Daredevil Message Board

james castle · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:06 am Post subject:

Weird, when I took logic courses I was taught that arguing that something might be there because there was no evidence that it wasn't there was actually a logical fallacy. Some fancy name like "the argument from ignorance" or something.

Weird.
_________________
JC

So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing?

Katerine · Flying Blind Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 45 Location: USA

Stanley · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:09 am Post subject:

At this point, I'd like to mention that I do fully believe there can be a flat-out wrong interpretation.

If somebody read Born Again and said, "I like how Wolverine slashed up Karen's face", I'd say that no interpretation can stretch it that far. That's a wrong interpretation, it never happened.

JC thinks that the God thing never happened, and I have the wrong interpretation. I at least get where he's coming from.

But I totally think there's enough literary evidence, both in words directly to the point and words having to be interpreted, to support my conclusion.

Not trying to pick at a scab here, I think JC and I understand each other (and disagree).

Just saying--if someone 'interpreted' Paul Hogan with a machete into Bram Stoker's Dracula, I'd have to give them an F.

jumonji · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

Okay, I guess this discussion has taken yet another little turn here ("what is and isn't open to interpretation?), but that's all good.

Whether or not something is open to interpretation, within the context of literature, obviously depends on what we're talking about. The kind of "wrong" interpretation I belive Stanley is talking about seems to me like the kind that would be completely contradictory to what common sense would have you believe.

Unless you want to take the stance of regarding this entire book and all the characters in it as the Beyonder daydreaming (which is fine, whatever floats your boat), there are certain given facts of the story that are not open to interpretation. "Matt Murdock is a blind lawyer with heightened senses who lives in Hell's Kitchen and fights crime" is pretty much a given fact of the case here. The aspects of this, and any story that are open to interpretation are those which are left for the reader to "co-create" along with the writer. These are the areas, like Katerine pointed out, where not enough information is given to make a definitive ruling.

Reading a story and getting any kind of enjoyment out of it depends on each person's imagination. If the writer told the reader every minute detail of everything going on, and all character's exact thoughts at every moment, it would be an excrutiatingly boring read.

The color of Matt's jacket in Born Again? Not open to interpretation. Whether or not God made a physical/spiritual/metaphorical appearance between panels? Completely wide open, as far as I'm concerned.
_________________
The Other Murdock Papers

Stanley · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject:

jumonji · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject:

Stanley · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject:

jumonji · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject:

harryhausen · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject:

Man, this is great! A full-blown discussion…..

I will jump right in by saying that I have a distrust and contempt for all things religious and (that modern cop-out option) “spiritual” that knows no bounds. I have been sneeringly called a ‘devout atheist.’

I have always had to struggle with the Catholicism in DD. I hate ‘Guardian Devil’ (well, for lots of reasons…..) and whenever writers bring up the genuine Catholic background, etc. I just kinda wait for it to be over and hope that DD himself doesn’t get too involved in the fray.

[As an aside, I don’t like issues of DD (or any other comics, really) where the characters fight monsters from Hell, or Angels (sorry G. Morrison), or deal with gods, etc. Oh, that awful ‘Inferno’ business!]

So, all that said, I don’t read any god(s) in ‘Born Again,’ at all. Maggie is a semi-reprehensible character. A pliable fool in the grip of her own silly guilt and the clutches of millennia of social control disguised as mythology. She prays, Matt gets better, she believes he is healed by a divine force. I think he was healed by his immune system. For me, that’s all that happens.

I reckon it’s all in what you bring to it?

Neilan · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject:

For me, the best literature, besides being well written, is when the answers are not obvious and can be open to interpretation, while still making sense.
There are religious references in Born Again. Those who feel strongly, in the real world, about these kinds of references, can believe that the hand of God, while not drawn into the book, is what healed Matt. Those, such as myself, who don't believe that God, whether She exists or not, gets involved directly in people's lives, can attribute Matt's recovery to his indomitable spirit, the conditioning of his body, or the fine medical care that the nuns provided him.
Just because Maggie ministers to him, doesn't mean that she knows that her care isn't enough. She's a nun. Of course, she's going to believe it's all in God's hands. This doesn't mean she's right and it doesn't mean she's wrong.
This is why I love Miller's DD work. It's not trite and it's not obvious.

DD1987 · Flying Blind Joined: 03 Oct 2008 Posts: 3

From DAREDEVIL 62
Black Widow: You're married?
Matt: Yes.
Black Widow: To God?
Matt: Yes. But that's not what I mean.

From DAREDEVIL 58
Milla (talking to Ben Urich): Good Catholic boy. Sure.

Francesco · Underboss Joined: 08 Jun 2006 Posts: 1307

The Message Board is currently in read-only mode, as the software is now out of date. Several features and pages have been removed. If/When I get time I intend to re-launch the board with updated software.