In this paper, there are two arguments that both link with how politics move the way comics are created and marketed to certain types of Americans. A political stance that is developed into a comics policy. In the essay “How liberalism was transformed into Kryptonite as Superman” written by Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche they issued the statement that as creators of superheroes they have to follow certain standards in how they created their comics in order to ensure that they could be in harmony with society policy.
Use Smart AI tool that improves your writing and aids you write faster.
In the second essay “Superhuman Error: What Dixon and Rivoche are doing wrong” by Janelle Asselin, she claims authors Dixon and Rivoche are lying because their statements don’t provide enough background information justify their claims. Both writers Dixon as well as Rivoche have their own view of the ways in which politics can ruin comics and therefore, they must realize the morals that are capable of breaking through the current policy of comics in America.
The start of the uproar over the comments of Dixon and Rivoche caused a change on how they perceived the comic world , which forced them to make a few choices in the way they approached comics.you can find more here affordable essay writer from Our Articles
The words of the writers affirm that “With the growth of moral relativism “truth and justice” as well as the American way” have lost meaning (500).” Making each writer compare patriotism and morality in their arguments, but what they do not say is that the proof they provide in their essay considers both the relationships an established fact. For instance, in the story they used as their starting point “Superman is forced to abstain from citizenship so that his own actions as a superhero can’t be seen as representative of US policies (502).
” Which this could be mostly viewed as the fault of Superman however, it’s actually extremely frustrating for Dixon and Rivoche words. They brought up a valid aspect that they could argue how Superman is an evil dictator on the page of the Injustice comic. They ended by making a whole new angle to their argument.
This leads me to a different point in how Janelle Asselin is absolutely right in the way Dixon as well as Rivoche are in error. Dixon and Rivoche’s method of making their case true is very difficult to understand. For instance, Superman and Batman did occasionally face Nazi or Japanese agents, but it was more of the focus on their respective films (and also the Fleischer Superman television series) than the actual comics. It isn’t clear what the paragraphs of the essay are written on the image of Superman and not on how mortality and patriotism can influence comics in politics. The essay’s authors simply present a particular idea which they make as an argument that only is represented by their views of how comics from the past have been constructed.
By getting to this we can see how both authors are presenting false information in their book. Dixon and Rivoche refuse to discuss the CCA because it reason were to establish a hearing which could identify the comics that were detrimental to children and triggered juvenile delinquency. For example, it was stated “In the 1970s, which were our beginnings as comics didn’t really alter the superhero formula. The CCA changed its rules to allow “sympathetic depiction of criminal behavior . . . And corruption among public officials” but this is “as long as it is presented as extraordinary and the perpetrator is punished (502).” Announcing an unorthodox statement.
This kind of argument was lacking in information about how they felt the Comic Code Authority was making the wrong decisions in how comics should be written. It only revealed how little memory that the two authors needed to support their arguments.
Dixon and Rivoche refer back to the allegations of discrimination however it’s not convincing. It feels like they are formulating their own views. For instance,” Is Superman not ultimate “illegal alien?”. Although he wasn’t born within the United States […] he was not able to enter the country using the approval of the State (507)”. The truth is that both writers are ignorant in their essay. They have made assumptions about how patriotism and the country can be seen as a conflict in morality. That isn’t in fact the case because the loss of one or both creates limits in society and in the entertainments that come from 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 is able to read and understand how a superhero can serve as illegal immigration and still aid other people to build unity in the society.
Dixon and Rivoche In this essay describing background, but never even going into detail about it. While they may present an argument in their paper, they do not have enough evidence to demonstrate that their claim is real, rather they’re providing facts. They are making Asselin argument more persuasive is that she makes enough arguments in her argument to establish contrasts in how Dixon and Rivoche are both wrong about how comics’ political stances ruin the narrative.
The reason society works so is because they are able to display patriotism, as well as mortality in a comedy while still being careful of certain words that may lead to disagreements in the public of Americans.
