I want to clarify something as to my "relationship" with comic book auteur, armchair philosopher, and alleged misogynist, Dave Sim:
I've met a veritable assload of "celebrities" in my thus short life and even had the honor and privilege of working with a (very) few, but absolutely none are on my speed-dial. In fact, I am absolutely certain that few, if any, would even know who the hell I am by name or face (well, some might recognize my face or name independent of one another, but not be able to place me). It's the nature of entertainment when you are a bottom-rung kind of wannabe, and I don't just admit that, I wear it as a badge! Maybe one day I, too, will attain the status of some of the luminaries I've met, but honestly, few of them remain as luminescent today as they were when I met them and probably aren't even considered "celebrities" by some. That, too, is the nature of the field, but I am no less honored to have met them and love to... I guess it's "brag" about these encounters, but "name-drop" is the preferred terminology.
I've met - shortlist - Motley Crue, Anthrax, Cannibal Corpse, Megadeth, BB King, Billy Gibbons (ZZ Top), Mindless Self Indulgence, Van Halen, I fucking knew Saliva (they lived down the street, not far from Justin Timberlake, in fact [who was literally just a kid no one knew at the time]), 666 Mafia, and a list of country stars, comic book artists, writers, and creators, and RPG designers so long, I couldn't even begin to name them! Dave Sim was one of these.
I hung-out with some of these cats, actually worked with a few of them, some of them taught classes/courses I took, and more than a few were just fly-by-night, meet-and-greets backstage, in clubs, et.al. But Dave Sim is a special case:
Dave Sim was a frequent guest at many Mid-South Cons held in Memphis, TN in the late 1980s. I'm a proud Marvel Zombie, so I hadn't the faintest notion who the fuck Dave Sim was, but he walked, talked, and acted like a rock star - and quite a few people treated him as such - so I was obviously drawn to him.
Dave Sim spent an entire weekend at one of these conventions, going over my "portfolio" and drawing over it. Not in an ugly, unwelcome way; in a, "This line needs more strength because it's the Lead Line" way that every kid - and I was an actual child, all of maybe 10 at the time - who is dead-set on becoming a comics artist and writer should experience. I will never in my life forget that and I still have the pictures to prove it.
Through these conventions, I met a die-hard Dave Sim fan who was a Cerebus subscriber and frequent opiner in its pages. He and Sim developed an actual relationship and Sim often sent him tracings, small arts, and actual letters. That guy's name is Jimmy James (no, really) and he had his own, independent comic for a few years. One year, we paid for Dave Sim's lunch. Jimmy James put me up many times over the years and I did some work with him and his comic here and there (mostly outside of the published work - breakdowns, thumbs, etc.) and it was at his house where I first became a true fan of Sim's work through the Cerebus phonebooks, of which Jimmy had all, long after I'd met the guy and even bought him lunch!
Dave Sim is a genius in the comic book field and I'm honored as hell to have that story to share and to have had that experience.
So, when I say I "know" this person or that, I don't mean I fucked them; I "know" a lot of people the very way a lot of people "know" me - in fact, much the way that you "know" me. And I think that's fine to say and I don't think such people mind it.
Still, Sim is a controversial personality with whose views I often disagree and, just like Sim - perhaps even because of his meager tutelage (heh) - I, too, can be vociferous in my responses. Sometimes, this results in... personal slights and, basically, "insults" which are never truly meant personally. When I tone-down my thoughts and responses, I tend to ramble and apologize and no one wants to read that wishy-washy shit.
For those who demand "honesty" and "transparency" and all that horseshit, I've a very simple rule to teach you - and it's the most important one you will ever learn, certainly from me: it's fucking "showbusiness," kids. I've worked with people with whom I cannot stand to be in the same room and it's gone over like gangbusters... I can truly say, in one specific case, some of my best work (in that field) was done with one such person.
It's just entertainment, it's only rock n roll, and they're just funnybooks, gentlemen. I certainly don't mind it if you say you "know" me... though I can't fathom why anyone would and I seriously doubt any of this will ever get you laid.
And that, really, is what it's all about - no?
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
A rambling melange of pop-culture.
Showing posts with label dave sim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dave sim. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Spawn #10 (Cerebus) to be Reprinted After 15 Years!
 |
| Spawn #10 |
"It hasn't been reprinted since it first came out," SPAWN #10 writer and CEREBUS creator, Dave Sim, said. "I'm very glad that's all over with after 14 years. Todd sent me black and white scans of Spawn 10 which will be published in a Cerebus Miscellany volume someday and, hopefully, Spawn 10 will be included in any and all future collections if the Toddmiester decides to make that official McFarlane policy."
The SPAWN ORIGINS COLLECTION: DELUXE EDITION VOL. 1 HC features the artwork of Todd McFarlane, which laid the groundwork for the most successful independent comic book ever published. This limited edition hardcover includes classic SPAWN stories written by Sim, Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, and McFarlane himself in one massive, slipcase collection. It will mark the first time Sim and McFarlane's collaboration has seen print since it first appeared in 1994!
SPAWN ORIGINS COLLECTION: DELUXE EDITION VOL. 1 HC (SEP090283), a 620-page full-color hardcover for $100 will be in-stores soon. A signed and numbered edition (SEP090284) will also be available for $150. Cerebus is ™ and © 2009 Dave Sim.
© C Harris Lynn, 2009
Monday, July 16, 2007
Prince Circumvents Industry
One of the things that always vexed me about the music industry was just that: the industry. No matter what some people will tell you or hope to get you to believe, the actual talent - the people who actually play, write, and perform the music - are not paid that well. Sure, they get residuals and tend to party a lot of it away, but most musicians have to pay for studio time, recording, video shoots, production, and much more - things the typical consumer does not realize.
Further, the industry manufactures CDs and DVDs for as little as $0.25 per unit and sells them for... slightly more.
So Prince got with the UK-based newspaper, The Mail, and worked out a deal for them to print and distribute his new CD with their Sunday paper. This has angered British shop owners, who have said they will not carry the new CD in their stores. Further, the CD has been uploaded and is now widely-available online.
The entire affair has upset the whole industry, with Sony spokespeople, record shop owners, and other industry people criticizing Prince’s "direct marketing" tactics. In fact, it reminds me very much of the old Diamond vs. Dave Sim debacle; it’s literally the same situation: the artist circumventing the established industry entirely, getting the product directly into the fans’ hands without need for distribution companies to get involved.
And that pisses the bean-counters right off!
Now don’t get me wrong; there is a place in the industry for lawyers and businessmen - but only because, until very recently, someone had to deal with the other lawyers and businessmen. But the Internet, along with grassroots, guerilla-style marketing, has pretty much set that part of the industry on its ear. Of course, in time, the Internet will take on a more commercial model - it has already started to in the way of advertising, promotion, and similar concerns. There are so many websites and so many self-proclaimed "artists" trying to make their careers online, that you really need to either hire someone to cover your promotional and marketing concerns or learn to be a bean-counter yourself.
On the other hand, for an established artist such as Prince, an exclusive website featuring his work could really be a threat to the industry. Stephen King tried this idea many years ago, with a serialized story called The Plant, but it didn’t go far. Of course, the Internet as we know it today was really only in its infancy then, and things are completely different today.
My main concern here is the idea that the industry uses to retard this development: that they have the power and technology to ensure the talent gets paid for every unit sold. Because they don’t!
Further, the industry manufactures CDs and DVDs for as little as $0.25 per unit and sells them for... slightly more.
So Prince got with the UK-based newspaper, The Mail, and worked out a deal for them to print and distribute his new CD with their Sunday paper. This has angered British shop owners, who have said they will not carry the new CD in their stores. Further, the CD has been uploaded and is now widely-available online.
The entire affair has upset the whole industry, with Sony spokespeople, record shop owners, and other industry people criticizing Prince’s "direct marketing" tactics. In fact, it reminds me very much of the old Diamond vs. Dave Sim debacle; it’s literally the same situation: the artist circumventing the established industry entirely, getting the product directly into the fans’ hands without need for distribution companies to get involved.
And that pisses the bean-counters right off!
Now don’t get me wrong; there is a place in the industry for lawyers and businessmen - but only because, until very recently, someone had to deal with the other lawyers and businessmen. But the Internet, along with grassroots, guerilla-style marketing, has pretty much set that part of the industry on its ear. Of course, in time, the Internet will take on a more commercial model - it has already started to in the way of advertising, promotion, and similar concerns. There are so many websites and so many self-proclaimed "artists" trying to make their careers online, that you really need to either hire someone to cover your promotional and marketing concerns or learn to be a bean-counter yourself.
