Superhero and related comics are, let's face it, ridiculous. They have little pictures of men in cute little let's-pretend suits, and they go around fighting crime. Not surprising that their fans have something of an inferiority complex, and are constantly talking up some new comic, er, I mean graphic novel, as the most sober and complex and artistic comic out there. Then some yob makes a movie out of it.

Truth of the matter is, those comics fans deserve that inferiority complex. The subject matter is inherently ridiculous, and matters are not improved by the fact that the story is told using little pictures instead of words. As well it should be -- imagine if you will a superhero story told in words only. You wouldn't get past the description of the yellow suit with black mask without putting it down and demanding your money back.

The more the comics fans urge you to believe that this comic novel or graphix or whatever you want to call it is a "masterpiece," the more quickly you should back away -- he may go wild at any moment and hit you with his Big Gulp!

Simple prejudice and pretension. The subject matter of The Tempest is inherently ridiculous. As is that of the Odyssey. Are they both discounted as literature because one is written to be performed live and the other is just a very long poem? A work of literature - ANY work of literature, from Faulkner down to checkout-line pulp - should be judged on its content and its effectiveness at conveying it (two things that Watchmen is famous for), not by some preconceived notion. If you don't like it that's absolutely fine, but don't go knocking the whole genre. It's like telling those pesky "moving pictures" people that The Godfather sucked because it was on film.

Hmm...I don't know what comic books you've been reading, but I've been reading Ghost World, Blankets, Strangers in Paradise, and Walking Dead. None of these titles feature men in tight suits fighting crime--they all feature inspirational and moving stories about average people told in graphic format. Come to think of it, I think I read Persepolis, Road to Perdition, and A History of Violence back before they were translated into movies. Didn't they win a few awards?

Actually, now I'm reminded that in the past ten years comics have won the Pulitzer Prize, Hugo Award, and one was named one of the best works of fiction in the past 25 years, not to mention inspiring countless college classes and works of scholarly research. Hmm...sounds like comics are being taken pretty seriously indeed (and by the way making money hand over fist for Hollywood right now). Sounds like it's been a while since you've read one. You might want to remedy that. You might find it hard to believe, but it does actually help to be familiar with an artform if you intend to criticize it.

I'm not quite sure what makes the concet of the super hero, any less ridiculous than the conceit of any other great work of popular liturature.

Are the happenstances and coincidences of a Dickens novel that much more believable then the random acts of a radioactive spider? What of the swashbucklery of shakespere? Is that more ridiculous than the wings of a bat man?

Genre encompasses a wide range of things and medium encompasses even more. The medium of the written novel includes both nobel lauriettes and Daniel Steel. The Genre of Science fiction includes Shelly, Asimov, Bradbury, and a dozen faceless pulp producers who churn out all sorts of things, at every level of importance.

So to do comic readers hate having our chosen genre judged by the worst of our numbers.

Is slate, for being on the internet to be judged by the most salacious blogs? Is the weekly world news to keep the same company as the New York times for the happenstance of their publishing on low grade paper? Must the Sopranos, or Dead Wood or M*A*S*H* be judged by the most trite episode of the Teletubbies?

Certainly the conceit of the superhero is ridiculous, as ridiculous as the conceit of the Illiad or the Odessy. That Gods and chance should grant power to fools and mortals is the essence of myth and a mantle that carries forward to the comics of the day.

Certainly Richie Rich never had to deal with the weight of how the Rich Family made their money, but that doesn't mean that Tony Stark hasn't. To assume the state of one, by the state of the other is to deride for medium, less then even genre. In any genre good and bad coexist, the popular and nonconforming, each offering what they have to the canon. How the paring of visual art and the written word somehow renders both works lesser in the mind of some is beyond comprehention to those who read and understand what the works mean.

Well, there's a difference between a need to be taken seriously and a desire to not be insulted. Other than the newly discovered trend in the profitability of comic book movies there's very little pressure from the comic community to have the medium embraced by the mainstream. No one is inviting people in to call us names. But whatever. If you don't want to appreciate an art form then don't. Totally your choice. But don't kid yourself that you're morally justified in lashing out. You're just being rude.

Ooooooh, Larry2, you just make me so mad!

That the response you wanted?

When people confuse genre and art form, it leads to profound misunderstanding of the entire conversation.

Imagine if people made the same mistake with assuming all movies are stoner flicks. "Movies are stupid! All they do is show slacker stoner guys on a couch ending up with hot chicks. Totally implausible, and are there no actors in the world beyond Cheech, Chong, and Seth Rogen?"