JIC: A 'LEAGUE' APPRECIATION

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Wildstorm/pic_lrgloeg2cvr.jpg" width="175" height="266" alt="The intrepid League - cover to Vol II #2" align="right">by Michael Sangiacomo

It always cracks me up when people talk about comics as simplistic pap for feeble-minded fantasy lovers – or worse yet – aimed only at children, especially when compared with the New York Times bestsellers list.

The plots of typical bestsellers (John Grisham, Scott Turow, Stephen King) or almost any Hollywood movie or television show barely score as well as a typical mainstream comic. All shiver and fall to the side when compared to Alan Moore’s epic adventures of those Victorian era heroes The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

The League is so much more than a typical comic that it is almost a genre unto itself. It could be a college course, one that I would pay to attend. It’s not complicated for its own sake, like Grant Morrison’s Invisibles saga (that’s another column) but is beautifully, wonderfully complex. That’s pretty impressive considering I’m not a fan of KevinO’Neill’s angular art.

Just reading the story is a joy, but what Moore and artist Kevin O'Neill have included in the “margins” is unprecedented. Almost every background character, every piece of graffiti, every photograph on the wall, every piece of casual dialogue is a doorway into another piece of literature. The amount of research that Moore and O'Neill have done to produce this effect is staggering.

For the uninitiated, the League consists of five people brought together by British Intelligence for a mission of world-wide significance. The first six-issue series chronicled the league's battle to keep the anti-gravity substance ‘cavorite’ out of the hands of a very Fu-Manchu style Asian crimelord. The name "cavorite" is an homage to the character Prof. Cavor's, the scientist who devised a way to reach the moon in Jules Verne's 1865 novel, From the Earth to the Moon.

The league consists of: Wilhemina Murray, who fought Dracula as Mina Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula; Alan Quatermain, the hero of H. Rider Haggard's adventures, including King Solomon's Mines; Captain Nemo of Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea; Edward Hyde, from Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; and Hawley Griffin, better known to H.G. Wells readers as the Invisible Man.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Wildstorm/pic_lrgleagtwo4cvr.jpg" width="175" height="266" alt="cover to Vol II #4" align="left">The second series has the group facing off the larger threat of Martians from Wells' War of the Worlds. And don't assume everyone in the league is a good guy.

The series is peopled with rich characters like Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock's smarter brother; Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes' deadliest adversary; Campion Bond, perhaps an ancestor to Ian Fleming's famous spy, James Bond, and many more.

But those are the obvious ones, other characters from Victorian literature are all over the place, so many that it takes the power of the internet to scratch the surface.

Type "Alan Moore League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" into a search engine and look for Jess Nevins' masterful <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160/annos.html" target="_blank"> annotations</a> that point out the references panel by panel, issue by issue of the first series, and the first three issues of the second. Nevins has done so much research on teh League, and has pulled in so many references, that I'd bet he's forgotten more about great Victorian literature than many of us will ever know. Which of course, says nothing about Moore and O'Neill, and the insane level of detail that can be found in each issue.

When reading Nevins' annotations, be prepared to have your collection, or at least the trade paperback, on hand and follow along. For example, on page 29 of the first issue of the first series, there is an ad for "Rosa Coote's Correctional Academy for Wayward Gentlewomen." This is a reference to the Victorian erotic novel, The Yellow Room, which featured Rosa Coote.

One of the young girls being assaulted by the Invisible Man is Polly Whittier better known as Pollyana. Becky Randall, the title character of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, also appears as a student at the girl's school.

The references just go on and on. Printed out, there are dozens of pages about the series, including links to other sites that feature the sources from Victorian literature.

Anyone who has not yet read the series can pick up the first adventure collected as a trade paperback and the individual episodes of the second series have just begun. Don't let O'Neill's stylized art turn you off, the story is worth it.

Each comic includes lengthy text pieces that either further the story or offers background stories on the characters. This work is so good, the printed page is not enough to contain it.

Yep, sounds like kid's stuff to me.

[Clem Snide]

Can't wait for the next series of 'Classics Illustrated Team-Up', possibly even featuring The League of Extraordinary Pets: Moby Dick, Hound of The Baskervilles and the Crocodile out of 'Peter Pan'.

[Elayne Riggs]

[quote]Originally posted by Clem Snide:
<strong>Can't wait for the next series of 'Classics Illustrated Team-Up', possibly even featuring The League of Extraordinary Pets: Moby Dick, Hound of The Baskervilles and the Crocodile out of 'Peter Pan'.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I like you, you're thilly. :)

I liked this kind of story a little better back in 1996 when Caliber published The Searchers. Review <a href="http://www.soulmateproductions.com/Pages/Pen-Elayne/96-05-23.html#Anchor-TH-43134" target="_blank">here</a> if anyone's interested.

- Elayne

[Jess Nevins]

"This kind of story," Elayne?

What, you think Clayton & Dows invented the literate, and literary, crossover?

De gustibus, etc, of course, but your argument would be much better served by simply saying that you prefer Searchers to LoEG rather than pretending that Searchers was first to this genre of story. Which it wasn't.

[TTROY]

What she is probably implying is that this type of story could have been written by anyone else and not gotten any notice yet when Alan moore does it it gets recognition above and beyond what the other title did.---just for the fact that it is Alan Moore.

Having read the former title I have to agree with Elayne, it was done better the first time around.

[DarthRandall]

While I haven't read "The Searchers," I have read (and am reading) both League stories. I can respect your opinions, saying Searchers is better, but don't let it take away from what a great piece of work League is. Yeah, it probably wouldn't get this much attention if it wasn't Alan Moore, but if there's one writer of "mainstream" comics out there that deserves the attention, it's Moore. While some of his stuff today pales in comparison to his earlier work, it's books like League and Top 10 and Promethea that keep him viable in today's comic field. He's doing original work with unique ideas and not just putting his spin on "Superman" knockoffs or early Marvel comics anymore.

Phew. Sorry about that. I can rant sometimes. Anyway, I'm going on a "The Searchers" hunt (thanks for the heads up, folks), and don't knock League until you've tried it. It's a dense (in a good way) piece of work and will require at least 2 reads or some outside help like Michael suggests.

[csGuy]

[quote] The League is so much more than a typical comic that it is almost a genre unto itself. It could be a college course, one that I would pay to attend. <hr></blockquote>

Funny, I pay to attend ALL the courses I take at school. :D

[Taylor Porter]

[quote]Originally posted by Michael Sangiacomo:
<strong>
That’s pretty impressive considering I’m not a fan of Kevin O’Neill’s angular art....Don't let O'Neill's stylized art turn you off, the story is worth it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's funny, but that seems like a common complaint about this series, but I LOVE the art. I think O'Neill's great pencils are one of the reasons that I like the book so much, and his work on Volume II is even better than on the first. The coloring is real sharp, too. I can't imagine better art for this series.

[No-One]

GAH!

