In this essay , we will present two arguments which are connected with how politics influence the way comics are written and draw a certain crowd of Americans. A political stance that is developed into comics ‘ policy. In the essay “How Liberalism Changed into Kryptonite and Superman” written by Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche The authors issued statements that stated that as creators of superheroes, it was their responsibility to follow a certain critic in the way they made their comics so that it could be in harmony with society policy.
In the second essay “Superhuman Error: How Dixon and Rivoche Get Wrong” from Janelle Asselin. She claims the writers Dixon and Rivoche are wrong , because their claims do not contain enough background information to confirm their assertions. Although the two writers Dixon and Rivoche may have their own views on how politics harm comics so they must understand that the morals of comics are a matter that are capable of breaking through the industries policy of America.follow the link affordable essay writers At our site
The onset of the ruckus of Rivoche’s and Dixon’s statements made them take a stance of political correctness on how they perceived the comic world . This forced them to take a different approach in their creation of comics.
The words of the writers claim that “With the rising of moral relativism “truth and justice” as well as the American method” have lost meaning (500).” This is because both writers consider patriotism as well as morality into their argument, but what they aren’t saying is that the evidence that they offer in their essay is based on both as an accepted fact. For instance, in the tale they chose for their initial illustration “Superman is forced to abstain from citizenship so that his own actions as an individual superhero are not seen as an indication of US policies (502).
” The fact that this is most often viewed as a cause of Superman however, it’s actually extremely frustrating for Dixon or Rivoche words. They suggested a legitimate aspect that they could argue that Superman is an evil dictator as seen in the Injustice comic, but ended up adding a whole new angle to their argument.
This leads me to a different aspect of how Janelle Asselin is right in the sense that Dixon and Rivoche are not right. Dixon and Rivoche’s angle of making their case true is quite complicated. For instance, Superman and Batman did sometimes fight Nazi as well as Japanese agents, but that was more of an issue on their respective films (and the Fleischer Superman comic) as opposed to the comics themselves. It isn’t clear how the text of the essay focus on the image of Superman and not how patriotism and mortality can be affecting comics through political. The essay’s writers are only presenting a specific idea which they make as an argument which is shown by their philosophies of the way comics in the past have been constructed.
Once we reach this point, it is clear that the two authors are misrepresenting facts in their edition. Dixon and Rivoche decline to mention the CCA for the reason that it was to only establish a hearing which could present the comics as dangerous to children and contributed to juvenile delinquency. For instance, when it said “In those 1970s,” the first few years of trading did not see any significant changes to the formula of superheroes. The CCA did change its policy to permit “sympathetic portrayal of criminal behavior . . . The same applies to corruption among public officials” however this is “as long as it’s depicted as exceptional and the offender is punished (502).” In making an unusual declaration.
This kind of argument was not really giving enough information in how it was that the Comic Code Authority was making the wrong decisions in how comic should be written as. Instead , it showed the lack of memory the two authors had to give to their argument.
Dixon and Rivoche are back to the alleged discrimination, but it’s just not convincing. It feels like they are creating their own opinions. For example,” Is Superman not the ultimate “illegal person?”. Superman wasn’t born in America. United States […] he wasn’t able to get into the country through an official state-approved method (507)”. This could be true, but both authors ‘ statements are ignorant in the essay. They make assumptions about the way in which patriotism in a society can be seen as a conflict in morality. That isn’t accurate because the removal of one or the other causes an obstacle for a society as well as the enjoyment of the comic books. Discrimination in the comics may be considered to be a lack of morality, however it is a demonstration of the character of a person that makes any reader could read and observe the ways in which a superhero could serve as illegal immigrant, but still be able to help others in bringing unity to the community.
Dixon and Rivoche In this paper providing background, but never taking it further. Even though they make the argument they make in their paper, they do not give enough evidence demonstrate that their claim is valid instead they are offering a few assumptions. Asselin’s argument is Asselin argument sound more plausible is because she makes a lot of valid points in her essay , creating comparisons of how Dixon and Rivoche are wrong about how comics’ political stances ruin the plot.
The reason why the world is like this is because they are able to show patriotism and mortality in a comic but making sure to be cautious with certain words that could result in disagreements among the audience of Americans.