has to rush to the high school on homecoming night to chase after Claire.

Etc., etc. All of which proves nothing except that someone needs to lighten up and stop hyperanalyzing everything like a lawyer.

2. Comment by Doc Nebula —

January 30, 2007 @ 12:55 pm

Deeply, deeply sorry my ‘hyperanalyzing everything like a lawyer’ offends you on such a thalmic level.

Oh, no, wait… I’m not.

My writing doesn’t intend to prove anything; as with so many others, I’m simply stating my views. If you find them tiresome, that’s a big boat with a lot of people in it, and I appreciate you taking the time to read my work and respond to it at all, even if it is in someone else’s comment threads.

Good night, and good luck.

3. Comment by John Doe —

January 30, 2007 @ 2:15 pm

I’m responding here because your article was recommended here. Anyway, you can do what you will, obviously, but IMHO, life is happier if one can just chill out and enjoy TV without dissecting every aspect of a show with an enormous chip on one’s shoulder.

4. Comment by Doc Nebula —

January 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm

Anyway, you can do what you will, obviously, but IMHO, life is happier if one can just chill out and enjoy TV without dissecting every aspect of a show with an enormous chip on one’s shoulder.

Life is happier without many things, nearly all of them including actual rational thought. However, the world these ‘happier’ dolts inhabit is a bleaker one for the lack of said thought, and a considerably shabbier one than it needs to be for the minority of us who actually do try to think more often than not.

My particular life is greatly enriched by my efforts to actually process data and reach reasonable conclusions and and otherwise ‘overanalyze everything like a lawyer’. I hypothesize — utterly without evidence, of course, because the world just ain’t like this — that the reality we all share would be a much better place if more people were equally analytical, engaged in rational thought more, and elevated their standards as to the entertainment products they consume/support, as well.

There are literally millions, if not billions, who ‘just chill out and enjoy’ TV, movies, books, comics, radio, pop music, etc, etc, etc. This enormous audience of nondiscerning swill consumers is why we have movies like DUMB AND DUMBER (and why its big budget, yet still entirely idiotic, exemplar, FORREST GUMP, won multiple Oscars).

I understand that there are many MANY people in this world who enjoy actively not thinking about anything, and that I am in a pronounced minority as I get actual pleasure from just the opposite. I equally understand that many MANY of these people become disgruntled, surly, and/or actively hostile when they are actually asked to think about anything at all for any length of time, but it seems to me that you are taking this to an entirely unprecedented level by becoming surly and truculent with someone ELSE for daring to think about something in your presence.

I could be wrong.

I admit it frankly, I have high standards. I think about things. I write about the results of my thought processes. For some reason, you seem to find this offensive, and believe on some gut level that I owe you an apology for all this.

These are Mr. Henley’s comment threads, so out of respect for him, I will not resolve my response to you as I absolutely would in my own. However, were I in my own threads, I’d have just two more words for you, and those two words would not be ‘Happy Birthday’.

More to come?