. The name "cavorite" is an homage to the character Prof. Cavor's, the scientist who devised a way to reach the moon in Jules Verne's 1865 novel, From the Earth to the Moon.

Cavor comes from H. G. Wells <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext97/fmitm10.txt">"The First Men in the Moon"</a>, which involves a voyage masterminded by a British scientist, Cavor, who has developed an anti-gravity metal he names Cavorite.

Jess Nevins' excellent annotations are <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160/annos.html">here</a>

[William Coate]

There are other people who have tried similar things. One that comes to mind is the television series Jules Verne's Secret Adventures.

I like every aspect of the League including the art and I am thankful that there is a series out there that is so intelligent. I am already looking forward to the next series!

William Coate

[Pariah]

I think the point of this story was Jess Nevin's annotations, which are amazing. I went through each issue following the notes on the website and it brought the story to a much higer level for me. I'm anxiously awaiting issue 4. Is Volume II only 6 issues long? It doesn't say anywhere it's a limited.

[The Blue Spider]

<Font color=blue>Could anyone tell me when the Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula novel was first published?</font>

[Franklin Harris]

Kim Newman similarly mixed Victorian literary characters (and historical figures) in his Anno Dracula novels.

[bravelybravesirrobin]

2000 Ad also used a simialr idea but with real people rather than literary characters, the comic was similarly angular in style and completely black and white and the characters were houdini, conan doyle, verne and soemone i'd never heard of versus egar allen poe. the title was something along the lines of Orgonauts, best strip i've seen in 2000 Ad for a long time but i only picked up 2 issues. any information would eb appreciated.

[Todd VerBeek]

[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Spider:
<strong>Could anyone tell me when the Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula novel was first published?</strong><hr></blockquote>

1978, by Loren D. Estleman, according to my research. Followed by Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Holmes the year after.

[J -]

"Don't let O'Neill's stylized art turn you off, the story is worth it."

so, you´re assuming of deciding all by yourself that o´neill´s art is a turn off just because you don´t like it? that seems rather intolerant

i am fan of mainstream artists like madureira, hitch, the kuberts, mcguiness, etc., but i also love o´neill´s art, there´s no one better to pencil league

[Kerouac]

[quote] It always cracks me up when people talk about comics as simplistic pap for feeble-minded fantasy lovers – or worse yet – aimed only at children, especially when compared with the New York Times bestsellers list. <hr></blockquote>

That might have something to do with the fact that the most high profile (read: best-selling) comics historically ARE simplistic pap for feeble-minded fantasy lovers. For Christ's sake, Spawn was in the top ten best-selling comics every month for how many years? The point I would've made is that nearly every artistic medium's best sellers are generally garbage (witness Eminem, Friends, and Sum of All Fears as examples of popular, yet utterly worthless, material in music, tv and movies). The League is a perfect example of how periodically (albeit rarely), something popular can have merit and value.

Matt

[Promethea]

There was a simiular article in Wizard last month, though this is much better. I always thought of LOEG as a Victorian 'Marvel' Universe: What would the world be like if Sherlock Holmes and Nemo really existed? Would senseabilites and technolgy be advanced (they are talking of going to the moon in Vol. 1)?

Speaking of Pap, What do any of you think the movie version will be like or will Hollywood screw up again?

[Elayne Riggs]

[quote]Originally posted by Jess Nevins:
<strong>"This kind of story," Elayne?

What, you think Clayton & Dows invented the literate, and literary, crossover?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nowhere did I say that, Jess. Just pointing out that Moore's treatment wasn't the first either.

Why the knee-jerk? Didn't get to do, and subsequently sell, any annotations for Searchers? :)

- Elayne

[Lestat de Lioncourt]

I first read Cracula and Frankenstein in my early teens. While everyone else was watching football and reading those crap adventure/game books. I should have read more victorian adventure novels but to my then-uninitiated mind I didn't know or realise of any.
I love LoEG Its one of the best comics around at the moment and I hope it continues for years to come. I would have adored to read this at 13 as well as 22. I want to add to everyones opinions and analyses' by saying that I think this is a great introduction, to comic fans and readers, of victorian literature. This is something I would have loved at 13, an introduction to all these wonderful characters. Something to pursue in my youthful readings.

[utiti77]

[quote]Originally posted by William Coate:
<strong>There are other people who have tried similar things. One that comes to mind is the television series Jules Verne's Secret Adventures. </strong><hr></blockquote>

The grandfather figure of all steampunk crossover fiction writers (for lack of a better term) is most certainly Philip José Farmer, who was one of the first to put many figures of Victorian pulp literature in the same shared universe, notably in his books Tarzan Alive, The Other Log of Phileas Fogg and Doc Savage : his apocalyptic life. Check out
<a href="http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Pulp.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pjfarmer.com/woldnewton/Pulp.htm</a>
for an expansion of what is now called "The Wold Newton Universe" : these well-read fellas are constantly trying to include all sorts of crossovers and team-ups in Farmer's basic chronology, excluding only fan fiction. Some of you might find it a little too anal, but it's good fun.

(There is, of course, other examples of crossing universes in 1890s literature, such as Jules Verne's The Ice Sphinx, which was a sequel to Edgar Poe's The Adventures of Arthur Gordon Pym, but nothing as ambitious as Farmer's shared universe).

Farmer is or was obviously an influence on Moore, as he mentioned his Tarzan Alive in the foreword to the original edition of The Dark Knight Returns. One might also note that in his legendary proporal "Twilight of the Super-Heroes", Moore expressed the desire to include Tarzan, The Shadow and Doc Savage in the DCU, hoping that they were in the public domain (they aren't).

You can see where people like Warren Ellis and many others draw their inspiration from (see The Planetary #1)...

u77

[Burke 0011]

Hell, I've liked O'Neill ever since way back on MARSHALL LAW!

[MattFreakinLittle]

[quote]Originally posted by Promethea:
<strong>Speaking of Pap, What do any of you think the movie version will be like or will Hollywood screw up again?</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you've been following the reports from the set, the director has next to no vision for this film and is apparently wandering aimlessly with setups and scenes. This is causing Connery to be extremely frustrated and not want a part of the movie.

So yeah, Hollywood screwed it up again.

[Tom Daylight]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>
It always cracks me up when people talk about comics as [...] aimed only at children, especially when compared with the New York Times bestsellers list.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not what you were telling us the other week when you were talking about that court case...

<strong>bravelybravesirrobin</strong>: that strip was called Necronauts :) It started at the end of 2000 which I think was after the first LoEG, but it was still great, most notably the fantastic artwork of Frazer Irving who I must say has only improved since then.

[Jeremy Henderson]

[quote]Originally posted by Promethea:
<strong>There was a simiular article in Wizard last month, though this is much better. I always thought of LOEG as a Victorian 'Marvel' Universe: What would the world be like if Sherlock Holmes and Nemo really existed? Would senseabilites and technolgy be advanced (they are talking of going to the moon in Vol. 1)?

