Okay, Let's Talk "Graphic Novels"

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:26 pm

I hate comic books. It's not the medium I can't stand, or the subject matter, it's:

A. The glacial one issue a month (if there aren't delays) pacing.

B. The cost.

C. Storing the damn things.

D. The whole "collector" mentality.

Consequently, I haven't bought a comic book since 8th grade. But, what I find I do like is the big bundle of issues into a compendium that gives you an entire story and can actually occupy a couple consecutive hours of your day. So, anyway, I have sitting on my bookshelf:

1. The Watchmen

2. A whole bunch of Neil Gaiman stuff.

3. The entire Cerebus collection up through "Going Home", which I believe is the latest but I'm not sure.

The above, I realize, represents a certain (pseudo-)artistic predilection in my "graphic novel" choices, but that's entirely a product of circumstance. People always talk about how good Watchmen and Sandman are, so naturally I went to look into them before some random X-Men story. I'm thinking of tracking down Paul Dini's Jingle Belle book - while the concept does precious little for me, Dini is about as solid a writer as ever made his name writing cartoons.

So, I suppose what I'm asking, is if anyone has any recommendations.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:37 pm

Justice League: A New Beginning by Giffen & DeMatteis. The first seven issues of the best superhero sitcom of all time. It's a shame that they haven't gone and thrown the rest of that 60 issue run into a graphic novel, but damn, is it worth it.

Daredevil: Born Again by Miller & Mazzucchelli. My favorite character in comics torn down and picking himself back up.

Powers: Who Killed Retro Girl? by Bendis and Oeming. It has a great "superheroes in the real world" flavor to it. I hated the art at first, but it does kind of grow on you.

There are some I can't think of sitting next to my bed. I'll scan it when I get home. Here's my take on some ones I don't get, however:

Sandman: Don't get it at all. I must have a collection which is crappy or something. Terrible art, uninteresting protagonist, nothing happens.

Marvel vs DC: OK, I am going to start a new thread on this one.

(Actually, any of the Daredevil ones are pretty good. Here's a link.)

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:42 pm

It's probably hard to get a hold of these days, but I have a graphic novel based on William Gibson's Neuromancer. Pretty decent adaptation. Unfortunately, Epic or whoever closed down around that time so they only ever released the first part of three.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:00 pm

What the --?!?! Neuromancer graphic novel? That means they probably had to describe Case with, like, a picture or something. What did he look like?

(I know he was in the Neuromancer game, but much in the same way I don't think I got an accurate representation of what "a Boy" looked like in real life in "A Boy and His Blob," I am not quite willing to say that Case is accurately and completely described in the XT Neuromancer game.

Holy shit. Gotta look that up.

I finally realized why I like Effinger so much more than Gibson: Gibson doesn't give a fuck about his characters. They are just these people he hangs these events upon. It's not because of the fact that Effinger wrote Audran in the first person: Gibson doesn't even give you Case's first name until over a hundred pages in. I know that the big selling point is that they are so full of imagery, but if he doesn't give a shit about these people, how can I? I own three or four Gibson books and the only one I've finished was Neuromancer, and that one definitely took a few tries.

gsdgsd · Post by **gsdgsd** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:25 pm

I HEARTILY recommend the "Life Story of the Flash" graphic novel. And what do you know -- you can bid on it right HERE!

Ok, but seriously. Aside from what's already mentioned, I'd recommend the "Preacher" series of trade paperbacks; Garth Ennis seems to be rapidly degenerating into someone who can only produce dick jokes, shit jokes and exploding heads, but Preacher (while having all that) was pretty astounding.

"Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" -- pretty legendary, up there with "Watchmen".

An underrated comic that I only picked up in TPB form; "Whiteout", written by Greg Rucka, who not only has an excellent name but is pretty hot shit as a writer, and drawn by someone who is not Greg Rucka. It's hard-boiled mysteries set in Antarctica. Two volumes (I think), both pretty excellent. Rucka also writes "Queen and Country", Brit spy stuff, which has been collected and is similarly excellent.