On the other hand, for an established artist such as Prince, an exclusive website featuring his work could really be a threat to the industry. Stephen King tried this idea many years ago, with a serialized story called The Plant, but it didn’t go far. Of course, the Internet as we know it today was really only in its infancy then, and things are completely different today.
My main concern here is the idea that the industry uses to retard this development: that they have the power and technology to ensure the talent gets paid for every unit sold. Because they don’t!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Cerebus File Copies Up for Auction
Coming March 19th, 2007, Paradise Comics will put up several Cerebus the Aardvark file copies for auction on e-Bay. A file copy is one originating from the publisher's own files. All comics have been graded, certified, and encapsulated.
I, along with basically everyone else in the free world and probably every single person in the rest of the world, disagree with most everything Dave Sim professes to believe, but there is no question that Cerebus is - and will remain - one of the most groundbreaking comic book titles of all time. Sim is a master of the field, though the subject matter which he tackled within the title often led to controversy and fallings-out between him and others in the industry.
Probably the most intriguing aspect of the title is that it was always (or, at least from very early-on into the process) meant to be an encapsulated story; though a monthly title, Sim planned it to end at issue 300, which it did a few years back. Some other intriguing, groundbreaking concepts Sim and Cerebus pioneered included direct-sales and the "phonebook" collections - both of which, again, inspired controversy and fallings-out within the industry.
But I must explain to people -- as I always do when the Cerebus phonebooks are mentioned -- that this was not exactly a new concept; the Japanese had been doing it for years. The real flip to the industry was in the direct-sales marketing method Sim used to move the books, thereby circumventing the comics distributors of the time.
I, along with basically everyone else in the free world and probably every single person in the rest of the world, disagree with most everything Dave Sim professes to believe, but there is no question that Cerebus is - and will remain - one of the most groundbreaking comic book titles of all time. Sim is a master of the field, though the subject matter which he tackled within the title often led to controversy and fallings-out between him and others in the industry.
Probably the most intriguing aspect of the title is that it was always (or, at least from very early-on into the process) meant to be an encapsulated story; though a monthly title, Sim planned it to end at issue 300, which it did a few years back. Some other intriguing, groundbreaking concepts Sim and Cerebus pioneered included direct-sales and the "phonebook" collections - both of which, again, inspired controversy and fallings-out within the industry.
But I must explain to people -- as I always do when the Cerebus phonebooks are mentioned -- that this was not exactly a new concept; the Japanese had been doing it for years. The real flip to the industry was in the direct-sales marketing method Sim used to move the books, thereby circumventing the comics distributors of the time.
Monday, January 29, 2007
More on Sim and Spirituality
I was pleased to read this entry on Dave Sim's Blog & Mail today. I realize it was written last week, but I had so much going on that I just wasn't able to keep up with all the blogs I regularly read (haven't been able to for a while now, in fact), so I just this minute read it and wanted to comment on it.
But, before I do, I want to make it clear that the reason I am saying these things here and not responding directly to Mr. Sim is twofold: One, it makes for good content; two, Dave Sim doesn't accept e-mails and I don't want to get involved with his Yahoo! cult or write him a printed letter.
Now, Sim addresses a reader's comments and makes some very good points -- many of which I agree with completely and two of which I disagree with stringently. The latter I have addressed in part before: That Mohammed (sp?) was God's last prophet and the Koran was God's final word. This, I do not agree with at all, for all sorts of reasons. Sim also professes his belief that Jesus was not God's son, but rather merely another messenger. I see no difference because I believe that we are all God's children (though that is not to say that I agree with the Creationist concept, I do not).
To say that Mohammed was God's last prophet... well, I don't think that it's wrong to say such if that's what you believe, but I simply don't. And I think it lessens peoples' faith and hope -- not to mention has a dramatic effect on people who are classified mentally ill (martyr, savior, and God compleces, to say nothing of Paranoid Schizophrenia and Manic-Depression with hallucinatory delusions).
I could have sworn that one of the scriptures said, literally, "There will be prophets," but I have searched for it and not found it, so it's very likely that I am wrong. Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain, since God's True Word is almost impossible to divine from the Scriptures, no matter what version you read. No one knows who wrote the first Biblical Scriptures and there is no doubt that much of it has been lost to history, corrupted in translation, and changed to fit the will of the rulers and the peoples to which it was given. Also, committees of men decided which books would be included and which would not, so no matter what version of which Bible you read, not all of the original texts have been included. Further, it is extremely important to put the Scriptures into historical context, because a lot of the prophecies and ideologies expressed therein had everything to do with the times in which the speakers lived and the peoples with whom they were involved - meaning that they are not applicable, by the letter, to today's age.
The problem with Scripture is the same as with the law: far too many people work way too hard to maintain the Letter of the Law and not the Spirit of the Law - semantics. The Scriptures are also often contradictory, according to whomever wrote them and the time at which they were written. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, some of the greatest, strongest, most faith-based and honest attempts to follow the Lord have been made by people who came to the Lord later in life - people who, at one time, spoke strongly against Him and denied Him completely, but later changed their tune.
People not unlike Mr. Sim himself (though I have yet to find anything he has to say about God to be groundbreaking or even in the right direction - yet I have hopes and could not be happier that he has decided to make this an important facet of his life).
And the Koran does not rectify with the Bible; they are two different religions in which God is the only real commonality. I don't think Sim's doing himself, nor anyone else, any favors by attempting to rectify them, though I find the attempt admirable and I think it has some religious merit.
These are inarguable facts. To say that God no longer speaks through His people is to say that God has separated Himself from us, which is to say that we are damned, for I truly believe that Hell is not lakes of fire and brimstone, but the Eternal separation from God. This also infers that we should turn a deaf ear to the ministers, preachers, priests, clerics, and other Men of God whose job is to help we laymen interpret His Word (even though I do not mean to imply that all of these men are prophets).
As to what I do agree with, well there's a lot:
God has hidden Himself from us and we do not know exactly why. In my line of thinking, it has to do with the Original Sin and this is part of our sentence - that He has separated Himself from us can be interpreted as being expelled from the Garden of Eden. This is what led to the whole idea of the Creation of Woman, as God knew that, without Him, Man had to have companionship, love, and (hopefully) acceptance.
But, having said that, I don't find it at all unreasonable to think that this could also apply to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a natural thing, and I say this because it occurs naturally in animals. Animals are God's creatures and I don't feel they are being tested by God in the same sense as we humans largely because they can't... you know, read, or understand the Gospel, as it is spoken unto them. I don't believe that animals go to Hell and I don't think that they have free will as we do. I also don't think that those who are forced into homosexuality - or at least into performing homosexual acts - in order to survive are technically homosexuals (in particular, I am referring to the condoned homosexual flesh trade within prisons - one openly condoned by the guards and prison officials, who benefit from it in more ways than one, though this has no real bearing on the conversation in any major way). A sex trade openly condoned by most Fundamentalists and self-proclaimed Christians who pay nothing more than lip service to their faith and claim this is "God's Will" - a perfect example of men who have done Bad Things (and this is different from simply being Bad Men) and are "getting what they deserve."
The condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament (and the very few instances of such in the NT), I believe, stem directly from the speakers' desires to turn Christians against the Romans, in which the practice was widespread and acceptable. Not to mention that Christians were a small and hated portion of the society at that time (Christianity was, quite literally in Roman times, a cult), and procreation ("go forth and multiply") being set forth as the only acceptable reason for sexual relations was a direct result of the burgeoning religion attempting to increase their numbers. Christ, Himself, never spoke on homosexuality. In Leviticus (New Testament), male homosexuality is condemned, but we are also told to burn bulls, as the smell is pleasing to the Lord. So if you cling to the one as the absolute Word and not the other, you are picking and choosing what the Lord said to fit into your own ideology, which means you are dictating which of God's laws you respect and intend to follow and dismissing others... which means you are recreating God in your own image.
And the last point on this is that prostitutes were mentioned all throughout the Bible, and basically only The Whore of Babylon was condemned... oh yes, and also the male prostitutes. Moses said unto a harlot, "Please, might I cleave unto you?" and fathered a child by her. He left his staff behind so that he might later know who the child was. Mary Magdalene has historically been thought a prostitute, but there is no way of knowing whether or not this is true.