Speaking of Pap, What do any of you think the movie version will be like or will Hollywood screw up again?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Did anyone here catch the stills of Mr. Hyde that a couple of sites published (and which were quickly ordered removed by the filmmakers). The words "unintentionally hilarious" came to mind when I saw them.

[Jeremy Henderson]

[quote]Originally posted by utiti77:
<strong>The grandfather figure of all steampunk crossover fiction writers (for lack of a better term) is most certainly Philip José Farmer, who was one of the first to put many figures of Victorian pulp literature in the same shared universe, notably in his books Tarzan Alive, The Other Log of Phileas Fogg and Doc Savage : his apocalyptic life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Long before even Farmer, John Kendrick Bangs wrote A Houseboat on the River Styx, which featured a variety of figures from history and literature, including Shakespeare, Confucius, King Solomon and Queen Elizabeth I gathering in the afterworld for adventures and conversation.

[mike sangiacomo]

Jess Nevins' excellent annotations are <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7160/annos.html">here</a>[/QB][/QUOTE]

mike sangiacomo here:
Thanks for the link to Jeff's site. You should all check itout when you've got a day or two to spare. Endlessly fascinating work.
M

[Stratus]

[quote]The League is a perfect example of how periodically (albeit rarely), something popular can have merit and value.<hr></blockquote>

And yet, the book really doesn't sell *that* well. It isn't by any means a best-seller in periodical or trade form (although I have little doubt it will be a consistent seller as the latter). It doesn't sell half of what X-Men or Transformers do.

It's only "popular" compared to other books of its type, just like Warren Ellis' recent launch of Global Frequency, despite selling only about 40,000 copies, is considered a huge success, even though the number one book sells 2.5 times more.

Regards,
Stratus

[frednanson]

Well, Kevin O'Neill is why I started reading this book. He's a wonderful artist with a distinctive yet beautiful style. He's PERFECT for this story: just look at Hyde!

[dollman]

[quote]Originally posted by MattFreakinLittle:
<strong>

If you've been following the reports from the set, the director has next to no vision for this film and is apparently wandering aimlessly with setups and scenes. This is causing Connery to be extremely frustrated and not want a part of the movie.

So yeah, Hollywood screwed it up again.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Which site did you get this info from? I've searched the web, but sites on the movie version have been few, and the sites that I've found have very limited info. I still haven't seen a picture of Connery as Alan Quartermain. The only photo I've seen is an image of the Nautalis –ØÊomics2films.com.

[Grendel Prime]

[quote]Originally posted by dollman:
<strong>Which site did you get this info from?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Entertainment Weekly did a big write-up about the film this week. I believe that the EW article is linked from the right-hand column of the Newsarama homepage.

[Duke Stratosphere]

[quote]Originally posted by Franklin Harris:
<strong>Kim Newman similarly mixed Victorian literary characters (and historical figures) in his Anno Dracula novels.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I highly recommend these books. I can't say that I'm an expert in the "genre" of "Victorian Crossover Novels" (what a horrible catagorization!) but Neuman's books were, IMHO, top-notch, for whatever that's worth. The books in question are:

Anno Dracula (as mentioned above)

The Bloody Red Baron

They describe a world where Van Helsing, et al failed to destroy Dracula, he ends up biting Queen Victoria (correct me if I'm wrong - my knowledge of who was monarch when is slim), vampires become the aristocracy, and the resulting fallout. Anno Dracula starts some time after these events happen. Check them out:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038072345X/qid=1038255002/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-8110532-2947217?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038072345X/qid=1038255002/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-8110532-2947217?v=glance&s=books</a>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380727145/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-8110532-2947217?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380727145/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-8110532-2947217?v=glance&s=books</a>

[Scott Chantler]

The art in LOEG is vastly superior to the majority of comic book art. Why? Aside from being just a splendid storyteller (something most comic artists pay lip service to without actually seeming to understand what it means), O'Neill's stuff doesn't look identical to everyone else's. It's actually got some character to it.

If it's true that comics fans are consistently voicing dissatisfaction with the art in LOEG, it just serves as further proof that comics fans wouldn't know quality if they tripped on it in the street.

[RDFozz]

[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Spider:
<strong><Font color=blue>Could anyone tell me when the Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula novel was first published?</font></strong><hr></blockquote>

Someone else responded to this, but the Holmes/Dracula story I was acquainted with was by Fred Saberhagen (originally published in 1978). For more information, you can go where I did:

<a href="http://www.berserker.com/FredsDracula.html" target="_blank">www.berserker.com/FredsDracula.html</a>

which is Saberhagen's web site; this page covers all his Dracula stories (most of which do not include Sherlock Holmes).

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by Matt Brady:
<strong>It always cracks me up when people talk about comics as simplistic pap for feeble-minded fantasy lovers – or worse yet – aimed only at children, especially when compared with the New York Times bestsellers list.

The plots of typical bestsellers (John Grisham, Scott Turow, Stephen King) or almost any Hollywood movie or television show barely score as well as a typical mainstream comic.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow: What a fanboy.

That's like saying that an inspirational Nike commercial elevates tv ads to art. No, it was just a good commercial.

Sure comics may have an occassional MAUS, or LOEG but guys, er I should say geeks, remember that almost ALL of the comics sold (and purchased by the readers here) are stories of men in skin tight costumes punching each other.

And saying that glorified wrestling matches compare to the New York Times Best Sellers is completely ridiculous and reveals how wide the gap is between the real world and the insular sweating smelly geek comic shop you all live in.

Let me close with this: I like comix, not all, but I read the occassional superhero slugfest--and sometimes enjoy it. And you can like something while still possessing the ability to see what you like for what it is.

I can enjoy a commercial but still realise that it is just a message designed to sell me a product. Same with a comic. Comics will always be escapist fare--EVEN when they endlessly reference Victorian literature.

It is only the geeks that seem to need to justify their spending habits.

Mike S, please get off the drugs or I will tell the pink elephants to get you.

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huzzah! You're back!

I was wondering where you'd been recently...

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by The Grim of Earth 2:
<strong>

Huzzah! You're back!

I was wondering where you'd been recently...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks GRIM, I've been spending too much time in the 'real' world.

[Roast Beef]

[quote]Originally posted by Jeremy Henderson:
<strong>

Long before even Farmer, John Kendrick Bangs wrote A Houseboat on the River Styx, which featured a variety of figures from history and literature, including Shakespeare, Confucius, King Solomon and Queen Elizabeth I gathering in the afterworld for adventures and conversation.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm certain this was the inspiration for the timeless classic "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey."

San Dimas High School football rules!

[William Coate]

It would seem to me Scott Chantler that the fans are not complaining about O'Neills art, only Mike Sangiacomo is complaining about it.

I feel that it is perfect for this series and it fits well with this concept and I would not want to see anyone else destroy such a great book.

Anyhow, that is my perception.

William Coate

[William Coate]

BLACKBRIAR you are a pathetic human being.

Just because people appreciate something in a different way, you criticize them for it, and somehow think your justified in doing so.