That's all that leaps out at me right now. Oh, anything by Kyle Baker ("The Cowboy Wally Show", "I Die At Midnight", "Why I Hate Saturn", etc) is pretty worthwhile.

Greg

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:28 pm

Actually, here's the graphic novel:

http://www.antonraubenweiss.com/gibson/ ... /gn00.html

I've never read anything by Gibson later than Neuromancer that I liked as much, even if the rest of the novels in that trilogy developed some of the story. Burning Chrome is a great book, but Neuromancer, to me, was just poetry. Probably having played the game first, it meant so much more to me when I read about Case's dealings with Julius Deane (which probably then affected me that much more when I played the game again) or caught other bits in the novel that are quoted directly in the game.

True, Case doesn't have much characterization and isn't extremely interesting himself. On a human level, the book succeeds best with tragic figures such as Armitage and to some extent, Molly.

PTX · Post by **PTX** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:22 pm

Damn phpBB decided to log me out.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: I finally realized why I like Effinger so much more than Gibson: Gibson doesn't give a fuck about his characters. They are just these people he hangs these events upon. It's not because of the fact that Effinger wrote Audran in the first person: Gibson doesn't even give you Case's first name until over a hundred pages in. I know that the big selling point is that they are so full of imagery, but if he doesn't give a shit about these people, how can I? I own three or four Gibson books and the only one I've finished was Neuromancer, and that one definitely took a few tries.

I respect your opinion; I like both Effinger and Gibson (got into them at the same time, late 80s/Early 90s); and I like them for different reasons. Apples and oranges.

Having said that, I'll play devil's advocate here. Disclaimer: my opinions and three dollars will buy you a cup of coffee (at either the Jarre de The, two blocks west of the Chatsubo, or at various fine coffeeshops in the Budayeen, take your pick).

We don't learn much about Case because when it starts out, he can't enter cyberspace, and so much of his identity is tied up in that that he really doesn't have much identity left. A lot of the book is in discovering more about him on the fly. Or about Molly for that matter, whose facade is hard to crack until some of the stuff she reveals at the end, about the Meat Puppet gig she worked, or the story about the coda of her relationship with Johnny that ties that short story into the novel.

I do agree that Case isn't as interesting as Molly, but I think he's supposed to be a little bland and aimless so that we can project ourselves onto him.

Effinger's mainstay to me is an old-fashioned hard-boiled novel transposed onto his particular cyberpunk scene. Gibson tends to draw more on a film noir kind of background (more atmosphere, less detective work), but his real influence seems to be Westerns in some sense. The scene where Molly first speaks to Case in the coffin hotel? If you replace some of the nouns -- e.g. "Close that hatch real slowly, friend" becomes "Close that door real slowly, friend" -- it's got a feel to it like a cowboy movie.

Case is, after all, a console cowboy.

So on the surface, Gison seems more influenced by films (some of them art-films, admittedly) and Effinger is more by novels, specifically meat-and-potatoes genre novels. This is incomplete but a decent capsule summary.

Effinger does his own borrowing from film noir, especially in the Circuit's Edge game (Signore Ferrari at the Blue Parrot, just like in Quest for Glory II: what was it with adventure games from circa 1990 and Casablanca, anyhow?). The character of Friedlander Bey is, I'm sorry, way beyond just a pastiche of Don Corleone: the powerful crime boss clinging to traditionalist values to mask whta he does.

But he's more like the Corleone from Puzo's novel than the one from the film. When I read Effinger, I get the impression that his primary influence is other books: good old fashioned pulp magazines and potboiler novels. Solid, satisfying prose. His literary style reads to me like a direct linear descendant of these types of detective novels. Remember, the guy's descended from policemen; he mentions that the name of one of the villains in (I think) the second novel is the name of the bastard who murdered his police detective grandfather (IIRC).