Islamists, Muslims - whatever - believe that all the Prophets were married, which obviously excludes Jesus, even though Jesus is said to be present in Heaven, not as the Son of God, but as just another Wise Man; he is present, but he holds no special standing above and beyond that - the same idea Sim professes to believe. This being the case, is he saying he upholds only the OT and dismisses the NT? And since Jesus delivered a message almost completely against the accepted beliefs of His time, was considered a Heretic, and put to death for it, how can he justify his consideration of Jesus as a Wise Man and not a Prophet? For that matter, what is the real difference in the two? After all, Jesus is said to have performed Miracles, just as the other, "accepted," Prophets.
Yes, I think that issuing ultimatums to God is fundamentally "tempting Him," but only in the Fundamentalist sense that questioning God is a sin. Of course, according to Fundies, what isn't? Not accepting your body as God made it is a sin, but so is nudity; cursing and homosexuality and working on the Sabbath - these are all sins - but in this day and age, especially knowing now so much more than what they knew back then, we have to accept that sometimes these things simply cannot be avoided.
And not all of these things are supported by the Scriptures. Wasn't it Jacob who wrestled with the Lord in his dreams, while on a beach? Didn't God best him by giving him a blow to the liver or some such, which is what made that part a sin to eat? And didn't Abraham question the Lord when he was told to sacrifice his only son unto Him? And, on that note, we only know as much about that little story as we are told in the Scriptures: what is to say that Abraham actually got to the altar and simply could not go through with it, and so came back down the mountain and told people that the Lord came to him at the last moment and said that He had only been testing Abraham? We don't even have Abraham's first-word account; it was passed down to us second-, even third-hand. Why did God tell Man to turn the other cheek, then unleash whole armies onto others and tell them to circumcise them in revenge for the rape of their sisters?
While we know not to tempt God, "tempting" and "questioning" are two completely different things. Further, God has responded to such "temptations." Do you really think that, at some point in his hellish ordeal(s), Job himself did not question God's continued abuse of Him, His refusal to intervene in what is, beyond question, one of the most awful stories in the Bible - one of the stories which should cause any serious reader, any serious Christian or would-be Christian to ponder God's Nature and His Will?
If we are indeed made in His image, and He reserves the right to test us at any and all times, if God is said to have spoken to Oracles and Prophets and told them what to do - sometimes tricking them, ostensibly to test their faith, even if He never delivered them, regardless of the strength of their faith, or waited to the very last moment to do so - but we are also told that the Devil does such things, how in the world can we be sure that what we are told, hear, think, or feel are ever right if we do not question His will?
Being made in God's image makes me think - and I could be very, very wrong - that He is capable of the same range of emotions and thoughts as are we. And this makes me less worried about the times when I have hated God, questioned Him, railed against Him - even when I believed in Him completely. I have often told my parents I "hated them," knowing full well I did not, but the situation and my emotional and mental state at the time made me think I truly did. I have regretted these times, but as I grow older and amass more life experience, I have come to accept that these times were understandable reactions to what I felt - at that moment - were a betrayal by God. And I know, in my heart, that God understands them because , if I am made in His image, and He is capable of great anger and wrath, that anger and wrath are part and parcel of His image - thus, being made in His image dictates that I will sometimes feel anger and depression and hatred and pain and humiliation and that these are natural feelings I should not suppress just because I have been told by false leaders that the only way to God's graces is to blindly accept what I have been told is His One and True Word. A one and true Word passed down by messengers to Man, whose limited capacities forced them to make of the messages what they could, further filtered down through oral traditions later filtered into written word (some hundreds, even thousands, of years after they were first heard), further filtered down by hand-copied translation, further changed by monarchs and committees of men.
Not to mention that, historically, a lot of the stories were adopted from pagan cults, religions, and practices the Church co-opted in order to bring more people into the Church; and that some things - such as the story of Noah, in particular - predate Christianity by eons and were integrated in order to make God more accessible to their peoples. And then there are the umpteen wars (such as the one in which we are currently involved) in which Christianity has been the catalyst. Not to mention the omnipresent corruption of the Catholic Church (originally called the Roman Catholic Church, thanks to Claudius I's acceptance of the religion, seeing it as the logical extension of the Roman empire), from selling absolution from sin (Fornication Under Consent of the King), not to mention the torture, abuse, and wars against the Cathars (because they were said to owe money to the church, were accused of Heresy [including rampant homosexuality and other "deviant" sexual practices], as well praising a living abomination known as Baphomet)...
I have always considered Mr. Sim an incredible sequential artist, an iconoclast, and intellectual, but I've never considered him a Christian or spiritual man. I love that he has since changed his tune and fully support his continued movement toward this pursuit.
I just disagree with a lot of what he is preaching. I know his outlooks on many of these things will change over time but, if he is serious about learning more about the Lord and His Word, I feel he should enter into discussions with more knowledgeable people on the subject. Which isn't easy, since the Church leaders have laid down on the job for decades now.
And I absolutely support his decision to join no church.
But, before I do, I want to make it clear that the reason I am saying these things here and not responding directly to Mr. Sim is twofold: One, it makes for good content; two, Dave Sim doesn't accept e-mails and I don't want to get involved with his Yahoo! cult or write him a printed letter.
Now, Sim addresses a reader's comments and makes some very good points -- many of which I agree with completely and two of which I disagree with stringently. The latter I have addressed in part before: That Mohammed (sp?) was God's last prophet and the Koran was God's final word. This, I do not agree with at all, for all sorts of reasons. Sim also professes his belief that Jesus was not God's son, but rather merely another messenger. I see no difference because I believe that we are all God's children (though that is not to say that I agree with the Creationist concept, I do not).
To say that Mohammed was God's last prophet... well, I don't think that it's wrong to say such if that's what you believe, but I simply don't. And I think it lessens peoples' faith and hope -- not to mention has a dramatic effect on people who are classified mentally ill (martyr, savior, and God compleces, to say nothing of Paranoid Schizophrenia and Manic-Depression with hallucinatory delusions).
I could have sworn that one of the scriptures said, literally, "There will be prophets," but I have searched for it and not found it, so it's very likely that I am wrong. Unfortunately, there is no way to be certain, since God's True Word is almost impossible to divine from the Scriptures, no matter what version you read. No one knows who wrote the first Biblical Scriptures and there is no doubt that much of it has been lost to history, corrupted in translation, and changed to fit the will of the rulers and the peoples to which it was given. Also, committees of men decided which books would be included and which would not, so no matter what version of which Bible you read, not all of the original texts have been included. Further, it is extremely important to put the Scriptures into historical context, because a lot of the prophecies and ideologies expressed therein had everything to do with the times in which the speakers lived and the peoples with whom they were involved - meaning that they are not applicable, by the letter, to today's age.
The problem with Scripture is the same as with the law: far too many people work way too hard to maintain the Letter of the Law and not the Spirit of the Law - semantics. The Scriptures are also often contradictory, according to whomever wrote them and the time at which they were written. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, some of the greatest, strongest, most faith-based and honest attempts to follow the Lord have been made by people who came to the Lord later in life - people who, at one time, spoke strongly against Him and denied Him completely, but later changed their tune.
People not unlike Mr. Sim himself (though I have yet to find anything he has to say about God to be groundbreaking or even in the right direction - yet I have hopes and could not be happier that he has decided to make this an important facet of his life).
And the Koran does not rectify with the Bible; they are two different religions in which God is the only real commonality. I don't think Sim's doing himself, nor anyone else, any favors by attempting to rectify them, though I find the attempt admirable and I think it has some religious merit.
These are inarguable facts. To say that God no longer speaks through His people is to say that God has separated Himself from us, which is to say that we are damned, for I truly believe that Hell is not lakes of fire and brimstone, but the Eternal separation from God. This also infers that we should turn a deaf ear to the ministers, preachers, priests, clerics, and other Men of God whose job is to help we laymen interpret His Word (even though I do not mean to imply that all of these men are prophets).
As to what I do agree with, well there's a lot:
God has hidden Himself from us and we do not know exactly why. In my line of thinking, it has to do with the Original Sin and this is part of our sentence - that He has separated Himself from us can be interpreted as being expelled from the Garden of Eden. This is what led to the whole idea of the Creation of Woman, as God knew that, without Him, Man had to have companionship, love, and (hopefully) acceptance.
