I think you pasted the wrong quote there, because I don't understand what point you're making and that's not from my OP.

Your previous post:

I doubt that this will go deeper than a clumsy attempt at depth with some boring racial-based narrative.

That's a pretty bad opinion, but at least it's a defensible response to a five page preview.

Your original post:

Wow. This could not be more ham-fisted. Six white cops, three with fucking shotguns, just unloading into three unarmed black teenagers, without mercy. And wadda know? The one cop of ambiguous ethnicity is the only one with a conscience. This is ridiculous.

Do you not see the difference between those two statements? Do you not recognize the difference in tone, in posture, in aggressiveness? This isn't rocket surgery.

I don't think we'll be able to continue after this if I have to spell out every single point and inference for you. I just don't have the time or the patience. Please try harder.

Look at Fem-Thor. She actually beat Titania at in #5 because girl power (a phrase she actually used). If they would have written it well, I would have been on-board. But no. It used forced, heavy-handed crap, instead. Just like this.

Oh, you're that guy. Okay. You should have said something earlier; it could have saved us both a bunch of time.

And yet you provide no examples.

Your posts?

No, it's the kind of thing you say to someone who hides behind rhetoric, instead of just outright calling you a bigot.

Just because you can't effectively engage and refute my rhetoric doesn't mean I'm hiding behind it. It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools, poorer still one who blames the tools of another.

Because that's it. There's nothing more. Just black vs. white. That's all the preview has to offer. Jesus, it's even printed in black and white!

That doesn't answer the question and in fact is a completely incoherent response. I'll ask the question again, and again, please try harder: Why do you state "the subject matter is totally racially motivated with an agenda" as if it conclusively determines the state of the work? This time, actually engage with the question.

Nigger Jim

You feel better now?

The central difference between BLACK and Huck Finn, I suspect, is that Huck Finn was meant to make white people understand the perspective and plight of black people. Whereas, BLACK just seems divisive and clumsy.

This is... you don't even realize how badly you told on yourself here, do you?

Nope. But there'd be no objective way to prove or disprove that, so my denial is just as empty as your question.

I ask these questions for you, not for me. You don't need to tell me the answer. I thought that was clear, but again, I guess I need to spell out which questions are rhetorical and which ones aren't.

Oh, my mistake. I wasn't aware that I had to use every adjective to describe it in my first post. Did ham-fisted not imply dull and poor quality to you?

Lot of Shakespeare is ham-fisted. Lot of Twain, lot of Wilde. Pretty much everything before modernism can be construed as ham-fisted in one way or another, so no, it didn't imply that. Do you think hitting the reader over the head with a theme or moral automatically robs a work of any worth? (rhetorical) If so, do you think nothing worthwhile was written until about 80 years ago? (rhetorical)

The comic is called BLACK. The title page says: "In a world that already fears and hates them - what if black people had superpowers?" and is a picture of a black person with a hoodie. What, do you think race is just a benign subject here? The fucking comic is in black and white. What do you think is happening? Six white cops kill three unarmed black kids and the only cop with a problem with the whole thing isn't white. I mean, what's the narrative there? It wasn't an accident. Clearly race is the major theme, so why is it set up like that?

So you want them to address race... without leveraging the races of the characters involved? (rhetorical) Because if it is black teens and white cops, it's automatically ham-fisted and a bad story? Do you see how incoherent your argument is? (actual question)

Examples would've been nice there.

See your original post vs the most recent post in re: moving goalposts.

I'm not. And what do you even care? You know they're fake, intangible points, right? You can't redeem them anywhere, or something like that.

I was sent a punch card in the mail. When I'm downvoted, it's really hard to get those little pieces of paper back in the holes.

You just can't help but insult me, can you?

Saying you're avoiding thinking critically is not insulting you; it's my read of your shifting position and nonsensical reasoning. If I implied you were incapable of reasoning critically, well, that might be an insult. But I have faith in you.

In any case. This is where we are now:

I had five pages to read.

I was given five pages to read.

That's all I had to read.

I've told you and I've told the author, I'm going to pick up the first issue.

And, like I already told you, I'll be picking it up.

I just find it fascinating how your position has swung from complete dismissal in the OP after five pages based on your disdain for the characters' races to foreseeing that the entire series will be "a clumsy attempt at depth with some boring racial-based narrative" that you're still going to buy the first issue of. You took a couple of indefensible positions (blanket opinion of the entire work after a five page preview, based solely on the races of the characters involved) that you're now trying to moderate and shore up.

And that's fine. I ain't mad at you. This has all made my day go by a tiny bit faster, so I can't complain. I'm just saying that you're not fooling anybody that isn't already fooling themselves. That's all.