The Songs of Johnny Go

Such people make me weep for the future of art. Guh, y'know, I've learned to be a lot more tolerant of people's individual tastes, knowing that not everything is going to appeal to everyone... but... that's just so frustrating and disappointing.

From:

...If someone says they hate Sienkiwicz, I'll go postal.

As for your assertion that realism and comics don't mix, I'm going to take vigorous exception to that, but you know I agree about Cap + gun = asinine new Marvel neoconservative order. Who wants to read about Cap as an FBI agent figure? BOOOOORING.

From:

Not that I'm really in a state of mind to go into a whoooooooooole debate about realism in comics, but one great big example that popped in my head was putting real world politics in comics, everything from "well then why didn't the superheroes stop Hitler/9-11/etc" to the muddled, convoluted, and heavy-handed political metaphors rampant throughout CIVIL WAR and FRONT LINE.

As for Cap, it's like, why don't you just give a Jedi Knight a gun while you're at it?

But I've liked Bru's work so far, and as long as I know it's strictly temporary--that Steve will be back--I've no problem with it. I look forward to the story.

From:

On the other hand, when you say "realism," there are things like emotional realism that I feel are/should be inherent in the genre, otherwise characters read as the stale, cardboard characterizations of the genre's early years. So, yeah, not buying it.

Civil War and Frontline, though...UGH.

There's also the seminal Secret Empire storyline in Captain America, which was based on Watergate, and that stands as one of the finest comic stories ever written.

From:

My ideas on that are mainly influenced by David Mazzucchelli's afterword in the new edition of BATMAN: YEAR ONE, which is very much a "realistic" take on the characters. He admits it's a fine line, and points out "Once a depiction veers toward realism, each new detail released a torrent of questions that exposes the absurdity at the heart of the genre." And he depicts Bat-Mite as an example. Then showing the old serial Batman and Robin, he says, "The more 'realistic' superheroes become, the less believable they become. It's a delicate balance. But this much I know: superheroes are real when they're drawn in ink."

It's a complex and supremely tricky thing to pull off. Which is why the heavy-handed and bullheaded people at Marvel and DC so often fail.

I wasn't decrying emotional realism as much as real-world realism, like trying to find the actual science of impossible superpowers (Warren Ellis fakes this better than anyone else) or trying to shoehorn in politics in a world with superheroes, where these issues just don't bloody well apply. Like, again, 9/11. Fifteen million superheroes in New York, and yet 9/11 happened anyway? A million questions pop up.

But yeah, if they'd given me a whole article to rant and rave and espouse, I could have expanded upon such ideas there. It wasn't my article.

From:

jackolantern.livejournal.com

Well, WRT taste in comic artists, that's also something that can change over time. I mean, when I was a little snotnose, I thought that the ideal artists were Jack Kirby, because I cut my teeth (perhaps literally) on a lot of those early sixties Marvel books, and then John Byrne, because his men were handsome and his women had big hooters, mostly. I didn't even like Neal Adams' X-Men work, because he used a lot of distortion and weird angles that seemed to call attention away from the story--it was show-offy. And there's no way in hell that I would have grooved on some of the artists that I now find really interesting, people like Jim Woodring and Dave Cooper. They would have just been too weird for me. (Of course, at the time that I was a Byrne fan, I think that Dave Cooper was even younger than me and working for Barry Blair, and Jim Woodring was a garbageman or working in animation or something.)

And there are little quirks in almost anyone's art that just turn some people off, like the proverbial bit of spinach in a date's teeth. Byrne said once that he didn't like Bob Layton's inks because he'd put a little shadow in the corner of a man's lip that, to Byrne, signified the presence of lipstick. (Yeah, I know, it's Byrne.) I've listened, incredulously, to someone go on about how Jack Who Is Now Sitting At Almighty God's Right Hand Kirby was overrated. I've never cared for Paul Pope, myself, although just about everyone else that I talk to about comics digs him muchly. Different strokes, &c.

From:

Y'know, I've only in the past year or so finally understood what the big deal about Jack Kirby was. I used to not care for his styles, and found his writing to be atrociously painful. But little by little, I came to adore the grand Shakespearean epic feel of classic Marvel, as well as his Golden Age artwork for Captain America, which was much better than most of his contemporaries at the time.

And now I'm buying the NEW GODS omnibuseseses, and my mind is being routinely blown. In a way that I'm still laughing at some of the ridiculousness of the whole thing, while alternately going "Whooooooaaaaaaaaa!!!!!" As Grant Morrison (a writer I go hot and cold upon) said in his intro: "I didn't like Kirby for a long time, and then one day I read a certain story, and it felt like I'd been mugged by the Word of God and managed to walk away." I'm paraphrasing, but that about sums it up. I still worship at the altar of Will Eisner, but I'm now on a total Kirby kick, which is only getting stronger.

But hey, if people don't see the appeal of Kirby, I don't hold it against them. I don't think what he does is instantly apparent. It certainly wasn't for many. But you know what, for many people, I'd argue the same about Shakespeare. It's just once you click into that mentality... it's like the Word of God, man.

