Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Seeing as we're back to comics slightly, I'll indulge you.
AS I SAID; it depends on the TYPE of books doesn't it? The Da Vinci Code is a badly written book, Dan Brown has a bad writing style. It will never be used in any classroom worth a damn, it would be laughed out of any uni-level lecture room, where as Watchmen has been used.
If all you get out of a book is the skill to write essays, that's irrelevant unless you ENJOY writing essays. You're not gonna be writing them all your life. If someone reads Ulysses and hates it, then what have they truly gained from it? Nothing.
That same person might read Spider-Man and LOVE it, gaining inspiration or any manner of things.
THAT is what you KEEP failing to understand.
Productivity comes down to what's relevant, what's appreciated and what APPEALS to the reader.
Books are not inherantly more productive.
What the hell does that have to do with comics being less productive? Honestly? You are so insufferably oblivious that it's honestly draining the spirit out of me.
ONE MORE TIME:
Productivity is not determined by the way they are used or length of them. Productivity is determined by what they give the reader, that being entirely subjective.
One book being long, and taught in a school, doesn't mean it has given a student anything more than a comic book would. It depends on the student, the book and the comic book subjectively.
Do you understand a shred of what I am saying to you?
|
Ok, somewhat. You are saying it depends on who is reading what, some people appreciate books more and some appreciate comics, understandable. I'll admit I came into this debate a bit unprepared, but I had an opinion, and I thought I had valid(in my eyes) fact to back it up.
edit
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zeelxx
C. You clearly have NO knowledge of comics, you said so yourself, so why in the world would you have any feasible arguement (which you clearly, don't) against comics?
|
I've seen them, I've read a few, I didn't really gain much from it.