But, having said that, I don't find it at all unreasonable to think that this could also apply to homosexuality. Homosexuality is a natural thing, and I say this because it occurs naturally in animals. Animals are God's creatures and I don't feel they are being tested by God in the same sense as we humans largely because they can't... you know, read, or understand the Gospel, as it is spoken unto them. I don't believe that animals go to Hell and I don't think that they have free will as we do. I also don't think that those who are forced into homosexuality - or at least into performing homosexual acts - in order to survive are technically homosexuals (in particular, I am referring to the condoned homosexual flesh trade within prisons - one openly condoned by the guards and prison officials, who benefit from it in more ways than one, though this has no real bearing on the conversation in any major way). A sex trade openly condoned by most Fundamentalists and self-proclaimed Christians who pay nothing more than lip service to their faith and claim this is "God's Will" - a perfect example of men who have done Bad Things (and this is different from simply being Bad Men) and are "getting what they deserve."
The condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament (and the very few instances of such in the NT), I believe, stem directly from the speakers' desires to turn Christians against the Romans, in which the practice was widespread and acceptable. Not to mention that Christians were a small and hated portion of the society at that time (Christianity was, quite literally in Roman times, a cult), and procreation ("go forth and multiply") being set forth as the only acceptable reason for sexual relations was a direct result of the burgeoning religion attempting to increase their numbers. Christ, Himself, never spoke on homosexuality. In Leviticus (New Testament), male homosexuality is condemned, but we are also told to burn bulls, as the smell is pleasing to the Lord. So if you cling to the one as the absolute Word and not the other, you are picking and choosing what the Lord said to fit into your own ideology, which means you are dictating which of God's laws you respect and intend to follow and dismissing others... which means you are recreating God in your own image.
And the last point on this is that prostitutes were mentioned all throughout the Bible, and basically only The Whore of Babylon was condemned... oh yes, and also the male prostitutes. Moses said unto a harlot, "Please, might I cleave unto you?" and fathered a child by her. He left his staff behind so that he might later know who the child was. Mary Magdalene has historically been thought a prostitute, but there is no way of knowing whether or not this is true.
Islamists, Muslims - whatever - believe that all the Prophets were married, which obviously excludes Jesus, even though Jesus is said to be present in Heaven, not as the Son of God, but as just another Wise Man; he is present, but he holds no special standing above and beyond that - the same idea Sim professes to believe. This being the case, is he saying he upholds only the OT and dismisses the NT? And since Jesus delivered a message almost completely against the accepted beliefs of His time, was considered a Heretic, and put to death for it, how can he justify his consideration of Jesus as a Wise Man and not a Prophet? For that matter, what is the real difference in the two? After all, Jesus is said to have performed Miracles, just as the other, "accepted," Prophets.
Yes, I think that issuing ultimatums to God is fundamentally "tempting Him," but only in the Fundamentalist sense that questioning God is a sin. Of course, according to Fundies, what isn't? Not accepting your body as God made it is a sin, but so is nudity; cursing and homosexuality and working on the Sabbath - these are all sins - but in this day and age, especially knowing now so much more than what they knew back then, we have to accept that sometimes these things simply cannot be avoided.
And not all of these things are supported by the Scriptures. Wasn't it Jacob who wrestled with the Lord in his dreams, while on a beach? Didn't God best him by giving him a blow to the liver or some such, which is what made that part a sin to eat? And didn't Abraham question the Lord when he was told to sacrifice his only son unto Him? And, on that note, we only know as much about that little story as we are told in the Scriptures: what is to say that Abraham actually got to the altar and simply could not go through with it, and so came back down the mountain and told people that the Lord came to him at the last moment and said that He had only been testing Abraham? We don't even have Abraham's first-word account; it was passed down to us second-, even third-hand. Why did God tell Man to turn the other cheek, then unleash whole armies onto others and tell them to circumcise them in revenge for the rape of their sisters?
While we know not to tempt God, "tempting" and "questioning" are two completely different things. Further, God has responded to such "temptations." Do you really think that, at some point in his hellish ordeal(s), Job himself did not question God's continued abuse of Him, His refusal to intervene in what is, beyond question, one of the most awful stories in the Bible - one of the stories which should cause any serious reader, any serious Christian or would-be Christian to ponder God's Nature and His Will?
If we are indeed made in His image, and He reserves the right to test us at any and all times, if God is said to have spoken to Oracles and Prophets and told them what to do - sometimes tricking them, ostensibly to test their faith, even if He never delivered them, regardless of the strength of their faith, or waited to the very last moment to do so - but we are also told that the Devil does such things, how in the world can we be sure that what we are told, hear, think, or feel are ever right if we do not question His will?
Being made in God's image makes me think - and I could be very, very wrong - that He is capable of the same range of emotions and thoughts as are we. And this makes me less worried about the times when I have hated God, questioned Him, railed against Him - even when I believed in Him completely. I have often told my parents I "hated them," knowing full well I did not, but the situation and my emotional and mental state at the time made me think I truly did. I have regretted these times, but as I grow older and amass more life experience, I have come to accept that these times were understandable reactions to what I felt - at that moment - were a betrayal by God. And I know, in my heart, that God understands them because , if I am made in His image, and He is capable of great anger and wrath, that anger and wrath are part and parcel of His image - thus, being made in His image dictates that I will sometimes feel anger and depression and hatred and pain and humiliation and that these are natural feelings I should not suppress just because I have been told by false leaders that the only way to God's graces is to blindly accept what I have been told is His One and True Word. A one and true Word passed down by messengers to Man, whose limited capacities forced them to make of the messages what they could, further filtered down through oral traditions later filtered into written word (some hundreds, even thousands, of years after they were first heard), further filtered down by hand-copied translation, further changed by monarchs and committees of men.
Not to mention that, historically, a lot of the stories were adopted from pagan cults, religions, and practices the Church co-opted in order to bring more people into the Church; and that some things - such as the story of Noah, in particular - predate Christianity by eons and were integrated in order to make God more accessible to their peoples. And then there are the umpteen wars (such as the one in which we are currently involved) in which Christianity has been the catalyst. Not to mention the omnipresent corruption of the Catholic Church (originally called the Roman Catholic Church, thanks to Claudius I's acceptance of the religion, seeing it as the logical extension of the Roman empire), from selling absolution from sin (Fornication Under Consent of the King), not to mention the torture, abuse, and wars against the Cathars (because they were said to owe money to the church, were accused of Heresy [including rampant homosexuality and other "deviant" sexual practices], as well praising a living abomination known as Baphomet)...
I have always considered Mr. Sim an incredible sequential artist, an iconoclast, and intellectual, but I've never considered him a Christian or spiritual man. I love that he has since changed his tune and fully support his continued movement toward this pursuit.
I just disagree with a lot of what he is preaching. I know his outlooks on many of these things will change over time but, if he is serious about learning more about the Lord and His Word, I feel he should enter into discussions with more knowledgeable people on the subject. Which isn't easy, since the Church leaders have laid down on the job for decades now.
And I absolutely support his decision to join no church.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Dave Sim Draws Funnybooks
I've noticed Mr. Sim has taken to preaching, as late. I have a problem with that, but since Mr. Sim came to such a calling so late in life, I'll accept that as the reason he has gone so far in the wrong direction so quickly.
His problems with homosexuality are troubling. The Lord accepts all men, all women, all people -- regardless of their sins, color, sexual preference - and He doesn't even always ask them to change their ways (how would you change the color of your skin?); we are all sinners, Mr. Sim, and the Lord offers us salvation, not condemnation. Further, Christ never spoke of homosexuality. Historically, most of the condemnations of homosexuality and promiscuity were made specifically to defy the Romans. While the earliest Jews were prudes, and many other sects arose which eschewed sexuality in most all forms, the Church has always been a haven for homosexuals and the truth is that God doesn't care who you have sex with or how, so long as it is consensual.
His assertions that "the last prophet" was Mohammed are troubling: it smacks of politicism, intellectualism, and gives a nod to Sim's bonafide Savior Complex (I make the calls here; it's my blog); there will be prophets, Mr. Sim. His promotion of the "anyone who blames society is playing the victim" mentality is troubling; how did you gain your fame, Mr. Sim? Do you honestly think you have no effect on society? Or do you think that the society -- the subsect of a mainstream society to which you have always pandered -- upon which you have an effect is unworthy? Who is playing the victim now?
