Pet Peeves

More a rant, than a ramble...

One thing I'm less than fond of is people who seem to think that the only way to praise someone or something is to attack someone or something else in order to make the quote-unquote praiseworthy object more praiseworthy by comparison.

Look, if a thing is worth praising, then praise it. It doesn't matter how good, better or awful something else is.

I hear this all the time with movies and tv shows, music, etc.

Worse, in the business I'm in, I hear it all the time with people.

And I've heard my share of it regarding the characters of Gargoyles.

FOR EXAMPLE:
Someone's a huge Brooklyn fan. Can't figure out why Angela chose Broadway or whey "the clan puts up with Goliath". It's not enough to praise Brooklyn, the Brook-fan feels the need to attack BW or Goliath -- slinging mud on them so that Brooklyn's light shines brighter.

Or the reverse. People determined to defend Goliath or. Outraged by the tactic outlined above, praise Goliath not with actual praise for Goliath, but by attacking Brooklyn, i.e. by utilizing the same tactic. It just makes me nuts.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to like every character equally. (I pretty much do, but I'm daddy.) You're all welcome to have your favorites. And it's even fine with me if there are some characters you just HATE. Either because you think they're ill-conceived, or because you think they're unpleasant or whatever.

But what's the fortune in comparisons? It's all subjective anyway. In High School, in my AP English class (days of yore) I remember a long debate about Othello vs. Iago. Most of the class seemed determined to prove that Iago was a great villain by arguing that Othello was a feeble hero. But I didn't buy it. (Well, I did for about five minutes, but the mind rebelled.) If Othello is feeble, than Iago's villainy achieved nothing. A triumph over a feeble leader. Big Deal.

End of rant.