My only problem with this is the cultural critic's insistence on assigning everything they enjoy with a complex intellectual meaning and significance. It's self-praise, in the guise of analysis, used to rationalize the sheer amount of time spent consuming popular products of the culture industry.
On the other hand, some of the things in popular culture are what teach us about what the world is like. For example, I would wager that more people are taught what guns are like by video games and movies, than the actual physical objects themselves. This means that there is some purpose to analysing popular products from a variety of angles. It might teach us new things about the world. We probably do it from the same few (political) angles too often though.
Teachers often teach that very badly, but the lesson is buried in there. Discover what you like, then inquire about why you like it and how it does that.
It's not about teaching you about the world. It's about teaching you about yourself, and then about other people.
All of this speech comes from like 10 world-spanning companies and everyone is on everyone else's board.
Books and indie games usually aren't much different, because they are imitative of the dominant content owners. A world of fanfic. And of course, in the case of books, the world has about 4 publishers that sell 80% of them.
Books aren't expensive to publish like theatrically released movies and AAA games. According to the 2019 Publishers Weekly ranking of global publishers, Penguin Random House issues 15,000 titles a year with revenues of 3434 million Euros (2018). That puts cost-per-title well under $0.25 million whereas AAA games start at tens of millions per title. I don't know if ROI is similar but initial cost to bring a new work to market is much lower for a book.
https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/Global502019.pd...
A person will feel the urge to criticize something if they care about it. She's criticizing comic books because she loves these comic books. She probably doesn't care about romance novels. Instead of saying "Go criticize romance novels instead!" have you considered, well, having someone who likes romance novels criticize romance novels for you? It'd be way more effective.
I use computers. I relentlessly criticize software. I wouldn't be able to do a good job at it if I was told "Oh, you have criticisms of modern software? Go critique architecture from your lens!"
This woman knows comic books. She loves comic books. She has some criticisms about comic books. This doesn't mean she knows or cares about romance novels. I use computers. I love computers. I have some criticisms about computers. I don't know the first thing about architecture.
In what way? The article is what it says on the tin.
I'm against the article's existence, but I'm also against the idea that the author should be told to complain about romance novels, too. The criticism of the criticism is bad, but the initial criticism is still boring and offers nothing new.
How often do the men in romance novels wind up in a refrigerator?
There is some weird gatekeeping in this thread. The blogger is a self-proclaimed lover of comic books writing a critique of Frank Millers work - and you demand she write about romance novels? Where is is suggested she even have any interest in that genre?
That it doesn't align with your personal politics at the time is not a crime. It's not even interesting. I can imagine fewer things more boring than someone going over a work with a fine-toothed comb looking for violations of their own personal Hays Code. None of them will turn that level of inspection on their ideological pets, only their "problematic faves."
I dare her: do romance novels next, and do it from a men's rights perspective. I've read my fair share of them, they're all a real crapfest if you want to think of men as actual people instead of living props in the Happily Ever After each heroine is owed. But that doesn't sell clicks on Polygon.