Sure EVERYTHING is an escape: movies, books, music, etc. At the same time there is an art to each of these categories that some of us can appreciate.

Can you see that? Are you that dull that you can't use your mind and think beyond the tights? You're the exact type of individual who uses assumptions to categorize something or someone.
"Hum Men in tights Must be Hum new comic book."

Gimme me a break. Just remain in the 'real' world because your comments are useless.

William Coate

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by William Coate:
<strong>BLACKBRIAR you are a pathetic human being.

Just because people appreciate something in a different way, you criticize them for it, and somehow think your justified in doing so.

Sure EVERYTHING is an escape: movies, books, music, etc. At the same time there is an art to each of these categories that some of us can appreciate.

Can you see that? Are you that dull that you can't use your mind and think beyond the tights? You're the exact type of individual who uses assumptions to categorize something or someone.
"Hum Men in tights Must be Hum new comic book."

Gimme me a break. Just remain in the 'real' world because your comments are useless.

William Coate</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think beyond men in tight everyday, can you? All one has to do for that is not read a comic book. That is why literature and films are superior media. They have more breath than comix will ever have. And no it is not enough to trot out MAUS every time you need to feel good about reading wrestling matches. Do the math: how much of comic output does MAUS rate. MAUS is statistically insignificant.

And LOEG is just begging for validation. It is just like Star trek the Next Generation when they had Data read Shakespeare. As if referencing classic literature somehow makes you mor evalid as a genre. Pathetic.

As for the emotional portion of your post: Claws in kitty. It sounds like someone desperately needs to justify spending $70 a month on men in tights.

Don't worry; not everyone thinks you're into guys.

Its called being an adult. If you like comics, you should at least be able to like them for what they are. You should be proud to buy them WITHOUT desperately trying to equate them to literature.

But you aren't and there is a big part of you dying to feel okay about spending all the money you do on comix.

And that's why my words stung you so.

Don't cry, baby--it'll be okay. You are drawn to men in tights. Say it.

[dollman]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
[QB]

Sure comics may have an occassional MAUS, or LOEG but guys, er I should say geeks, remember that almost ALL of the comics sold (and purchased by the readers here) are stories of men in skin tight costumes punching each other.

And saying that glorified wrestling matches compare to the New York Times Best Sellers is completely ridiculous and reveals how wide the gap is between the real world and the insular sweating smelly geek comic shop you all live in.

QB]<hr></blockquote>

I'm currently taking a pop culture course right now, and a discussion as to whether comics have are a true artform, now that it has become "popular" and mainstream due largely to the Spidey, Road to Perdition, X-Men movies. I made the argument that comics have always been a legitimate artform, just never popular. At least not in North America.

In Japan, comics are immensly popular, read by both genders and all ages. Why? Simply because they produce books that feature a wide variety of genres, not just men in tights.

That said, just because an artform is not popular doesn't necessarily mean it's crap. To compare comics to books on the New York's best seller's list is apples and oranges. Both should be enjoyed for what it is, and not compared, as they truly different mediums.

The fact that Hollywood is paying more attention to comics is nice, but really doesn't enhance the hobby anymore for true collectors. If anything, it allows fanboys to admit to being collectors without being snickered at by the hot blonde you're trying to impress. If anything, people like Kevin Smith and Ben Affleck have brought a level of respectability to the hobby, and that being a fanboy can be cool.

[William Coate]

It is interesting how the only way you feel good about yourself is my insulting anyone with a difference in opinion.

Assholes can be assholes and people are people. It's time you got over yourself and realize that it is easy to criticize anything.

I don't read superhero comics as much as you would like to believe and sure you insulted most people who read them and in fact everyone who creates them.

Comics have achieved a lot in the last ten years and there is a lot more then Maus out there. (And frankly I have never read Maus!)

Here is a list since you seem to be incompetent or aware of what comics have achieved:

From Hell
Road to Perdition
V for Vendetta
Invisibles
Bone
Akiko
Swamp Thing 21-64
Sandman
Starman
Hitman
Incredible Hulk 331-467
Peanuts
Danger Girl
Planetary
Jimmy Corrigan
Cerebus
Lone Wolf and Cub
Usagi Yojimbo
Groo
The Coffin
100 Bullets
League of Extraordinary Gentlmen volume 1
Books of Magic volume 1

Would you like me to continue?

Well there is a great deal of books out there. Some with superheroes and some without with great stories that have been better told compared to a hundred movies or a hundred books. If you can't see that then your just a hopeless case.

It is more likely that you aren't even interested in understanding. You seem to be simply interested in insulting an industry because it doesn't receive respect the way other industries do.

I suppose you wouldn't fit-in in Japan where comics literature is one of the biggest industries there is.

There is a lot we can talk about and I can go on and on but it would seem futile to deal with someone who has made up his or her mind about something.

Perhaps its time you got over yourself and realize that what you say isn't all that important.

William Coate

[John Osen]

"If it's true that comics fans are consistently voicing dissatisfaction with the art in LOEG, it just serves as further proof that comics fans wouldn't know quality if they tripped on it in the street."


"And saying that glorified wrestling matches compare to the New York Times Best Sellers is completely ridiculous and reveals how wide the gap is between the real world and the insular sweating smelly geek comic shop you all live in."

Am I the only one who sees the irony in where these gentlemen are reading and posting their opinions? I certainly hope not. :rolleyes: ;) :p

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by Andy Partridge:
<strong>"If it's true that comics fans are consistently voicing dissatisfaction with the art in LOEG, it just serves as further proof that comics fans wouldn't know quality if they tripped on it in the street."


"And saying that glorified wrestling matches compare to the New York Times Best Sellers is completely ridiculous and reveals how wide the gap is between the real world and the insular sweating smelly geek comic shop you all live in."

Am I the only one who sees the irony in where these gentlemen are reading and posting their opinions? I certainly hope not. :rolleyes: ;) :p </strong><hr></blockquote>

So you think talking about comics on a board about comics is ironic... Er...Okay.

Check your drinking water for lead buddy, or look up the word 'ironic' in the dictionary.

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>I think beyond men in tight everyday, can you? All one has to do for that is not read a comic book. That is why literature and films are superior media. They have more breath than comix will ever have. And no it is not enough to trot out MAUS every time you need to feel good about reading wrestling matches. Do the math: how much of comic output does MAUS rate. MAUS is statistically insignificant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's a straw man argument. The ratio of blockbusters to intelligent art-house movies is equally unbalanced as that of super-hero comics to non-super-hero... It doesn't mean that either minority market doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the majority market is all a medium can aspire to. To claim it does shows your limited thinking more than anything else.

Out of interest, I keep seeing you posting here in topics ABOUT superhero comics, claiming that you're above the fanboy mentality and can see further than the superhero genre... but YOU seem to be the one claiming that superheroes are all the medium can aspire to... Do you read non-superhero comics? If so, which ones? And if not, why not? Not to mention, why do you continue to read comics about a genre you seemingly dislike?