Sim's sudden desire to publicly voice his acceptance of the Lord is the most troubling of all. I tend to disbelieve anyone who feels their best prayer is done in front of everyone, for everyone to see. It's one thing to praise God, and it's very commendable; it's quite another to take it upon yourself to tell others what you think you know of His nature. Specifically if it seems a little too much like you're begging desperately for Salvation instead of actually trying to get closer to Him.
Your reliance on "The Scripture" belies your true nature, sir: the Lord does not want you to lend unto Him your celebrity in order to spread His word! God does not need your help! And your continuing need to rectify differing religions, while admirable, is not your job. Believe it or not, almost everything you've heard of or read or purport to believe has been handed down to you by men. Not smarter men; men just like you!
The Lord will accept anyone who will have Him. Leave it to the churches and demagogues to make God exclusive and be content to tell others of the joy you've found in Him. The Church and those damned lip-service Christians have turned enough people away from God. Your mission should be to bring them back, not strengthen their bigoted position.
His problems with homosexuality are troubling. The Lord accepts all men, all women, all people -- regardless of their sins, color, sexual preference - and He doesn't even always ask them to change their ways (how would you change the color of your skin?); we are all sinners, Mr. Sim, and the Lord offers us salvation, not condemnation. Further, Christ never spoke of homosexuality. Historically, most of the condemnations of homosexuality and promiscuity were made specifically to defy the Romans. While the earliest Jews were prudes, and many other sects arose which eschewed sexuality in most all forms, the Church has always been a haven for homosexuals and the truth is that God doesn't care who you have sex with or how, so long as it is consensual.
His assertions that "the last prophet" was Mohammed are troubling: it smacks of politicism, intellectualism, and gives a nod to Sim's bonafide Savior Complex (I make the calls here; it's my blog); there will be prophets, Mr. Sim. His promotion of the "anyone who blames society is playing the victim" mentality is troubling; how did you gain your fame, Mr. Sim? Do you honestly think you have no effect on society? Or do you think that the society -- the subsect of a mainstream society to which you have always pandered -- upon which you have an effect is unworthy? Who is playing the victim now?
Sim's sudden desire to publicly voice his acceptance of the Lord is the most troubling of all. I tend to disbelieve anyone who feels their best prayer is done in front of everyone, for everyone to see. It's one thing to praise God, and it's very commendable; it's quite another to take it upon yourself to tell others what you think you know of His nature. Specifically if it seems a little too much like you're begging desperately for Salvation instead of actually trying to get closer to Him.
Your reliance on "The Scripture" belies your true nature, sir: the Lord does not want you to lend unto Him your celebrity in order to spread His word! God does not need your help! And your continuing need to rectify differing religions, while admirable, is not your job. Believe it or not, almost everything you've heard of or read or purport to believe has been handed down to you by men. Not smarter men; men just like you!
The Lord will accept anyone who will have Him. Leave it to the churches and demagogues to make God exclusive and be content to tell others of the joy you've found in Him. The Church and those damned lip-service Christians have turned enough people away from God. Your mission should be to bring them back, not strengthen their bigoted position.
Monday, January 15, 2007
In Defense of the Superhero
A few days back, Dave Sim discussed in some detail what is basically his lifelong abhorrence of the superhero genre. And while Dave Sim is an exceptionally bright man who has inarguably done as much or more for comics as anyone in the superhero genre - whether you see his contributions as good, bad, or largely pointless, no one can argue that his wasn't a lasting effect - I have always disagreed with pretty much everything he has to say on the superhero genre.
I don't find the superhero genre inherently "gay." I fully realize how silly it seems to some that superheroes dress in tight-fitting spandex underwear -- clothing we can all agree is probably not best-suited for fighting crime and avoiding damage -- but, as an artist, I love to draw the human form. Stacking armor on superheroes would completely prevent me from drawing musculature. It's that simple and that's the long and short of it.
I could dress it up any number of ways, but the truth is that it looks a lot cooler to see muscles flexing and titties a-jiggling when a superhero is beating up on the bad guy because, at its essence, the whole idea is one of fantasy fulfillment.
I wish I were a better man - better-looking, stronger, faster, smarter, more capable of controlling my emotions in times of emotional upheaval, capable of taking an ass-whooping without letting the guy who's giving it to me know how much it hurts, more appreciative of the full ramifications of my choices and decisions before I make them - but the truth is that I'm not. God forbid I should be the victim of road rage, but should I be, I'd most likely get the living hell beaten out of me and I might even cry when it was over. I am avoiding back surgery and living in pain because I fear surgery (well, more specifically, I fear the process of many surgeries over the course of my lifetime, but it's the major point that counts). Your average superhero doesn't consider such things because such things don't affect him.
I was bullied in school. A lot. Often. And maybe this is what drew me to comics to begin with? They allowed me to be by myself, they entertained me, and they allowed me to live vicariously through heroes who were capable of doing what I physically, mentally, and emotionally could not: defeat The Bad Guys, whether they be iconic of my personal demons and bullies or larger injustices. And I think even Sim can appreciate that seeing the straining muscles is not just more cinematically effective, but really the only way to impact on the reader.
(When I was a Sophomore, one of my better friends [a fellow comics fan and penciler] had his jaw broken in the school hallway right after art class by a guy who had bullied me, and several others, since grade school. The bully was a senior and he did it on a bet that he couldn't break my friend's jaw in one punch. There was absolutely nothing any of us could do about it because we just weren't capable. I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure he got expelled for it, but who cares? If The Law worked, it never should have been allowed to get that far; he would have been punished long before this incident and either have already been expelled or at least been warier of whatever punishment he should have [known] he would receive if he went through with it.)
Further, I question his definition of homosexuality, specifically in this sense.
Brad Pitt is far more handsome than your average guy; he's more handsome than probably a good 75% of all men... and at least 45% of all women (no sense lying about it). I don't particularly want to engage Mr. Pitt sexually, but I certainly wish I were as handsome as he. And this, in part, is what makes him such a popular actor: when male viewers watch him do whatever he is doing, they vicariously assume being him doing those things, and they can then see themselves as looking that good doing it. Like it or not, it just is what it is, and I'm not sure I consider that homosexuality or even homosexual in nature. To say that it has to do with sexuality, in general, is absolutely true, but in my mind, it's certainly no worse than seeing a rocket's launch as slightly phallic: if you should think of a phallus or intercourse when you see a rocket launching, it doesn't make you gay and it doesn't necessarily make you a perv. It may not be what everyone thinks of when they see a rocket launching, but I'd be willing to bet that you've got a lot more company than you'd think or will ever know, and you don't need bother dwelling on your sexuality if launching rockets causes a reaction - whether that reaction is "the church giggles" or a slight erection.
As for the costuming - the capes and masks and so on - I still don't see a connection to homosexuality, or "the gay facade," as Sim calls it. While it has often been explained as a device by which to intimidate enemies, I don't see anything wrong with saying, "They're just being flashy." In fact, historically, many pirates dressed like dandies for these very reasons. If you can fly around and have an incredibly muscular body, and you beat up the bad guys, you might want someone to notice you - and what better way than by dressing up in flashy tights, which show off your muscular body? Real-life heroes dress in uniforms and since no real-life heroes fly around beating up bad guys, who's to say what form such uniforms would take? You'd need flexibility in such a uniform, that's for certain. It would need to be aerodynamic. It would need branding if you wanted to be known (whether the reason was to be feared or envied, or even literally to be seen as a sexual object). Say, aren't those the very criteria for athletic uniforms?
And most superheroes struggle with all of these things as part and parcel of their character within the context of their story. Almost all of them are looking for some sort of recognition and, in a sense, living vicariously through their alter-ego. That, in fact, is one of the primary running themes within the entire breadth of the genre. They are often seeking some adventure, some fame, and they want to be noticed - not unlike Mr. Sim himself, when he was drawing fuzzy antiheroes and wearing his long, leather duster and his girl-o-the-moment to every con he attended...
I'm just saying.
As far as the attraction to vigilantism which is omnipresent in the genre, I think he's more on-target. The thing is, which is why I brought up the earlier point, a lot of people who are drawn to comic books are somehow up Against The Wall. Sickly kids who have no real recourse against their illness; small kids who suffer daily ass-beatings at the hands of bigger, meaner kids; nerdy outsiders who suffer social ostracization by the "cool" and "beautiful" people; and, yes, even gay kids who are socially condemned to "their kind" - these are the comic book fans and The System doesn't protect them, even though it ostensibly purports to.