But yeah, I don't care for Paul Pope either. Honestly do not see what the big deal is. Also, I'm one of two or three people who does not get SCOTT PILGRIM, which has become shorthand for most delightful wonderful comic of all time to most.

From:

jackolantern.livejournal.com

That's a good point from Mazzucchelli on realism. It reminds me of DC's awful "relevant" period in the late sixties/early seventies, when the Teen Titans and Wonder Woman put on white jumpsuits and Lois Lane became a sista for a day and someone asked Green Lantern, "You help out the purple man and the orange man, but what have you done for the brown man?" (Of course, Hal should have responded, "Saved your fucking planet. Six times. This week. You're welcome.) Comics work better as allegory than as science fiction (same with space operas like Star Trek, something that people perennially don't get).

From:

EXACTLY! Those are all perfect examples! I mean, when you actually think about it, isn't that speech from GL just gloriously, ridiculously absurd? I remember an issue of GL in the early 90's where earth is being attacked by aliens, demanding to see Green Lantern. Hal confronts them and asks what they want. They say:

"We've heard how hard you been working for the black skins, and how you helped out the yellow skins, and you done considerable for the red skins! Only there's skins you never bothered with... the blue, orange, and purple skins! How come? Answer me that, Mr. Green Lantern!"

And Hal just looks at the reader, smiles wanly, and goes, "What're you gonna do?"

Again, I'm absolutely all for EMOTIONAL realism. But that's about as far into realism as superheroes really should go, in my opinion.

From:

Are you serious? You're decrying the great Ollie and Hal road trip issues from the seventies, where they traveled across America and looked at Native rights issues, drug use, etc.? You seriously think that has no place in the medium? Or the issues where Cap and Falcon went on their road trip to discover America?

If the medium stays isolated from social realism, it reads as absurd on TOP of the absurdit of people wearing purple spandex and shooting plasma from their hands.

From:

(Of course, Hal should have responded, "Saved your fucking planet. Six times. This week. You're welcome.)

ZING! He might've said just that, but Ollie would have slapped him upside his handsome head.

From:

jackolantern.livejournal.com

And I completely get that about Kirby. Every now and then, I fantasize about photoshopping all of the word balloons in Kirby's work to allow only three exclamation points per issue, just to see if it makes a difference in how it reads. His style is so baroque and has been filtered through so many other influences to the present day that looking at it from the perspective of someone who didn't grow up with it must be like a cat fancier being confronted by a saber-tooth tiger. I can accept that, although it's the same sort of reaction, really, when I see someone pass up a microbrew imperial stout for Budweiser. If I were a prayin' man, I'd pray that they see the light one fine day.

From:

Um... I never said that.

Look, take it from someone who loves those stories... when you take real world issues and put them in a fantasy environments, sooooo many complications result. Preachiness being just one problem. Those stories, fun and beautifully drawn as they were, are dated, heavy-handed, and painfully one-sided.

From:

I went, I looked, and I gotta admit...

I think it's dreadful.

But then I have always preferred representational art (up to and including the impresssionists). I haven't been to the East Wing of the National Gallery in over ten years. And that's what this art comes across as to me: abstract.

And I get what he's trying to do. It's not that I don't understand it. The darkness and the simple lines and the jagged quality are all adding to the atmosphere of the insane asylum he's drawing about. They're essential to the point of view of an inmate of that asylum. I get that. I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing.

From:

What I say there is that it has to be read A.) in context of the story, and B.) not scanned by a shitty scanner. The story is deeply symbolic and nightmarish, not meant to be literal. Those crappy scans take it out of context.

Or hell, have you ever read Neil Gaiman's SANDMAN? He did all the covers! Or did you see MIRRORMASK?

From:

The story is deeply symbolic and nightmarish, not meant to be literal.

No kidding. Tor actually got an Arkham Asylum trade paperback out of the library a few weeks ago, and I gave it a read. Hence the fact that I knew from whence I spoke when I called it abstract (i.e., symbolic). But I don't really like abstract art, which I said above. I understood what you said, but you didn't seem to listen to me.

And yes I did read Sandman. But it was a loaned trade paperback, so I don't really remember the covers.

I did not see Mirrormask, however. First of all I don't see many movies. (The last one I saw in the theater was the second Pirates movie.) And, since I did not seem to make myself clear in my first post, I am a traditionalist. If I'm shelling out close to $10 (when I lived in NYC, it was more than that), I'm not going to take many risks with my choices. The still shots I saw looked interesting, but I'm not sure I would have wanted to sit through two hours of it, especially if it was going to distract me from the story.

Why are you pushing me on this? This is my taste, this is what I like and what I don't like. You like the art in the comic under original discussion. I didn't try to convince you otherwise, that you shouldn't like it. I just wanted to let you know that sometimes people can understand what an artist is aiming at and not like it cosmetically.

From:

I... "pushing" on you? What did I do?