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Its called being an adult. If you like comics, you should at least be able to like them for what they are. You should be proud to buy them WITHOUT desperately trying to equate them to literature.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But some ARE literature, Briar, that's what you seem to be missing in your quest to equate comics with superheroes and superheroes with meaningless entertainment. I'm not claiming that the collected works of Scott Lobdell are equivalent to F. Scott Fitzgerald or anything, but I would make the claim that works like Mr. Punch, Eddie Campbell's Alec books, Hugo Tate, Palookaville and others are as artistically valid as literature as any prose published in the last ten years...

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Don't cry, baby--it'll be okay. You are drawn to men in tights. Say it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This from the man who gets upset when people dare to say that The Authority isn't the be-all and end-all of comics. Don't deny it, baby, we've all seen your strops on that subject a million times...

[Scott Chantler]

[quote]Am I the only one who sees the irony in where these gentlemen are reading and posting their opinions?<hr></blockquote>

I can't be the first person on the board to publicly scratch my head over some of the things that the comics community chooses to support (or chooses not to). No irony here...is there some sort of rule that says all posts in comic book forums must be pro-comics and pro-fan? Is so, I'm in the wrong place.

[William Coate]

No one ever said you didn't have a right to an opinion. But it is a bit odd to bitch and moan about an industry as a whole, not just on a particular book, not just on a particular creator and feel the need to completely state it's uselessness and continue to comment because the person feels it has not achieved any particular greatness in his or her eyes.

It's like a prostitute commenting on a surgeon's procedure and making recommendations to the surgeon because he or she feels she has the qualifications to do so.

While this analogy is an extreme my main point is why give a shit about something if you don't care about it at all. He or she calls its shit to read for the sake of wasting an hour away! Wup dee doo!

Anyone anywhere can say whatever the heck they want but please let's be intelligent about it. Yeah INTELLIGENT! Because KIDS don't read comics! Can you understand that? Do you get it?

That's the message. Get it through you slow dribble ass mind!

So maybe you should ask yourself, since you asked, if you don't give a damn about comics why even comment?

William Coate

[John Osen]

Scott Chantler
"If it's true that comics fans are consistently voicing dissatisfaction with the art in LOEG, it just serves as further proof that comics fans wouldn't know quality if they tripped on it in the street."

BLACKBRIAR
"And saying that glorified wrestling matches compare to the New York Times Best Sellers is completely ridiculous and reveals how wide the gap is between the real world and the insular sweating smelly geek comic shop you all live in."

Andy Partridge

Am I the only one who sees the irony in where these gentlemen are reading and posting their opinions? I certainly hope not.

BLACKBRIAR
So you think talking about comics on a board about comics is ironic... Er...Okay.

Check your drinking water for lead buddy, or look up the word 'ironic' in the dictionary.

Scott Chantler
No irony here.

The Grim of Earth 2

Out of interest, I keep seeing you posting here in topics ABOUT superhero comics, claiming that you're above the fanboy mentality and can see further than the superhero genre... but YOU seem to be the one claiming that superheroes are all the medium can aspire to... Do you read non-superhero comics? If so, which ones? And if not, why not? Not to mention, why do you continue to read comics about a genre you seemingly dislike?

William Coates

my main point is why give a shit about something if you don't care about it at all. He or she calls its shit to read for the sake of wasting an hour away! Wup dee doo!

Anyone anywhere can say whatever the heck they want but please let's be intelligent about it. Yeah INTELLIGENT! Because KIDS don't read comics! Can you understand that? Do you get it?

That's the message. Get it through you slow dribble ass mind!

So maybe you should ask yourself, since you asked, if you don't give a damn about comics why even comment?

Andy Partridge

The irony here (as my articulate friends The Grim of Earth 2 and William Coates point out) is you gentlemen are making negative comments about comic fans, and not only do you read comics, and comics websites, but you even take the time to post messages on comics message boards. You sure sound like comic fans to me. :rolleyes: :p

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by Scott Chantler:
<strong>

I can't be the first person on the board to publicly scratch my head over some of the things that the comics community chooses to support (or chooses not to). No irony here...is there some sort of rule that says all posts in comic book forums must be pro-comics and pro-fan? Is so, I'm in the wrong place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the intelligent response. They are sure rare here.

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by The Grim of Earth 2:
<strong>
That's a straw man argument. The ratio of blockbusters to intelligent art-house movies is equally unbalanced as that of super-hero comics to non-super-hero... It doesn't mean that either minority market doesn't exist, nor does it mean that the majority market is all a medium can aspire to. To claim it does shows your limited thinking more than anything else.

Out of interest, I keep seeing you posting here in topics ABOUT superhero comics, claiming that you're above the fanboy mentality and can see further than the superhero genre... but YOU seem to be the one claiming that superheroes are all the medium can aspire to... Do you read non-superhero comics? If so, which ones? And if not, why not? Not to mention, why do you continue to read comics about a genre you seemingly dislike?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You have seriously misread my posts above. REPEAT for the slow: I don't need to see comic books as "art" or "literature" in order to enjoy them. I don't need to see them as a higher form of entertainment like some men in their thirties who have to justify to themselves spending $70 a month on stories featuring men in skin tight costumes punching each other. (But you keep up the fight guy.)

As much as you'd like to, you can't really compare comix to movies, simply because most comic book stories are serialized in nature (they don't really end).

Higher forms of entertainment, or what we call art, are finite in nature. The story has a beginning middle and end--and recognizes the lifecycle of human beings.

Comix do NOT do that.

Comics are more analygous to TV and if you compare TV to comix there is not just one predominant type of TV show. There are dramas, comdey, sports, variety shows, etc, etc, etc. Comix have superheroes (where the stories HAVE to revolve around a fight of some sort with some melodrama for filler). There are a couple of other types of stories in comix that DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to the industry financially. Therefore, parade MAUS or GHOSTWORLD whatever the indie book that everyone touts to prove the legitimacy of comix to "the real world"--BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY NO ONE HAS REALLY READ--comix are really about Batman and/or Spiderman (who star in how many books a month?)

This is why they are a low(er) form of entertainment. They have no breadth.

[quote]Originally posted by The Grim of Earth 2:
<strong>But some ARE literature, Briar, that's what you seem to be missing in your quest to equate comics with superheroes and superheroes with meaningless entertainment. I'm not claiming that the collected works of Scott Lobdell are equivalent to F. Scott Fitzgerald or anything, but I would make the claim that works like Mr. Punch, Eddie Campbell's Alec books, Hugo Tate, Palookaville and others are as artistically valid as literature as any prose published in the last ten years...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, how many comix fans, let alone the real world dwellers, have read those? Face it: the industry does NOT support diversity.

And again pizza flyers could also qualify as "literature" under your VERY broad definition.

If you extend the category that wide, what is the point of having it?