The System (which Sim refers to, appropriately, as The Law) is made by, and for, the mainstream - specifically to protect them, be they righteous or (most often) iniquitous, from those of us who refuse to bend our knee.
I was actually considered a problem by school personnel because I complained of being bullied too often! As far they were concerned, and I was told, learning to stand up for myself was part of growing up - which is a really half-assed way of saying they didn't care, that's not what The Law is for - but there were all sorts of limits as to how I was allowed to defend myself and if I violated those, I was responsible.
Go back and read that again:
You are responsible for your own protection, but we'll only let you protect yourself in certain ways; if you end up getting hurt, then You Got What You Deserved, but if you end up hurting your oppressors, then The Law will come down on you with everything it's got and you'll Get What You Deserve. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; there is no place for individuals within such systems, which is why all such systems are inherently flawed (not that I am advocating anarchy or vigilantism!).
That's what that means; it isn't even so much implied as literally stated by The Law and those in power! That I was a small "intellectual" was not their concern and that bigger, meaner kids bullied me simply because they could was My Problem, but if I resorted to carrying a weapon or some other protective or retaliatory measures (aside from constantly getting my ass whipped and "Taking It Like a Man"), then I was going to come up against The Law. See, that's the problem with The Law, Mr. Sim: it almost never protects those who need to be protected; it is made by, and for, the more powerful and the more powerful don't need protection from anyone...
Except, say, Batman.
And that's why Batman rocks so damn hard, kids! And that's why I want to see how much bigger and tighter his muscles are when he smashes some villain's face right the hell in; it just doesn't pack the same punch (pun intended) if he did it in a Kevlar poncho. Not to mention that obscuring his physicality would shift focus to the violence of the blow.
[An aside: perhaps I doth protest too much? After all, a lot of superheroes - generally antiheroes - wear trenchcoats and the like, which certainly aren't form-fitting...]
And on another note, as it concerns sexuality, how many of us would fantasize over Wonder Woman in a frumpy dress? Is it pandering? To some extent, I suppose it is, but the more important theme is wish-fulfillment, and to suggest that the whole genre and medium can be summed-up as homosexual or juvenile or any other negative blanket assessment, is like saying, "This movie has a steamy sex scene, so it's pornography and all movies with steamy sex scenes are pornography," or, "This movie has some funny scenes, so it's a comedy."
Oh yes, and the last point I wanted to make on this subject, Mr. Sim, is what made you decide that wearing a leather jacket was cool and how do you separate whatever emotion or compulsion that is from homosexuality? Did you see a guy you thought was [whatever it is, you found him attractive - he was "cool" or "suave" or "tough," but whatever quality it is that he possessed, you found it attractive and wanted to be more like him] wearing a leather jacket? Or did you see a girl wearing one?
What factors led to your own image and style choices, and how do you divide those from the 'inherent homosexuality' you see in superhero comic books? What made you decide to go your own way and self-publish the aardvark and how do you separate that from 'vigilantism'?
A lot of comics' attraction comes from the reader vicariously living through the superhero - wish fulfillment of defeating one's Bad Guys (as explored in-depth in Dark Knight Returns), being feared, being envied, being the subject of awe, righting wrongs, etc., etc. - and that's why superheroes are... well, hot.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Some Clarifications for the New Year
As I mentioned, my New Year's Eve was thoroughly uneventful. I drank a bit too much, listened to music a bit too loudly, counted down the new year with my neighbor, then crashed and slept in the new year. So when I got up today, I was reading over the blog and then Dave Sim's Blog & Mail, then sauntered on over to Eddie Campbell's (which is really funny, btw), and I got to thinking about some of the things I have said here and how they may have been misconstrued, so I wanted to take a moment to clarify a few things:
I don't dislike Alan Moore or Dave Sim. I don't dislike Matt Maiellaro or any of the ATHF staffers. I don't really know any of these people personally, even if I have met them (even several times, as in the case of Sim) or corresponded with them. I am not an all-out Frank Miller fanboy.
Okay, yes I am; I'll own that one.
I completely love everything Frank Miller does. He is one of the few people I can think of in whose presence I would literally just be awed -- starstruck, what have you. I am not saying I would perform oral sex, or sex of any kind, on or with him -- that's going a bit far. MAYBE some consensual heavy-petting, but it would take a few drinks to make that happen. Or at least the promise of a few drinks afterward. And then what if he didn't call? I'm just not sure I can handle that sort of rejection at this point in my life, but I digress...
I do think this season of Aqua Teen Hunger Force is exceptionally bad -- I mean downright awful -- and am really dismayed by that. This season is to ATHF what The Black Album was to Metallica; calling it a "nine-inch nail" is an understatement -- it's the death of the art behind the Product and not the Product, itself. I don't even bother to talk about the show with others anymore. I actually feel slightly insulted, which makes me question my priorities and so it has become a sort of albatross, which is really messed-up because like, how shallow am I? What else goes on in my life that I should have the luxury of obsessing over such a thing to such a degree?
I do think Alan Moore is overrated within the comics field. He is great -- of that, there is no question -- but I think that his name value exceeds the value of his work in most cases. He sells books simply by name power and, while that's great for him and I applaud his success, I find myself most often disappointed with his work. It's not a bitter disappointment, but more of that sort of, "That's it?! Is this the lead-in to a new series? Did I miss a page?" Some will say that I miss the point and am possibly incapable of ever "getting it" because they assume I are dum. And I guess that's fair, but that's my opinion of it. I don't think it's his fault; I don't think he set out to do it. I think the industry and the fans did it and I could use a break from it. Like 20 years ago.
I think Dave Sim one of the most incredible talents in the field. He excels in literally every department -- writing, pencils, inks, lettering, pacing, characterization, I could go on for days -- but the guy holds some major views, and a bit of an attitude on paper. Of all the creators -- in any field, really -- Sim is one of the few guys I'd enjoy literally just hanging out with. I've done so a few hours at a time at a few cons, but I was just a kid (really a kid -- like 12-13, around in there).
Still, he had a profound influence on me and my work -- he gave me encouragement, graciously signed all my Epics with his work, talked in-depth about the pieces and told me little inside bits like who this character's face was and so on -- even more now that I have so many of the Cerebus issues and have been reading them. And I will say this: Dave Sim is one of only two, maybe three, cartoonists who has ever made me literally laugh out loud -- full-on, wide-mouthed bellylaugh -- through sequential art alone: no dialogue, no captions, no text (probably some sound effects, but I don't recall), just the deliberate pacing and set-up through the images and sequence of events. (The other was Bill Watterston and I threw Jack Davis and Don Martin a bone there, because MAD cracked me up as a kid).
It gets hard to be critical of others' work sometimes, but it's not just out of pettiness or sycophant..y-ism? or anything like that. I truly love the things I talk about and they often move me, sometimes for the good, sometimes in the bowels. I usually try to remain objective about them, but specifically because I love them so much, I often develop a personal attachment to them. I need a girlfriend or at least a bike or a boat or something -- something to get me out of doors.
At any rate, I just wanted to clear those things up so we can all start our New Year brightly. I have resolved to make no resolutions and I'm sticking to it, so far. (Fingers crossed.)
I don't dislike Alan Moore or Dave Sim. I don't dislike Matt Maiellaro or any of the ATHF staffers. I don't really know any of these people personally, even if I have met them (even several times, as in the case of Sim) or corresponded with them. I am not an all-out Frank Miller fanboy.
Okay, yes I am; I'll own that one.
I completely love everything Frank Miller does. He is one of the few people I can think of in whose presence I would literally just be awed -- starstruck, what have you. I am not saying I would perform oral sex, or sex of any kind, on or with him -- that's going a bit far. MAYBE some consensual heavy-petting, but it would take a few drinks to make that happen. Or at least the promise of a few drinks afterward. And then what if he didn't call? I'm just not sure I can handle that sort of rejection at this point in my life, but I digress...
I do think this season of Aqua Teen Hunger Force is exceptionally bad -- I mean downright awful -- and am really dismayed by that. This season is to ATHF what The Black Album was to Metallica; calling it a "nine-inch nail" is an understatement -- it's the death of the art behind the Product and not the Product, itself. I don't even bother to talk about the show with others anymore. I actually feel slightly insulted, which makes me question my priorities and so it has become a sort of albatross, which is really messed-up because like, how shallow am I? What else goes on in my life that I should have the luxury of obsessing over such a thing to such a degree?
I do think Alan Moore is overrated within the comics field. He is great -- of that, there is no question -- but I think that his name value exceeds the value of his work in most cases. He sells books simply by name power and, while that's great for him and I applaud his success, I find myself most often disappointed with his work. It's not a bitter disappointment, but more of that sort of, "That's it?! Is this the lead-in to a new series? Did I miss a page?" Some will say that I miss the point and am possibly incapable of ever "getting it" because they assume I are dum. And I guess that's fair, but that's my opinion of it. I don't think it's his fault; I don't think he set out to do it. I think the industry and the fans did it and I could use a break from it. Like 20 years ago.
I think Dave Sim one of the most incredible talents in the field. He excels in literally every department -- writing, pencils, inks, lettering, pacing, characterization, I could go on for days -- but the guy holds some major views, and a bit of an attitude on paper. Of all the creators -- in any field, really -- Sim is one of the few guys I'd enjoy literally just hanging out with. I've done so a few hours at a time at a few cons, but I was just a kid (really a kid -- like 12-13, around in there).
Still, he had a profound influence on me and my work -- he gave me encouragement, graciously signed all my Epics with his work, talked in-depth about the pieces and told me little inside bits like who this character's face was and so on -- even more now that I have so many of the Cerebus issues and have been reading them. And I will say this: Dave Sim is one of only two, maybe three, cartoonists who has ever made me literally laugh out loud -- full-on, wide-mouthed bellylaugh -- through sequential art alone: no dialogue, no captions, no text (probably some sound effects, but I don't recall), just the deliberate pacing and set-up through the images and sequence of events. (The other was Bill Watterston and I threw Jack Davis and Don Martin a bone there, because MAD cracked me up as a kid).
It gets hard to be critical of others' work sometimes, but it's not just out of pettiness or sycophant..y-ism? or anything like that. I truly love the things I talk about and they often move me, sometimes for the good, sometimes in the bowels. I usually try to remain objective about them, but specifically because I love them so much, I often develop a personal attachment to them. I need a girlfriend or at least a bike or a boat or something -- something to get me out of doors.
At any rate, I just wanted to clear those things up so we can all start our New Year brightly. I have resolved to make no resolutions and I'm sticking to it, so far. (Fingers crossed.)
Friday, December 15, 2006
Jaka's Story
Well, I finished Jaka's Story and I have to say that while I enjoyed it immensely...
Okay, here it is: I've always been a supporter of independent comics and not out of some misguided, sycophantic fanboy loyalties of any kind; independent comics are, in general, simply better. I love the superhero genre though, and most of the independents which bother to work in that genre usually do so satirically.
So my beef is this: anything can get old, and the constant reliance on "slice of life" stories in independents is a turn-off. This is why they aren't more popular, plain and simple; "independent" has become synonymous with phrases like "moving" and "introspective," which are translated as "slow-moving" and "obsessive." And they usually are.
The art is better, the story and the storytelling is better, but a hundred pages or so in, it starts getting tedious. Pacing is the ultimate tool of a graphic storyteller and slowing it down to capture the everyday minutiae of every, little thing is only one way it can be used. Yes, 25 pages of rain dripping from a rooftop ending with a wide pan of the main character, staring out the window is artistic and beautiful when well-rendered. Yes, I understand what I'm seeing and appreciate it; she's lonely, the world seems distant, she's appreciative of the smaller things -- sensitive to her surroundings and others, so on. Wonderful!
But 25 pages more of a guy she once met through her half-brother's distant cousin, twice-removed, on her father's side back when she was a kid, watching an egg boil and thinking of their all-too brief relationship that one summer when he became A Man is a bit... tedious.
Okay, here it is: I've always been a supporter of independent comics and not out of some misguided, sycophantic fanboy loyalties of any kind; independent comics are, in general, simply better. I love the superhero genre though, and most of the independents which bother to work in that genre usually do so satirically.
So my beef is this: anything can get old, and the constant reliance on "slice of life" stories in independents is a turn-off. This is why they aren't more popular, plain and simple; "independent" has become synonymous with phrases like "moving" and "introspective," which are translated as "slow-moving" and "obsessive." And they usually are.
The art is better, the story and the storytelling is better, but a hundred pages or so in, it starts getting tedious. Pacing is the ultimate tool of a graphic storyteller and slowing it down to capture the everyday minutiae of every, little thing is only one way it can be used. Yes, 25 pages of rain dripping from a rooftop ending with a wide pan of the main character, staring out the window is artistic and beautiful when well-rendered. Yes, I understand what I'm seeing and appreciate it; she's lonely, the world seems distant, she's appreciative of the smaller things -- sensitive to her surroundings and others, so on. Wonderful!
But 25 pages more of a guy she once met through her half-brother's distant cousin, twice-removed, on her father's side back when she was a kid, watching an egg boil and thinking of their all-too brief relationship that one summer when he became A Man is a bit... tedious.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
GorBLIMEY!
This comment got me to thinking earlier -- hey, you've got to do it sometimes, so why not today, right?
At any rate, I wanted to take a moment to make sure that I piss everyone off that I've yet to offend:
Alan Moore is overrated.
Yeah, I said it. You heard me. I'll say it again:
Alan Moore is one of the most overrated names in the industry.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like some of Moore's work - I like his work in general, in fact - but that's a far cry from his being the new Stan Lee or something, the Stephen King of comic books, or whatever. And I really think part of this urban legend stems from the fact that he is British.
Now, I love the English - prefer them, in fact, to us Americans - but let's be honest about this: no matter how bad the fare is, if it's done by English folks, it automatically gets a better rating than the same crap from American creators. Take sit-coms, for a perfect example:
I love Brit-coms - prefer them, in fact, to most American sit-coms - but let's be honest about this: most British sit-coms are no better than the American ones. A lot of them are worse. The only difference between, say, Are You Being Served? and Three's Company is that one's British. Keeping Up Appearances is about as mundane a sit-com as you can find on any dial, and yet it's a PBS staple. There are some absolutely brilliant Brit-coms, but the truly great ones can be counted on one hand. Let's think about it:
There have been some others along the way, but that about rounds out the list of the truly good British sit-coms. American TV has that beaten by a country mile, yet unless it's on HBO, it doesn't get much mention and it sure as hell isn't going to be shown on PBS! Those Brits have us beaten when it comes to dramas, though - hands down.
Still, this is true about everything to which the Brits turn their collective hand, with the exception of Jazz. Punk rock (Ramones, Dead Kennedys, Bad Brains -- the best, no question -- but they're sidenotes to crap like The Clash), heavy metal (granted, Black Sabbath literally invented the field, but it was done better by Americans), plain vanilla rock n roll, poetry... the list goes on and on!
At any rate, when it comes to comic books, I really think the Brits have the same sort of thing going. Alan Moore is good, no question, but he's no Frank Miller. I personally don't even think he's as good as Dave Sim (apt, as the two are good friends, but not exactly fair, since Sim is a Canadian, and we're largely concerning ourselves with the British and Americans), but unless you're talking about independents or their semi-famous discussion, you're not very likely to hear both names in the same conversation.
But Alan Moore is always talked about in reverential terms, often by the same people who talk about Gene Roddenberry in the same tones, and I just don't get it. What is it, exactly, that Moore has ever done that's so damn great? I don't mean really good, I mean GREAT? Because whatever it is, I guarantee you I can come up with three things Frank Miller has done that are simply, flat-out better - not just as good, but better!
And before you even start, just stop. Watchmen was good, but it wasn't the watershed comics event most fans make it out to be; that distinction would belong to Elektra: Assassin and there's simply no two ways about that. And who did Assassin? Who else? Watchmen wasn't even as good as Miller's venture that same year -- what was that one called... let me think, OH YEAH: Dark Knight Returns. V for Vendetta? Again, good, not great! You want a retro superhero in a dark future, try Ronin by... who else? And Ronin honestly wasn't even that good.
Don't misquote me, Alan Moore is a definitive talent within the entire field, and it's unfair to compare anyone to Frank Miller whose only true, living, peer is Stan Lee (and time and history will prove me correct on this) -- really, Miller is second only to that cat what did The Yellow Kid (whose name escapes me, presently), and that's only because that was the first real comic strip. But Moore is not The Voice of Comicdom, as many have asserted for 20+ years now.
Although, I freely admit, I would love to interview Moore one day, just because he really is infinitely fascinating and the amount of research and effort he puts into his work is evident in them all.
