10-14-2006, 08:47 PM
More to the point...
My objections here are not to Miller's comic book (I made those objections before in another thread) but rather to Dr. Hanson's historical analysis of both the comic and the battle it is based upon.
As I said above, this idea that comics must by their very nature simplify history, or complex ideas, is I think a false one. However, it seems to be "accepted wisdom" and I will not argue that point. I do agree with Jona that some of Millers "arc types" are overwrought to the point of being offensive, but then the same could be said of The Lord Of The Rings.
Be that as it may, even though comic book artists might deal in over simplification as their stock in trade historians should not. The article by Dr. Hanson (linked at the top of this thread -- Thanks for the link TNarcher
) seems to me to be a gross over simplification.
Every historian has an agenda, and in this case I believe Hanson's is firmly rooted in the 21st century. His simplification is very similar to Stephen Ambrose's simplification of World War II as a struggle between the children of democracy against the children of fascism. (What about those Soviet children who died in their millions fighting the Nazis? What about them Mr. Ambrose?)
Yes, 300 is just a film, and I have every intention of seeing it, but this film should not be dismissed lightly. Film is a powerful medium with an incredible power to influence those who watch it. How many people saw Gladiator and thought it to be an accurate portrayal of the Roman Empire? Or Troy of the Trojan War? Or Saving Pvt. Ryan of the Normandy battles?
We can debate the artistic merits of these films and graphic novels as we please, but when it comes to history we should be rigorous in our standards and skeptical of any simplification that ignores salient facts, inconvenient or otherwise. If we are to see our present and our path to the future clearly then we must view our past with the same clarity. I believe Dr. Hanson's simplification clouds our vision of the past and thus our view of the present.
As Jenny correctly points out, modern Iran and ancient Persia are not the same thing (Nor, for that matter, is the United States and ancient Greece.) but I do realize that I am skating on the thin ice of modern politics here, so I will venture to further down this path.
Narukami
My objections here are not to Miller's comic book (I made those objections before in another thread) but rather to Dr. Hanson's historical analysis of both the comic and the battle it is based upon.
As I said above, this idea that comics must by their very nature simplify history, or complex ideas, is I think a false one. However, it seems to be "accepted wisdom" and I will not argue that point. I do agree with Jona that some of Millers "arc types" are overwrought to the point of being offensive, but then the same could be said of The Lord Of The Rings.
Be that as it may, even though comic book artists might deal in over simplification as their stock in trade historians should not. The article by Dr. Hanson (linked at the top of this thread -- Thanks for the link TNarcher
) seems to me to be a gross over simplification.Every historian has an agenda, and in this case I believe Hanson's is firmly rooted in the 21st century. His simplification is very similar to Stephen Ambrose's simplification of World War II as a struggle between the children of democracy against the children of fascism. (What about those Soviet children who died in their millions fighting the Nazis? What about them Mr. Ambrose?)
Yes, 300 is just a film, and I have every intention of seeing it, but this film should not be dismissed lightly. Film is a powerful medium with an incredible power to influence those who watch it. How many people saw Gladiator and thought it to be an accurate portrayal of the Roman Empire? Or Troy of the Trojan War? Or Saving Pvt. Ryan of the Normandy battles?
We can debate the artistic merits of these films and graphic novels as we please, but when it comes to history we should be rigorous in our standards and skeptical of any simplification that ignores salient facts, inconvenient or otherwise. If we are to see our present and our path to the future clearly then we must view our past with the same clarity. I believe Dr. Hanson's simplification clouds our vision of the past and thus our view of the present.
As Jenny correctly points out, modern Iran and ancient Persia are not the same thing (Nor, for that matter, is the United States and ancient Greece.) but I do realize that I am skating on the thin ice of modern politics here, so I will venture to further down this path.
Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Burbank CA