I just said I thought it "should" be read. I didn't even say to you personally that YOU MUST READ THIS OR YOU'LL NEVER GET IT! But furthermore, it turns out, you actually have read it. And since you have, then I have nothing else to say, you gave it a fair shot and it wasn't for you, I have no problem with that.

I wasn't trying to attack you. And it was just a question about MIRRORMASK. I was just trying to think of other examples of his art. I... I don't understand what I did wrong.

From:

Maybe it's the way you use all caps for titles, it comes across as shouting. And the exclamation point after mentioning the cover artist for Sandman. And the fact that I felt that you hadn't really read/listened to what I'd said. It was like I didn't understand that AA was meant to be symbolic, when I did, hence my use of the word abstract.

And pushing is different from attacking. If you'd been attacking, you'd have gotten a private email.

...you gave it a fair shot and it wasn't for you, I have no problem with that.

I would have liked to have seen this statement first. I guess I thought you would assume that I was familiar with the art in question before speaking to it.

From:

I just... you know me, I always do titles in capital letters. And I naturally assume that no one is familiar with anything comic related, because far more often than not, that's the case. I just wanted people to generally give the work as a whole a fair shot, and I didn't even single you out. Just people in general.

And my shock (upon writing this post) stems from a revelation that I was totally wrong when I just generally assumed that everyone loved McKean's work. I thought it was universal. But today, even in the comic store, I've found out that's absolutely not the case. I was just shocked.

Shit, I've actually lost friendships over LJ and IM due to miscommunication and lack of tone/facial expression.

I'm gonna shut the hell up now.

From:

Dude, you lose me, you'll notice it, all right? :P Seriously, I wouldn't have bothered to respond.

From:

spacechild.livejournal.com

As I said to you on the phone.. I don't so much feel that realism shouldn't be infused into comics, but that it is inherently risky.

Comics have, in my opinion, much improved over the years as a result of the slow and steady infusion of realism. Bendis taking it too far aside, the dialogue has improved (old chum!), and the suspension of disbelief has been able to lessen as science and psychology and culture has grown and become more understood. No more bad stereotypes of asians and people getting superpowers from radiation instead of dying a slow painful death (well, there's less of that, anyway).

However, there have been many fumbles along the way, on different levels. GL/GA is a great example.. those comics are terrific and I remember the joy and pride with which you handed those to me to read, eyes already glinting with anticipation of when we'd dissect them over beers. It's obvious you love those stories.

But at the same time, they were often preachy and heavy handed even while being terrific in so many ways.

Civil War is another good example. The premise was great and speaks very much of our current political climate of paranoia and the question of whether security should outweigh personal liberty and rights. The problem came when Joey Q brought forth the literary abortion that was the actual Civil War series. It would appear that Marvel now maintains offices in back alleys.

Baby steps. Moving an entire industry forward requires the balls to take risks (God bless Frank Miller and Alan Moore) combined with the common sense to not jump the shark or punch time!

From:

kosher-jenny.livejournal.com

A while back on scans_daily, someone made a post showcasing/praising Jim Balent's artwork in Catwomen and bemoaning the "cartoony crap" that would later follow.

Now, I'm not saying that was the thing that made me leave the comm, but it was certainly added to The List.

From:

Head.

Desk.

I try, you know? I really do make an effort to respect other people's opinions and tastes. I'm good at it too, most of the time. But people like that... GAHHH!

From:

kosher-jenny.livejournal.com

Don't forget all those Hellblazer covers! Or the fact that he drew one of the best Hellblazer stories evah, which is now available in TPB.

And yeah, "nightmarish" is certainly right when it comes to Arkham Asylum. It's not the scariest/freakiest comic I've ever read (that honor would belong to Tomie, by Junji "I will rape your mind and you will like it" Ito--which contains the only scary printed moment that's made me literally leap backwards from the screen in shock), but the "...and the doll house looked back at me" bit still creeps me out.

From:

kosher-jenny.livejournal.com

I wonder if someone, somewhere, has said something similar about B:TAS? "eh, it would have been much better if they'd gone with a more realistic look, like the X-men cartoon" I'd rather not find out.

I was still reeling from the fact that Balent has fans that are willing to identify themselves in public, but dissing the Mighty Cooke? That shit is just not on. (damn, now I'm regretting not being able to decently icon that great Power Girl pic he did recently)

From:

besamim.livejournal.com

Uh yeah, I'm the guy who posted those "crappy scans."

Look, the original art and lettering are themselves dark and murky. To compensate for that I'd need a far better scanner than I can afford for the foreseeable future. No one else has complained about any of my many scans in the community.

Way to show appreciation for something I share during my free time.

From:

Shit, I sincerely apologize. I lost sight in my passion to defend McKean, and used your scans as a stepping stone to in that attempt. Please accept my apologies.

From:

besamim.livejournal.com

Apology accepted. It's rare that someone online actually has the gumption to to do, so you have my respect. Peace.

From:

jellied.livejournal.com

I'm sorry-- you lost me at Booblent.

From:

jellied.livejournal.com

I could care either way on Pilgrim. But Pope's amazing!

From: