(commentary requested by several people.)
So, as we all know, Scott Kurtz believes that thinking that Jack Kirby was screwed by Marvel and doing something about it is “slacktivism” and moral self-aggrandizement. (As Leonard Pierce pointed out, suggesting that people donate to charity the price of an Avengers movie ticket was precisely the opposite of slacktivism, but whatever.)
However, we now learn that Scott Kurtz is also terribly upset by the fact that people other than Charles Schulz are continuing to create Peanuts content. One would note that Charles Schulz’ estate – unlike that of Jack Kirby – actually profits from these new works, which puts them on far more solid moral ground than Marvel Comics currently possesses. But one of these things bothers Scott Kurtz and the other does not.
This is so profoundly inconsistent I don’t know where to begin. Honestly, it is a giant wall of “what the fuck?” I mean, look at this quote right here:
Dear America, it’s okay for things to die. It’s poetic and gives the work more meaning that there ISN’T more of it.
Unless, of course, it’s The Avengers, which were nurtured by generations of caretakers like they were fine wine.
Of course, mockery is besides the point, because we all know Kurtz’ objections aren’t based on any moral or ethical grounds, but instead purely on his whims. He’s a purist when it comes to Peanuts1 because he loves the classic strips. He’s a pragmatist2 when it comes to Marvel properties, because he likes reading current comics. The fact that in one case the family of the creator of the work benefits and in the other the family of the creator of the work gets screwed is entirely besides the point, because Kurtz isn’t concerned about what is fair or what is just to them.3 He’s concerned – like so many nerds are – about how these things affect him.
Why anybody would expect more is really beyond me, but there you go.
- So am I, for the record – I think the new comics and movie are an awful idea. However, I am simply going to deal with it by not spending money on them. [↩]
- This is perhaps not quite the right word, but “schmendrick” does not dichotomize well with “purist.” [↩]
- There is of course a very good argument to be made that copyright should revert to the public domain upon the creator’s death, but realistically this is not going to happen anytime soon and I don’t want to spend time jerking off about it. [↩]