In this piece, you will find two arguments which both connect to the way politics affect the way comics are written and draw a certain crowd of Americans. In turn, the political stance transforms into a comics’s policy. In the article “How liberalism was transformed into Kryptonite in the Age of Superman” written by Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche The authors issued an announcement that they were creators of superheroes they had to adhere to a certain critique when it came to the creation of their comics in order to ensure that they could be in harmony with society policies.
Use Smart AI tool that enhances your writing skills and assists writers write easily.
In the second essay “Superhuman Error: How Dixon and Rivoche are doing wrong” by Janelle Asselin, she asserts that both writers Dixon and Rivoche are wrong , because their statements don’t contain enough background information to support their claims. However, both writers Dixon and Rivoche are both able to express an opinion on how the politics of comics harm comics, therefore they need to understand that comics have moral values which can break through the comics industry’s policy in America.Read here https://www.firstcomicsnews.com/how-politics-ruin-comics/ At our site
The onset of the ruckus of Dixon’s and Rivoche’s statements made them take a stance of political correctness in their view of the world of comics that forced them to make a few choices in how to make their creation of comics.
The writers’ words affirm that “With the rise of moral relativism “truth or justice and the American method” have lost their significance (500).” The essay makes both writers compare patriotism and morality in their argument but what they do not say is that the evidence that they give in the essay accepts both of these relationships as an absolute. For instance, in the tale they chose as their primary example “Superman renounces his citizenship so that his own actions as an individual super-hero aren’t viewed as indicative of US policy (502).
” This can be thought to be the main reason behind Superman however, it’s actually very frustrating on the part Dixon in addition to Rivoche words. They outlined a valid argument that they could argue how Superman is an unjust dictator for the rest of his life throughout the Injustice comic, but ended up with a completely new angle into their argument.
This brings me to another aspect of how Janelle Asselin is right in what she says about Dixon as well as Rivoche are in error. Dixon and Rivoche’s perspective of making their claim true is a bit difficult to understand. For example, Superman and Batman did occasionally engage Nazi or Japanese agents, but that was more of an issue for their films (and their own Fleischer Superman cartoon) than the comics themselves. This doesn’t make sense given the way the paragraphs in the essay are written on the appearance of Superman and not on the ways that patriotism and mortality could influence comics in the realm of politics. The writers of the essay simply present a particular concept that they present as an argument that only is shown by their philosophies of how the past comics have been made.
As we get to this point, we will see that both authors have misrepresented the facts within their book. Dixon and Rivoche have chosen not to reference the CCA in order to only to create a hearing that would present the comics as dangerous to children and contributed to juvenile delinquency. For example, they said “In those 1970s,”” our first year in the business and the CCA was not really able to change the superhero formula. The CCA did modify its code to permit “sympathetic depiction ” of criminal behavior . . . Also, corruption within public officials” but the only condition is that it must be “as long as it is described as exceptional and the culprit is punished (502).” In making an unusual assertion.
This type of claim was lacking in information in the manner that it was that the Comic Code Authority was making the wrong choices regarding what comic should be written as. Instead it only showed how much memory loss the two authors were required to give to their argument.
Dixon and Rivoche refer back to talk about discrimination but it’s just not convincing. It feels like they are formulating their own views. For example,” Is Superman not the most “illegal non-native?”. Superman wasn’t born in America. United States […] he didn’t enter the country with an approval from the state (507)”. The truth is that both writers are ignorant in their essay. They are making limitations in how patriotism within a country can make a disagreement with morality , which is not valid because the absence of one or the other can create the possibility of a gap in society and the entertainments of the comic books. The comics’ discrimination could seem to indicate a lack of moral but it show characters that could be the basis of any reader could read and observe how a superhero can serve as illegal alien and still assist others build unity in an environment.
Dixon and Rivoche are able to spend the majority of their essay providing background information but never ever really going beyond it. Even though they may show the argument they make within their essay, they can not have enough evidence to provide that their claim is factual, instead they’re providing a list of facts. It is possible to make Asselin argument sound more plausible is because she has enough solid arguments in her essay that create an argument about how Dixon and Rivoche have a wrong view of how comic book politics can ruin the plot.
The reason we are as it is is because people can display patriotism and mortality in comics while making sure to be cautious with certain phrases that could cause disagreements within the viewers of Americans.