Writer-wise, Gibson seems to be more influenced by writers whose style is hard to follow unless you're actively deciphering the convoluted language: Thomas Pynchon. Beat Movement writers, especially Burroughs. I can read Effinger's influences, like Mickey Spillane, and get into them. I have yet to finish Gravity's Rainbow or Naked Lunch.

Yet I reacted more strongly to Gibson's prose style when I was reading the two of them. Effinger is a traditionalist; Gibson is a radical innovator in the first book (progressively less innovative in subsequent ones, but that's another matter and I haven't read Pattern Recognition yet). Gibson's flights of poetic grandstanding hit me at the right place at the right time: highfalutin', but just compehensible enough that I could make my way in. Every time I reread through the thick prose in Neuromancer, I found something new; I remember the second time I read it, I was fascinated by the whole dream about the wasp's nest or the stacks of dusty National Geographics in the Finn's shop.

Now that I'm older, I wonder if this is mock profundity: that I'd only skimmed those sections or overlooked them and so it only felt like I'd discovered something new. I dunno.

Gibson is good at painting a sketch of a character through a few lean, well-chosen details, as does Effinger. Where they differ is in the selection of those details. Gibson tends to pick obscure little things around the periphery of a character that paint in the big details, and this is a hard enough trick to pull that it almost looks like he's showing off. Effinger shines at giving me the unexpected, usually by way of a joke.

Personal recollection of the moment I was sold on Circuit's Edge: the line in the very first scene after describing your hole of an apartment: "You make a mental note to stop the drinking and drugs." It's more straightforward than Gibson's descriptions, but I laughed right out loud and knew everything about the happy-go-lucky lowlife I was playing. Fine writing both ways.

One of the reasons that I remember liking Gibson more was the unity of the setting in his books. He makes casual reference to the cultures of Chiba City, the Sprawl, or (in the two sequels) the future analogues of Suburbia, voodoo-infested Project housing gone mega, or the chemical-scented Florida white trash wasteland. The key word is casual: he doesn't explain too much about them. Effinger, by contrast, seems to be writing a hard-boiled novel in a cyberpunk setting, and then shoehorns in details about Islamic culture at odd intervals. It reminds me of the cetology stuff on Whales in Moby Dick: it's like all the action stops while we get a culture lesson, and then back to the story.

It's not that Effinger is a bad writer, or that I didn't enjoy the Islamic stuff. It's that it seems like he's doing reportage, telling me details about something he researched, and then moving back to the narrative. Gibson flows better because his settings seem more invented or extrapolated out of current events, and he doesn't bother to explain a lot. Effinger never quite lapses into dicacticism, but his style of writing tends to deliver exposition right on the nose. Gibson is less direct and shoots for giving details about the unfamiliar stuff on the fly, and hits the ground running with his story more often than Effinger.

This went on too long, as usual. And remember that I was deep into these guys somewhere between 10 to 15 years ago. I've changed; what I look for in a book has changed. It may be -- in fact, it's almost certain -- that if I'd discovered them at a different time or in a different order I'd have very different opinions.

When I was 14, the writer I wanted to be was William Gibson. When I was 21, I'd discovered Neal Stephenson and to this day he's my favorite living American Writer.

And I'm still going to buy Quicksilver the minute I can, even though his decision to abort the webcast at CMU made baby Jesus cry.

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 7:49 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Sandman: Don't get it at all. I must have a collection which is crappy or something. Terrible art, uninteresting protagonist, nothing happens.

I won't comment about the art, since I'm not a fit judge, but I will comment on the art and say that it usually fit the tone of the stories pretty well, if nothing else.

As far as "nothing happening", well, I can't say I get that. I dunno, I guess to a certain extent there's a lot of focus on mood and character, and a lot of issues that are just short, self-contained stories. I suppose the thing that drew me in to those books was the way Gaiman managed to maintain at once a pretty black tone and absolute sympathy for every semi-important character he schleps onto the page.

I would disagree entirely that Dream is uninteresting. A lot of the time he's utilized more as a framing device for other character's stories, but even then you get a good sense, not only of who he is, but how the events in the first book managed to alter him. If you have the first book, observe the horrible fate he visits on the sorcerer's son, then observe the even more horrible fate he's already visited upon his old lover, and then observe how, at the end of the book, he deals with Dr. Destiny. Notice from that a, how events have perhaps softened him and yet b, how much his decisions are wrapped up in his own petty spite despite his cloaking them in the duties of his office, and yet also notice how much he is willing to risk in order to fulfill those duties. I suppose the only objection I could see being made would have to do how we're dealing with an entity rather than a person but, at least in part, that's what makes it interesting. But to each his own, I guess.

Protagonist X · Post by **Protagonist X** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:17 pm

I'd agree with Debaser. Sandman has some excellent writing, and a lot of the artwork -- especially towards the latter half when it was a big prestige title with which to be associated -- is top-notch and well suited to the story arc in which it appears. I thought so, at least.

It's true that Morpheus doesn't do very much in many stories, but in a lot of them he's not the main character even though he's the titular one: he often acts as a catalyst for the events in a given story. If you read all 75 issues, though, there's a sort of overarcing concern with Dream as he subtly changes yet keeps maintaining that he's immutable.

Which collection do you have, Jonesy? The first one, Preludes and Nocturnes, is the roughest of them -- the writer and artists hadn't really found their voice on it yet, and the issues are a little disjointed.

If you're looking for something to read, I'd check them out. I think you'll find the title worth your while in the end.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:46 pm

PTX: great post on Gibson / Effinger. I can't find anyone else on the Internet talking about GAE. The guy apparently never had a webpage or home page or anything. Great points. I should mention, of course, that I am biased towards GAE as he's my hero and so forth, and since I have a lot of catching up to do with Gibson, my take up there doesn't come from a defensible position.

Debaser, PTX: OK, let me see which Sandman thing I grabbed... OK. The Sandman: Preludes Nocturnes.

OK, this was my problem with this collection -- when I go and drop my twenty bucks on a Sandman archive, I was hoping that the Sandman would be in it and be everywhere. All the positive press that the collection has received had convinced me to get interested in this Sandman person, so it was sort of like how Old Man Murray stated that when money is forked over for KISS: Psycho Circus, it's too late to quibble about wondering if the game should have a lot of KISS in it.

I had never read a story with this character in it before. I've got huge holes in my DC Comics timeline, but even then I have usually encountered most of the characters in one story or another. Not so with Sandman. So when the Sandman takes a few pages off in this collection, I started to get frustrated and lose some interest.

It's funny -- well, not ha-ha funny, but still: this relates back to the GAE and Gibson thread for me. I have realized over these two threads that I apparently have a need for a strong central character in my literature, cinema and graphic novels. I hadn't been consciously aware of it until right now, though.

Well, with recommendations coming from two guys whose opinions I absolutely respect, I am going to give this thing another shot. Are the books more or less in a series? I know that you can read the Daredevil ones that I recommend in any order -- is this the case for the Sandman's collections? I presume not as the guy had a short (by industry standards) arc.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:01 pm

Btw, my main take on GAE is that The Zork Chronicles rocked the house but I really have to read that again to see if I can still appreciate it (I was in seventh grade). Circuit's Edge was fun (although I don't think it does a good job of getting the player excited about playing it in the beginning, it's like submersion into cold water... you have to wait until you're flailing around a bit before it starts to feel good), and I'm very glad that I played it if only because it was one more inspiration/aspect for "Fallacy of Dawn" to add to the warm fuzzies quotient.

Not that Neuromancer has much to brag about as a trilogy, either, but GAE's When Gravity Fails (had to look that up) was the only one that I was truly happy with. The rest of the books have their moments, but by the end of the third, I was pretty disappointed with the path GAE had set out for his protagonist and found it far from conclusive or interesting. That said, I was always very pleased when Saied (had to look that up too) was around and either ready to kick some ass or providing a good deal of humor.

Roody_Yogurt · Post by **Roody_Yogurt** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 11:02 pm

Btw, to comment on your first response, I didn't know it at the time (I just assumed that hey, it's such a freaking loose adaptation that it doesn't matter), but some web pages seem to indicate that the game based on Neuromancer officially takes place after the book.

Protagonist X · Post by **Protagonist X** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:34 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:I can't find anyone else on the Internet talking about GAE.

Funny, I can't find anyplace else on the web to talk about GAE.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: I should mention, of course, that I am biased towards GAE as he's my hero and so forth, and since I have a lot of catching up to do with Gibson, my take up there doesn't come from a defensible position.

No, no, no. I understand exactly how you feel about GAE because I felt the exact same way about Gibson. Your position doesn't require any defense at all; I freely stipulate that my opinions aren't final or verifiable fact, and also that Gibson probably won't be to every person's tastes.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: The Sandman: Preludes & Nocturnes.

OK, this was my problem with this collection -- when I go and drop my twenty bucks on a Sandman archive, I was hoping that the Sandman would be in it and be everywhere.

Yeah. This is arguably one of the weakest books in the series, even though the Sandman is a more central character here than in other collections. Each story seems to be the writer trying on a different hat: traditional English horror story, modern English horror story, contemporary splatterpunk, etc. The eighth issue, The Sound of Her Wings, is where the series finally finds its own voice.

The arc immediately after this is The Doll's House, and it's one of the strongest. If you aren't getting into it by the end of Doll's House, I'd suspect that the series isn't going to be to your taste... but I'm pretty sure you'll like Doll's House. The main character in that one is a girl called Rose McGowan, but the Sandman does in fact show up.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: I had never read a story with this character in it before. I've got huge holes in my DC Comics timeline, but even then I have usually encountered most of the characters in one story or another. Not so with Sandman.

Another facet of the "finding its voice" idea: the first seven issues make pretense at being part of the DC continuity -- hell, Scott Free and J'onn Jones show up in one issue. After this arc, any references to the standard DC-verse are subtle when they're inserted at all, even though it technically takes place there. I thought the way it wound up being handled was rather cool in the end.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: It's funny -- well, not ha-ha funny, but still: this relates back to the GAE and Gibson thread for me. I have realized over these two threads that I apparently have a need for a strong central character in my literature, cinema and graphic novels. I hadn't been consciously aware of it until right now, though.

Insightful... most people prefer a single central character to be the protagonist. I hadn't seen the link between the Gibson multi-character novels you couldn't finish and the things you disliked about Preludes & Nocturnes. Points for keen observation, sir.

Sandman, as a title, has a lot of stories where there's several things going on, but one character is the protagonist of the story arc. It also has a lot of short stories, one-issue deals in the Sandman milieu. Many of these are excellent work; don't be frightened off by them.

I'm wondering if our expectations shaped our opinions. Imagine going for a movie that the trailers and ads portrayed as an action movie but when you get there it's really an art-house film. Even if it's incredible comedy/drama/whatever, if you're expecting an action flick you'll be sorely disappointed.

If Sandman was a movie, it would be one of my favorite art-house flicks. Off the beaten path, but still engrossing.

Are the books more or less in a series? I know that you can read the Daredevil ones that I recommend in any order -- is this the case for the Sandman's collections?

Read them in order. Absolutely. Out of order will spoil some of the big plot twists.

Moreover, when I look at them as 75 continuous issues, there's a slow, subtle progression in the title character. Even though he's off stage for large parts of other sub-stories, the whole of the run itself becomes his own tale.

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:24 pm

Protagonist X wrote:
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: The Sandman: Preludes & Nocturnes.

OK, this was my problem with this collection -- when I go and drop my twenty bucks on a Sandman archive, I was hoping that the Sandman would be in it and be everywhere.
Yeah. This is arguably one of the weakest books in the series, even though the Sandman is a more central character here than in other collections. Each story seems to be the writer trying on a different hat: traditional English horror story, modern English horror story, contemporary splatterpunk, etc. The eighth issue, The Sound of Her Wings, is where the series finally finds its own voice.

Yeah, that's generally the popular opinion on the series. I don't know, though, a lot of Sandman involves skipping through various moods and tones. I mean, compare the issue about the boarding school where the dead come back to life and the bits of "Dol's House" set in the serial killer's convention to, say, the story about the Sultan who sells Sandman his city, or Dream and Delerium's road trip.

Although, I suppose, the earliest issues don't have the same... I dunno what the proper word is... I want to say "fairytale", but that isn't right. There's a certain way Gaiman writes (partly but not entirely in his use of narrators) that really feels like you are being told a story, like what you're reading is part of an oral tradition. That's not present in Preludes and Nocturnes, but I wouldn't really say it was present in Doll's House, either. It doesn't take shape until Dream Country, I'd say. The only thing "Wings" really does is provide a breather from all the absolute black as pitch happenings in the Dr. Destiny story and highlight the series' rather unique sense of sentimentality. The latter I'd say is really first introduced during Dee's trip to recover the ruby, but I can see why, coming to the series for the first time, it's with the introduction of Death (ironically) that the whole thing begins to look less like a straight horror story.

The arc immediately after this is The Doll's House, and it's one of the strongest. If you aren't getting into it by the end of Doll's House, I'd suspect that the series isn't going to be to your taste... but I'm pretty sure you'll like Doll's House. The main character in that one is a girl called Rose McGowan, but the Sandman does in fact show up.

I'm not a huge fan of Doll's House, for whatever reason. Good character work, but the whole "dream vortex" bit never really seemed to fit the mythology, and what Desire was actually trying to accomplish isn't made apparent until much later in the series (and even then, it's hardly explicit), so the plot kind of falls flat. And Rose, while certainly key to the plot, is rather completely overshadowed as a character by approximately everyone else in the book. Personally, I think the series really starts to take shape with Dream Country, but that's me.

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: I had never read a story with this character in it before. I've got huge holes in my DC Comics timeline, but even then I have usually encountered most of the characters in one story or another. Not so with Sandman.

Sandman's an original creation at the start of the book, and I don't believe other authors have ever featured him in guest spots. I doubt he'd fit, though it'd be interesting to see someone try to shoehorn him into an issue of Batman.

Are the books more or less in a series? I know that you can read the Daredevil ones that I recommend in any order -- is this the case for the Sandman's collections?
Read them in order. Absolutely. Out of order will spoil some of the big plot twists.

Moreover, when I look at them as 75 continuous issues, there's a slow, subtle progression in the title character. Even though he's off stage for large parts of other sub-stories, the whole of the run itself becomes his own tale.

Actually, here I'm not sure. The progression of Sandman is largely nonlinear, and I'm not sure how it'd play out of order. The last two books and the fourth to last book definitely need to be put on hold, as they're a linear cycle of events that are most certainly "the end". The third to last book, (World's End, I believe) only has one big revelation at the very end, but even at the point it's introduced is still basically foreshadowing. Everything else is kind of a jigsaw puzzle; you're provided bunch of snapshots in time and you sort of assemble them into a picture that allows you to see what made the last few books inevitable. Amongst them, I wouldn't necessarily insist there's a necessitative order.

Protagonist X · Post by **Protagonist X** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:48 am

I think that for Debaser and me to correspond on this we need to put in a ***Spoiler*** warning here for Jonesy. Robb? Try not to read this post or the one immediately preceding it.

(I wanted to keep the Serial Killer Convention a secret, see. One of my favorite bits.)

Debaser wrote:There's a certain way Gaiman writes (partly but not entirely in his use of narrators) that really feels like you are being told a story, like what you're reading is part of an oral tradition.

One of the thematic concerns of the series is stories, and after the first third or so he really starts to explore that angle more explicitly. You didn't dig Doll's House? Takes all kinds, I guess.

Sandman's an original creation at the start of the book, and I don't believe other authors have ever featured him in guest spots. I doubt he'd fit, though it'd be interesting to see someone try to shoehorn him into an issue of Batman.

Funny thing: while DC has the rights to the characters, more-or-less, they have a tacit agreement with Gaiman not to use the Endless without his permission, or continue the Sandman title with another writer. This isn't because DC suddenly became big softies for artist's rights; the Time Warner brass decided that their future relationship with the writer was worth way more than some temporary small change.

I remember when I got into the book: It was right before my first year of college, the summer after high school. Around that time I read an article that named the Sandman as one of the most recognized properties owned by Warner Brothers, ranking behind only Bugs Bunny and Batman.

I can see where Time Warner might want to keep the creator happy.

The progression of Sandman is largely nonlinear, and I'm not sure how it'd play out of order.

Because I was a latecomer to the series I wound up reading it quite a bit out of order, and a few things that I would have been surprised by were spoiled. So I'd recommend the linear progression from personal experience.

But that's just me.

bruce · Post by **bruce** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 7:33 am

I actually think the phrase you're looking for is "Fairy Tale." That's pretty much what Gaiman is about. Stardust is quite explicit, and Neverwhere and American Gods are also, quite frankly, fairy tales.

(Other plug: if you liked American Gods you should read John Crowley's Little, Big (now back in print) for a taste of postmodern-fairy-tale-done-right. Not to say American Gods isn't entertaining, but Gaiman relies very heavily on Shock And Awe conventions to tell his story, while Crowley spins this amazing, wondrous thing and makes it look effortless as it rattles through a number of changes of style and setting.)

By the way, so as not to confuse anyone: these I've been talking about are all books. No pictures. Sorry.

I just read a few more out-of-order episodes of The Preacher, which is entertainingly apocalyptic, but somehow doesn't do much for me.

I still need to get Going Home; I have the first 12 Cerebus collected volumes, up through Rick's Story. My absolute favorite remains Melmoth; retelling the death of Oscar Wilde as a comic strip about a psychotic alcoholic aardvark is an awfully ballsy move, and it somehow works. Once I have all 300 issues, nicely packaged, I'll read them from top to toe and see how they work as a single story.

Bruce

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:29 am

bruce wrote:I actually think the phrase you're looking for is "Fairy Tale." That's pretty much what Gaiman is about. Stardust is quite explicit, and Neverwhere and American Gods are also, quite frankly, fairy tales.

Stardust, obviously yes, same with Coraline. Neverwhere, maybe, it's got the right structure and mood, even if it's a bit detailed for a real fairy tale. I'd debate Gods, though. If nothing else, what he was going for was definitely myth, rather than fairy tale.

Shock And Awe conventions

I don't follow. Are you referring to the horror elements?

I still need to get Going Home; I have the first 12 Cerebus collected volumes, up through Rick's Story. My absolute favorite remains Melmoth; retelling the death of Oscar Wilde as a comic strip about a psychotic alcoholic aardvark is an awfully ballsy move, and it somehow works. Once I have all 300 issues, nicely packaged, I'll read them from top to toe and see how they work as a single story.

Melmoth was neat but, to a certain extent, I think Dave does humor better than everything else he thinks he tries, and the more ambitious he gets, the more imperfect things get. If you get a hold of Going Home, comapre the first part of the book to the second, and you should get some idea what I mean. I doubt he'll ever top Church and State, in my mind, at least.

PTX wrote: (I wanted to keep the (radio edit) a secret, see. One of my favorite bits.)

Oops. My thought was that, yeah, it's the coolest bit of Doll's House, especially in concept, so I was kind of subtly bringing it up in the hopes that Robb would say "hey, neat!" and run out and start reading.

One of the thematic concerns of the series is stories, and after the first third or so he really starts to explore that angle more explicitly. You didn't dig Doll's House? Takes all kinds, I guess.

I didn't not like Doll's House, in fact I liked it a lot the first time through. But it's got some weaknesses, isn't a grand leap forward from Preludes (which I think is a bit underrated) and, in terms of "voice", isn't really the final evolution.

Because I was a latecomer to the series I wound up reading it quite a bit out of order, and a few things that I would have been surprised by were spoiled. So I'd recommend the linear progression from personal experience.

In that case, I bow to your experience. I came to the series years after it's run had finished (I was actually introduced to Gaiman through his novels, and was re-introduced to comics through Gaiman), and ate through the compilations in order. I don't know how it would play out of order, and figured it wouldn't play that differently, but you've done it and so would know better than I.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:32 am

Update!! I started re-reading the volume that I had on my bookshelf again the last couple of nights. Yeah, better stuff than I recalled earlier... I only am able to make it through one "issue" before I pass out (when I decide to go to sleep most nights it's usually only because I am really, really close to zonking out) but I imagine I'll finish it again this weekend. I can't remember anything that happens in it, so the surprise will still be there for me.

I still am not much of a fan of the art, though. I wonder if it looked better on the original newsprinty-stock as the colors look bright and washed out in this collection.

bruce · Post by **bruce** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:35 am

Debaser wrote:
bruce wrote:I actually think the phrase you're looking for is "Fairy Tale." That's pretty much what Gaiman is about. Stardust is quite explicit, and Neverwhere and American Gods are also, quite frankly, fairy tales.
Stardust, obviously yes, same with Coraline. Neverwhere, maybe, it's got the right structure and mood, even if it's a bit detailed for a real fairy tale. I'd debate Gods, though. If nothing else, what he was going for was definitely myth, rather than fairy tale.

Shock And Awe conventions
I don't follow. Are you referring to the horror elements?

Yeah, pretty much. He relies a lot on ACTION! and GORE! to make his points, which is fine. What amazes me about Little, Big, though, is that Crowley tells an amazingly compelling story with very little actual action in it.

I'd argue that there's not a whole lot of difference between Myth and Fairy Tale.

I find Whiny Cerebus unappealing. A lot of the stuff where he's breaking the fourth wall just pisses me off. However, I didn't think Melmoth went there.

Bruce

Debaser · Post by **Debaser** » Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:42 pm

bruce wrote:Yeah, pretty much. He relies a lot on ACTION! and GORE! to make his points, which is fine. What amazes me about Little, Big, though, is that Crowley tells an amazingly compelling story with very little actual action in it.

ACTION!? I'd disagree, but not strongly enough to post an argument about it. GORE!, yes, definitely, but that's part of the appeal. I'm generally not a horror fan, but to me the absolute pitch blackness of a lot of bits of Gaiman's writing are the only thing that make the rest palatable. If it weren't for Vandemar and Croup. or similar lurking evils, he'd really just be writing Disney novelizations. Plus, if we're going to talk fairy tales, in the true versions, gore's a pretty essential element. I will have to check out Little, Big, though. What's it about?

I'd argue that there's not a whole lot of difference between Myth and Fairy Tale.

To me, Myth, Fairy Tale, and Folk Tale are distinct subdivisions of something else. What that something else is is the word I'm looking for, but I'm not sure it exists. Oral Tradition is the closest, but it doesn't have the correct implications. It's not really important, though.

I find Whiny Cerebus unappealing. A lot of the stuff where he's breaking the fourth wall just pisses me off. However, I didn't think Melmoth went there.

I personally like whiny Cerebus. It's not objectively good, but Dave's just crazy and self-absorbed enough to make it interesting in a "Space Aliens Laughed at My Cardigan" sort of way. And I like Melmoth in a "this is generally pretty good" sort of way. So I probably shouldn't have mixed the two except to say what I was originally going to say, and that's that I like Church and State and similair books, better than either.