[quote]Originally posted by The Grim of Earth 2:
<strong>This from the man who gets upset when people dare to say that The Authority isn't the be-all and end-all of comics. Don't deny it, baby, we've all seen your strops on that subject a million times...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then why did you bring it up?

Those words above are your feeble attmepts to wedge my argument into your narrow comic bookish black and white worldview.

Man, you look seriosuly lame trying the rehash that Authority stuff here. Get a grip.

I was incredibly nice and answered your posts, treating you like an adult. Now be a man and let it go and stop acting so lame, or I will not respond.

[John Osen]

BLACKBRIAR lose the caps lock. :rolleyes: :p

[Taylor Porter]

I've tried not to get involved, but I've got a few things to say about this one:

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>
As much as you'd like to, you can't really compare comix to movies, simply because most comic book stories are serialized in nature (they don't really end).
Higher forms of entertainment, or what we call art, are finite in nature. The story has a beginning middle and end--and recognizes the lifecycle of human beings.
Comix do NOT do that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, as you say, MOST don't, but some do. Don't the finite comics (like Maus) then count as "higher entertainment," as "art"? Also, there are those who would object to your definition of art. I, for one, am one of those guys who thinks that the word "art" contains no value judgments. Yeah, Shakespeare is better than Scott Lobdell, but they both make art. I'm not trying to change your mind, you're more than welcome to feel differently about that, I just don't want you to imply that your definition of art is the only acceptable one.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>And again pizza flyers could also qualify as "literature" under your VERY broad definition.
If you extend the category that wide, what is the point of having it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

My dictionary defines literature as any written work. I don't see how quality makes a difference in what we call it. Again, I understand that you disagree, I'm just making clear that yours is not the only way of defining what literature is.

I don't think that considering comics to be art or literature is desperate or pathetic, as you've said. I'm not using Maus to justify spending $70 dollars a month on men in tights fighting either (since I spend 0 dollars in the average month on any comics). I just think that comics can be really good, and can have a lot of breadth, and can be "high art" (although I don't generally like to make a distinction between "high" and "low"). If you disagree, then that's fine, and I won't argue with that. I just don't like how you call those who disagree with you pathetic and desperate.

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>I don't need to see comic books as "art" or "literature" in order to enjoy them. I don't need to see them as a higher form of entertainment like some men in their thirties who have to justify to themselves spending $70 a month on stories featuring men in skin tight costumes punching each other. (But you keep up the fight guy.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

One more time for the hard of thinking: Comics are not just superheroes. There is more to the medium than one genre, as much as you try hard to ignore or disbelieve that fact. So far, you're the only one here who seems to think that superheroes are all comics can be.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>As much as you'd like to, you can't really compare comix to movies, simply because most comic book stories are serialized in nature (they don't really end).

Higher forms of entertainment, or what we call art, are finite in nature. The story has a beginning middle and end--and recognizes the lifecycle of human beings.

Comix do NOT do that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, apart from all the finite ones. You know, the non-franchise non-superhero ones. The ones you seem to want to pretend don't exist.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Comics are more analygous to TV and if you compare TV to comix there is not just one predominant type of TV show. There are dramas, comdey, sports, variety shows, etc, etc, etc. Comix have superheroes (where the stories HAVE to revolve around a fight of some sort with some melodrama for filler). There are a couple of other types of stories in comix that DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to the industry financially. Therefore, parade MAUS or GHOSTWORLD whatever the indie book that everyone touts to prove the legitimacy of comix to "the real world"--BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY NO ONE HAS REALLY READ--comix are really about Batman and/or Spiderman (who star in how many books a month?)

This is why they are a low(er) form of entertainment. They have no breadth.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is another pointless argument with you; comics DO have breadth. Does the market make the non-superhero comics hard to find and unlikely to survive or be successful? Yes. But does that mean they don't exist? No. Does that mean that "no one" has read them? Um... no. Perhaps the fanboys you hang around with haven't, but there is a readership out there for Daniel Clowes's work, or Chris Ware's, for example.

This idea of yours that whatever sells the greatest defines the medium is so wrong, it's stunning. Going by your rules, all music is Britney Spears. All television (to use your analogy) is American Idol. All movies are Lord of The Rings. As we all know, that's not the case. And if you tried to convince people that it is, they'd laugh in your face.

But hey, you stick with your narrow preconceptions if it makes you feel better. Whatever works for you.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>I was incredibly nice and answered your posts, treating you like an adult. Now be a man and let it go and stop acting so lame, or I will not respond.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is this where you start losing an argument and go away in a huff claiming "You don't understand me and aren't worth my time, so I'm not going to respond!" like you normally do?

[dollman]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>

Comics are more analygous to TV and if you compare TV to comix there is not just one predominant type of TV show. There are dramas, comdey, sports, variety shows, etc, etc, etc. Comix have superheroes (where the stories HAVE to revolve around a fight of some sort with some melodrama for filler). There are a couple of other types of stories in comix that DO NOT SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to the industry financially. Therefore, parade MAUS or GHOSTWORLD whatever the indie book that everyone touts to prove the legitimacy of comix to "the real world"--BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY NO ONE HAS REALLY READ--comix are really about Batman and/or Spiderman (who star in how many books a month?)

This is why they are a low(er) form of entertainment. They have no breadth.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


To quote Homer Simpson: "Don't you ever, EVER talk that way about television."

But Briar, why would you equate comics and tv to lower forms of entertainment when compared to novels? Are you implying that a typical Harlequin Romance novel is superior to comics?

As you correctly pointed out, because comics and tv are serialized in nature, only rarely do we get gems that can be considered art.

Again, I don't see Matt's comparison of LEOG to what's on the New York Best Sellers list is meant to imply that comics are superior to printed text. Nor did I interpret it as justification for fanboys to waste their $70 bucks a week. It was merely to illustrate that LEOG is probably better reading than most of what's selling on the NY list.

Forgive the cliche, but art is always in the eye of the beholder. When Shakespeare wrote his plays, he didn't set out with the intent to create text that would survive the ages. He wrote for the masses, to entertain, and to make a buck or two. And really, if one seriously looks at the plotlines of Much Ado About Nothing and 12th Night, they're as improbable as men in tights!

Again, this is not suggest that comics and tv are superior to novels. But they're definitely not a LOWER artform as you suggest. Now NASCAR racing on the other hand...

[BLACKBRIAR]

[quote]Originally posted by The Grim of Earth 2:
<strong>

Is this where you start losing an argument and go away in a huff claiming "You don't understand me and aren't worth my time, so I'm not going to respond!" like you normally do?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I will stop responding to you for the following reasons: 1) I never saw this as a "win" or lose proposition. You clearly do, which means you have the mentality of a kid in grade three (and I believe I have even requested that you act your age). 2) You continue to demonstrate that you cannot let go of the past. 3) You have started to stalk me around the Newsarama boards again (how tiring) And most importantly 4) I have restated my thoughts once already and you will not listen. Moreover you continually need to simplify what I say to some silly comic book dichotomy.