UPDATE: I realize GeoCities hasn't been around in more than a decade, but I left the link JIC in reroutes to an archived form. - 2018
At any rate, I wanted to take a moment to make sure that I piss everyone off that I've yet to offend:
Alan Moore is overrated.
Yeah, I said it. You heard me. I'll say it again:
Alan Moore is one of the most overrated names in the industry.
Now, don't get me wrong, I like some of Moore's work - I like his work in general, in fact - but that's a far cry from his being the new Stan Lee or something, the Stephen King of comic books, or whatever. And I really think part of this urban legend stems from the fact that he is British.
Now, I love the English - prefer them, in fact, to us Americans - but let's be honest about this: no matter how bad the fare is, if it's done by English folks, it automatically gets a better rating than the same crap from American creators. Take sit-coms, for a perfect example:
I love Brit-coms - prefer them, in fact, to most American sit-coms - but let's be honest about this: most British sit-coms are no better than the American ones. A lot of them are worse. The only difference between, say, Are You Being Served? and Three's Company is that one's British. Keeping Up Appearances is about as mundane a sit-com as you can find on any dial, and yet it's a PBS staple. There are some absolutely brilliant Brit-coms, but the truly great ones can be counted on one hand. Let's think about it:
- Monty Python's Flying Circus
- The Office
- Coupling
- Little Britain
- Father Ted
- Absolutely Fabulous
There have been some others along the way, but that about rounds out the list of the truly good British sit-coms. American TV has that beaten by a country mile, yet unless it's on HBO, it doesn't get much mention and it sure as hell isn't going to be shown on PBS! Those Brits have us beaten when it comes to dramas, though - hands down.
Still, this is true about everything to which the Brits turn their collective hand, with the exception of Jazz. Punk rock (Ramones, Dead Kennedys, Bad Brains -- the best, no question -- but they're sidenotes to crap like The Clash), heavy metal (granted, Black Sabbath literally invented the field, but it was done better by Americans), plain vanilla rock n roll, poetry... the list goes on and on!
At any rate, when it comes to comic books, I really think the Brits have the same sort of thing going. Alan Moore is good, no question, but he's no Frank Miller. I personally don't even think he's as good as Dave Sim (apt, as the two are good friends, but not exactly fair, since Sim is a Canadian, and we're largely concerning ourselves with the British and Americans), but unless you're talking about independents or their semi-famous discussion, you're not very likely to hear both names in the same conversation.
But Alan Moore is always talked about in reverential terms, often by the same people who talk about Gene Roddenberry in the same tones, and I just don't get it. What is it, exactly, that Moore has ever done that's so damn great? I don't mean really good, I mean GREAT? Because whatever it is, I guarantee you I can come up with three things Frank Miller has done that are simply, flat-out better - not just as good, but better!
And before you even start, just stop. Watchmen was good, but it wasn't the watershed comics event most fans make it out to be; that distinction would belong to Elektra: Assassin and there's simply no two ways about that. And who did Assassin? Who else? Watchmen wasn't even as good as Miller's venture that same year -- what was that one called... let me think, OH YEAH: Dark Knight Returns. V for Vendetta? Again, good, not great! You want a retro superhero in a dark future, try Ronin by... who else? And Ronin honestly wasn't even that good.
Don't misquote me, Alan Moore is a definitive talent within the entire field, and it's unfair to compare anyone to Frank Miller whose only true, living, peer is Stan Lee (and time and history will prove me correct on this) -- really, Miller is second only to that cat what did The Yellow Kid (whose name escapes me, presently), and that's only because that was the first real comic strip. But Moore is not The Voice of Comicdom, as many have asserted for 20+ years now.
Although, I freely admit, I would love to interview Moore one day, just because he really is infinitely fascinating and the amount of research and effort he puts into his work is evident in them all.
UPDATE: I realize GeoCities hasn't been around in more than a decade, but I left the link JIC in reroutes to an archived form. - 2018
Monday, December 11, 2006
Dave Sim: Genius or Jackass?
Some of you may not know who Dave Sim is. Well, he was something of a rock star in the industry back in the late 80s - early 90s. If this sounds "weird" to you, you should know that Rob Leifield once did a 501 Jeans commercial; this was the comic books Hey Day of which we old-timers sometimes speak and there absolutely were some "rock stars" in the field back then. (In fact, Todd McFarlane used to draw comic books! True story!) Dave Sim was one of these, but not unlike the famed Ziggy Stardust, Sim tended to take it all a little too far.
Now, I've met Dave Sim -- on numerous occasions, actually -- even had dinner in his general area once or twice, and he's an okay guy. I say "okay" and not something like "insightful," "interesting," or "nice" because he is all of those things except the latter. He will talk to you no matter who you are, but he has a chip on his shoulder about... well, most everything. In fact, Dave Sim was never as much of a rock star in the industry as in his own mind; he was no Jello Biafra, he was just an arrogant Unknown. An excessively talented guy, he's extremely well-read, articulate, and personable, but he has a tendency to sneer at most every subject having to do with the industry outside of Cerebus and himself.
So I bought 150 issues of Cerebus that arrived last Friday and have been doing little else all weekend, aside from indulging. Every issue has a foreword/op-ed column called "Letter from the President," penned by Sim himself and he is usually combative and full of himself, but you ain't seen nothing until you get to the letters at the end, where he really goes over the top!
But here's the thing: there was no Internet for almost the entire run of the series; this comic book was really his only forum. So when you're reading these things, you should know that he wasn't locked away in a stuffy apartment somewhere, doing nothing but smoking weed, watching bad TV, and working on his projects (like... well, you know, whoever, I mean, I don't know people like that, but I've seen them on TV); Sim was always on tour in comics shops and at cons, and always talking about his works and the subjects with which they dealt. You're reading what was, back then, kind of "real time" exchanges within the industry, having to do with the series, and Dave's own, personal outlooks and thoughts on whatever he is discussing at that time. In fact, though he is known to consider himself something of a Luddite and swore he'd never have anything to do with the Internet medium, he's come around since then.
Sim had a lot of somewhat public fallings-out with a lot of industry peers, but his work stands on its own. Cerebus is one of the most consistently well-written and drawn books in the history of the medium to-date, and while the plot and overall story is hit and miss, you're unlikely to be disappointed by an issue. Besides, isn't the old saying, "Judge the Art, not the artist"?
Or was that "suffer the Art and not the artist"?
It's "something Art, something something artist," I know that.
Now, I've met Dave Sim -- on numerous occasions, actually -- even had dinner in his general area once or twice, and he's an okay guy. I say "okay" and not something like "insightful," "interesting," or "nice" because he is all of those things except the latter. He will talk to you no matter who you are, but he has a chip on his shoulder about... well, most everything. In fact, Dave Sim was never as much of a rock star in the industry as in his own mind; he was no Jello Biafra, he was just an arrogant Unknown. An excessively talented guy, he's extremely well-read, articulate, and personable, but he has a tendency to sneer at most every subject having to do with the industry outside of Cerebus and himself.
So I bought 150 issues of Cerebus that arrived last Friday and have been doing little else all weekend, aside from indulging. Every issue has a foreword/op-ed column called "Letter from the President," penned by Sim himself and he is usually combative and full of himself, but you ain't seen nothing until you get to the letters at the end, where he really goes over the top!
But here's the thing: there was no Internet for almost the entire run of the series; this comic book was really his only forum. So when you're reading these things, you should know that he wasn't locked away in a stuffy apartment somewhere, doing nothing but smoking weed, watching bad TV, and working on his projects (like... well, you know, whoever, I mean, I don't know people like that, but I've seen them on TV); Sim was always on tour in comics shops and at cons, and always talking about his works and the subjects with which they dealt. You're reading what was, back then, kind of "real time" exchanges within the industry, having to do with the series, and Dave's own, personal outlooks and thoughts on whatever he is discussing at that time. In fact, though he is known to consider himself something of a Luddite and swore he'd never have anything to do with the Internet medium, he's come around since then.
Sim had a lot of somewhat public fallings-out with a lot of industry peers, but his work stands on its own. Cerebus is one of the most consistently well-written and drawn books in the history of the medium to-date, and while the plot and overall story is hit and miss, you're unlikely to be disappointed by an issue. Besides, isn't the old saying, "Judge the Art, not the artist"?
Or was that "suffer the Art and not the artist"?
It's "something Art, something something artist," I know that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)