Let me clarify for you, slowbo. I come to these boards to have a little fun, talk about comix, and see what is up with the online community. I am not here for losers who are only here to mantain a grudge. That is a waste of my time.

But if you need to feel that you have "won" then fine.

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>

I will stop responding to you for the following reasons: 1) I never saw this as a "win" or lose proposition. You clearly do, which means you have the mentality of a kid in grade three (and I believe I have even requested that you act your age). 2) You continue to demonstrate that you cannot let go of the past. 3) You have started to stalk me around the Newsarama boards again (how tiring) And most importantly 4) I have restated my thoughts once already and you will not listen. Moreover you continually need to simplify what I say to some silly comic book dichotomy.

Let me clarify for you, slowbo. I come to these boards to have a little fun, talk about comix, and see what is up with the online community. I am not here for losers who are only here to mantain a grudge. That is a waste of my time.

But if you need to feel that you have "won" then fine.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ahhh... Classic Briar. I knew something had been lacking from these boards recently. I'd love to know how my comments reduced yours to a "silly comic book dichotomy", but sadly you're no longer responding to me...

[William Coate]

I think what you fail to see Briar is that there is more to comics than you wish to recognize and somehow think that anyone who can enjoy this genre is somehow wasting there time. I believe if you read any of the comments above you will see an very intelligent expression of what comics mean to other people.

I certainly get frustrated quite easily when individuals like yourself make judgements and create definitions for comics. Comics have been expanding and, essentially, it is still in its early form compared to other forms of entertainment. Art comes out of the passions of people trying to explore these forms of entertainment. It is a struggle and comics are getting there. Read Kabuki or Leave it to Chance and you will see that comics have come a long way.

I hope you can consider how much comics have changed and stop demeaning and defining it for other people.

You see it as a lower form of entertainment, okay! Do we need to know? I really don't think so.

William Coate

[BLACKBRIAR]

Hey thanks for the well thought out posts. It is no coincidence that the heavy mental lifting comes form Canadians.

[quote]Originally posted by TaylorPorter:
<strong>
Well, as you say, MOST don't, but some do. Don't the finite comics (like Maus) then count as "higher entertainment," as "art"? Also, there are those who would object to your definition of art. I, for one, am one of those guys who thinks that the word "art" contains no value judgments. Yeah, Shakespeare is better than Scott Lobdell, but they both make art. I'm not trying to change your mind, you're more than welcome to feel differently about that, I just don't want you to imply that your definition of art is the only acceptable one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) If art contains no value judgements then everything is considered art, froma child's drawing to me walking to the store and buying milk.

2) You followed your claim that art has no judgements with a judgement: Shakespeare is better than Lobdell.

Even if I accept your "art is everything" argument, there is still an inherent heirarchy in art. Some art is made to speak DIRECTLY to the viewer, an impressionist painting for example. Comics if they are to effect the reader on that profound level can only do it AFTER the fight scene and the outlandish (unreal) costume display.

Comics are more about the trappings of the genre (fistfights, melodrama, costumes) than communicating with their audicne on a profound level. Much like ads*, which can ressemble higher forms of art (if art is everything) comic must satisfy their conventions before they can do anytihng else--which leave little room to affect the audience like a higher form of art which does not have a split purpose. (*Ads must contain the convention of selling a product and the "art" comes after. Same with comics.)

[quote]Originally posted by TaylorPorter:
<strong> My dictionary defines literature as any written work. I don't see how quality makes a difference in what we call it. Again, I understand that you disagree, I'm just making clear that yours is not the only way of defining what literature is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I dealt with this point in my above text.

[quote]Originally posted by TaylorPorter:
<strong> I don't think that considering comics to be art or literature is desperate or pathetic, as you've said. I'm not using Maus to justify spending $70 dollars a month on men in tights fighting either (since I spend 0 dollars in the average month on any comics). I just think that comics can be really good, and can have a lot of breadth, and can be "high art" (although I don't generally like to make a distinction between "high" and "low"). If you disagree, then that's fine, and I won't argue with that. I just don't like how you call those who disagree with you pathetic and desperate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wasn't calling you desperate or pathetic, but there are A LOT of comic readers out there and on these boards that desperately NEED the blockbuster movie SPIDERMAN to feel good about reading comics. There are a lot of guys, like Mike S, who NEED to point out that LOEG endless references Victorian literature to feel GOOD about spending $70 a month on this stuff, when LOEG is a small drop in the bucket in the comics marketplace.

If someone from the 'real world' actually read LOEG-- and liked it --and then went into a comic shop for more, they wouldn't be able to find much else as "good" to read--because comics in reality are not about producing LOEG, they are REALLY about creating Batman VS the Joker this month. This is my point.

So holding up LOEG as the reason for people to stop sniggering at the expense of comix (and by extension their fans) is a serious red herring. And to me that is desperate.

[Graeme McMillan]

Some things are too hard to just let go without comment...

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>1) If art contains no value judgements then everything is considered art, froma child's drawing to me walking to the store and buying milk.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Of course, the history of art is littered with people who'd agree with this definition from Duchamp through DeBord and Hirst, Lucas and especially Tracey Emin... It's not as if this idea is a new one, by any means, nor is it an invalid one.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Even if I accept your "art is everything" argument, there is still an inherent heirarchy in art.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why? That logic doesn't follow. Can anyone explain why there "has" to be an "inherent" heirarchy in art?

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Comics are more about the trappings of the genre (fistfights, melodrama, costumes) than communicating with their audicne on a profound level. Much like ads*, which can ressemble higher forms of art (if art is everything) comic must satisfy their conventions before they can do anytihng else--which leave little room to affect the audience like a higher form of art which does not have a split purpose. (*Ads must contain the convention of selling a product and the "art" comes after. Same with comics.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

First off, you are again making the mistake that many have pointed out on this thread: Mistaking superhero comics for ALL comics. Secondly, there are superhero comics that aren't "more about the trappings of the genre... than communicating with the audience on a profound level". Perhaps you aren't seeing the profound level, but that doesn't mean that it's not there in works like Flex Mentallo, Doom Patrol, Animal Man or Watchmen, off the top of my head for example.

Interesting that you think that comics have a "split purpose" of satisfying genre trappings and fulfilling a "higher" aesthetic purpose, but also think that "higher forms of art" - in which you include prose fiction and movies, going on previous posts in this thread - don't have this dichotomy... It suggests that you personally have very narrow fixed ideas of not just comics, but many forms of media and artistic expression...

It's also interesting that you continually disdain superhero comics as "men in tights", "mindless slugfests" and "a low(er) form of entertainment" which has "no breadth" and so on and so on, insult those who openly enjoy the books with various (often homophobic) comments, and yet, claim that comics = superheroes and announce yourself as a comics fan. Using your logic, that makes you a fan of superhero books, which leaves you open to all of the insults you've used on others. There's kind of a self-loathing thing going on with you, isn't there?

[BLACKBRIAR]

Again thanks for the intelligent addition to this dialogue. its really what makes my time here worth it.

[quote]Originally posted by dollman:
<strong>To quote Homer Simpson: "Don't you ever, EVER talk that way about television."

But Briar, why would you equate comics and tv to lower forms of entertainment when compared to novels? Are you implying that a typical Harlequin Romance novel is superior to comics?</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a great point I couldn't work into my previous posts. Romance novels are just one genre in books. I think comics are equivalent to romance novels (BUT NOT equivalent to books). Both romance novels and comics are signified by the umbrella of their content: romance novels by "love" and comics by "action/conflict".

So at best comics are a subgenre. They are subservient to wider and higher forms of art like books, which can have multiple forms, non-fiction, fiction, etc.)

[quote]Originally posted by dollman:
<strong>As you correctly pointed out, because comics and tv are serialized in nature, only rarely do we get gems that can be considered art.

Again, I don't see Matt's comparison of LEOG to what's on the New York Best Sellers list is meant to imply that comics are superior to printed text. Nor did I interpret it as justification for fanboys to waste their $70 bucks a week. It was merely to illustrate that LEOG is probably better reading than most of what's selling on the NY list.

Forgive the cliche, but art is always in the eye of the beholder. When Shakespeare wrote his plays, he didn't set out with the intent to create text that would survive the ages. He wrote for the masses, to entertain, and to make a buck or two. And really, if one seriously looks at the plotlines of Much Ado About Nothing and 12th Night, they're as improbable as men in tights!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I cannot disagree with you more.

Shakespeare was the Bruckhiemer of his time, crafting stories that could appeal to the widest possible audience.

American comics on the other hand are written to appeal to a select group of dwindling fans. Comics are written --and priced-- for thirty year old white men. There are no credible comics for women, or people of other ethnicities, creeds, nor sexual orientations.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And please read my response above this one for my views on the "everything is art" idea.

[quote]Originally posted by dollman:
<strong>Again, this is not suggest that comics and tv are superior to novels. But they're definitely not a LOWER artform as you suggest. Now NASCAR racing on the other hand...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can see what you and TaylorPorter are trying to say: that comics have the potential for bigger greater stories. And here I would agree, HOWEVER we need to remember that as it stands in reality, comics right now are about skin tight costumed wrestling matches.

And the desperate geeks who need to feel good about liking those types of stories DO NOT get to use LOEG to make themselves feel better about reading SPIDERMAN. And this is the truth, these guys are NOT reading GHOSTWORLD, these guys are NOT reading BONE or even SiP, they are reading BATMAN and all its ancilliary titles.

The sales speak volumes.

Until these guys actually support these types of genre stretching comics, they can't hold up LOEG to legitimize the "art" form --and quite frankly they deserve to feel bad about supporting trademark-maintaining crap like the Superman family.

[Taylor Porter]

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>Hey thanks for the well thought out posts. It is no coincidence that the heavy mental lifting comes form Canadians. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Your welcome. And thanks for noticing.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>If art contains no value judgements then everything is considered art, froma child's drawing to me walking to the store and buying milk. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, okay. I'm fine with that.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>You followed your claim that art has no judgements with a judgement: Shakespeare is better than Lobdell.
Even if I accept your "art is everything" argument, there is still an inherent heirarchy in art. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I made the judgment for myself. I meant that the definition of art does not inherently state that Shakespeare is better than Lobdell. There's probably folks who dig Lobdell more, and that works fine. There is a line between high and low art, but it's for the individual to decide where it goes. I'm just afraid that you're criticizing others for drawing the line at a different spot. You don't consider, say, Batman to be literature. I won't argue with your decision, although I disagree. We've drawn the line at different spots, and that's what makes people different. I just wouldn't want you to call me pathetic because I do consider Batman to be literature.

I think issues like "is this art?" are something that each person has to discover for himself. I don't think there is anything inherent in the idea of "art" that states that Shakespeare is better than Lobdell, that's just a decision I've made for myself. If you disagree, that's fine; I just hope you won't criticize me for having a different definition of "art" than you do.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>I wasn't calling you desperate or pathetic....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, I appreciate that, but it seemed like you were lumping all those folks who have a different viewpoint on what literature is in the same category.

[quote]Originally posted by BLACKBRIAR:
<strong>
So holding up LOEG as the reason for people to stop sniggering at the expense of comix (and by extension their fans) is a serious red herring. And to me is desperate.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would agree that using LoEG to justify the stupidity of most mainstream comics is lame. But some just think of it as a good book, one that shows how good comics can be. That is our point. I don't use it to defend bad comics, I just really like the book. I would call it good, high literture. That's all.

[William Coate]

I suppose in the end people will continue to disrespect comics because it is an easy victim for people like Briar who don't see the potential that it has.

Briar has passed judgement allowing others to beleive the same thing and essentially are one of those people responsible for comics to be specialized and never grow. (One day it will grow beyond anything you ever imagined!)

Did you ever think that the reason comics is not surviving is the misconceptions that are perceived by people like you?

Industries survive based on the consumers who purchase the product. Comic book companies can only respond to those who actually buy the books.

People like you have allowed the superhero genre to eclipse all other genres because of your attitude and misinterpretation of the industry.

There are NO new readers because of your stereotypes and that is the REAL tragedy.

William Coate

[Graeme McMillan]

Appropos of somethings, this appeared on Evan (Milk and Cheese, Dork, Batman and Superman Adventures, some other stuff) Dorkin's website yesterday. Seemed appropriate here, for some reason:

"Okay, sure, there's a lot of good, fun and interesting comics listed in [Previews], but it's buried under so much lamebrained Eltingville nonsense, crass t&a and inept design work that the phone book-sized mess always manages to make me question why I'm in this business (the same thing happens when I go to my accountant in April). It just comes off like a garish Sear's wishbook for inept fanboys too scared or clueless to find honest-to-gosh pornography, and the fact that this is the basic representation of what comics are all about just makes my blood go cold. And it's no wonder that everybody confuses the medium for a genre with all those airbrushed van paintings for semi-literate male power fantasies. Hey, did you know Spider-Man's hot? No? Well, thank god they've put him on the cover again, or else no one would ever know that Spider-man is HOT! I sure hope Batman's on the next cover, because retailers might forget about Batman if he isn't on the cover three or four times a year... hell, everyone knows I don't have a problem with super-goofs per se, just with the slavish devotion given to the material, to the point where comics = superheroes in far too many people minds (non-comics readers in particular)."

[Graeme McMillan]

[quote]Originally posted by TaylorPorter:
<strong>I would agree that using LoEG to justify the stupidity of most mainstream comics is lame. But some just think of it as a good book, one that shows how good comics can be. That is our point. I don't use it to defend bad comics, I just really like the book. I would call it good, high literture. That's all.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The interesting thing here is, no-one prior to Blackbriar commented on LOEG being used to justify bad comics, just as an example of, as you can say, "how good comics can be"... It's only Briar who thinks that the latter automatically implies the former...